From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Jul 9 00:20:03 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id AAA07285; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 00:20:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 00:20:03 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199907090420.AAA07285@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #201 TELECOM Digest Fri, 9 Jul 99 00:19:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 201 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Need Help With Phone System Quotes (Dan Simoes) Question on Direct Inward Dial (DID) With VSI*Fax UNIX Fax Server (D Star) Re: GTE Cellular Tries to Hold Dead Man to Contract (Fred Atkinson) Re: FCC Extra Line Charge (Sidney Zafran) Re: Horrible Data Connection (Herb Stein) Re: Does Anyone on the West Coast Use Caller ID? (Steve Uhrig) You Believe *67 Works? (Leonid A. Broukhis) Calling Number ID vs. Unlisted Numbers (Lauren Weinstein) Caller ID & Star-69 (Was: Weird Wrong Number Calls) (Eric Morson) Re: Help! I Paid Good Money For These (Steven) Re: Want to Stop Caller ID? *67 Can be a Quick Fix (Jason A. Lindquist) Re: Request For Local Calling Area Information (David Esan) Re: Cell Phone Companies Go by Own Rules (John Nagle) Re: Asian Telecoms Search (Rowena C. Macaraig) Snooping OK on Pager Numbers? (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: danix@cloud9.net (Dan Simoes) Subject: Need help with phone system quotes Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 16:13:51 GMT Organization: Cloud 9 Internet, White Plains, NY, USA Help out a poor unix sysadmin turned IT manager :) I work for a small software company, with 47 employees, growing to about 80-100 by next year. We are moving to a new office space with 18,000 sq ft in the White Plains, NY area. We have put out RFPs for three things - cabling of the new space, voice infrastructure, and data network design. On the phone side (which is where I need the most help), we are getting proposals for: Inter-Tel Axxess Nortel Option 11C Nortel Norstar Siemens HiCom 300E 30P Lucent Definity Prologix Lucent Merlin Legend 3Com/NBX (voice over IP) It seems that this stuff is all pretty similar when you get down to it, so I'm looking for "been there done that" recommendations. No particular needs on our part other than a system that will scale as we grow. We have a voice T1 coming in with 8 copper lines as backups. The 3com/NBX system is very attractive because it is full-featured, and cutting edge technology. It's also less than HALF of a comparable "traditional" PBX from the other vendors. I'm partial to the Nortel system since that's what we've had at almost every company I've worked for in the past, but the price is sky high. The Siemens and Lucent systems are comparably priced, with the InterTel coming in a bit lower (but I've never heard of them ...) Any opinions/suggestions are welcome and greatly appreciated. Again, this is not my area of expertise and I don't want to make a costly mistake for this company trying to get off the ground! Many thanks, Dan ------------------------------ From: Dan Star Subject: Question on Direct Inward Dial (DID) with VSI*Fax UNIX Fax Server Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 11:44:27 -0500 Organization: ETCO Reply-To: danstar@execpc.com Hello, The company I work for wishes to set up a VSI*Fax UNIX Fax Server that will automatically route faxes to "fax boxes" for individuals. For example, an incoming fax would be inspected by the server and determined to be for John Smith's fax box and then the server would route the fax to John Smith's fax box. Then John Smith could view on his monitor the fax with out any human intervention in the routing. To do this it is necessary to have a DID trunk line(s) so that each person can have his own fax number. The line would be connected to a DID-capable faxmodem which is connected to the server via a serial cable. My question: what is needed to terminate the DID trunk line besides the LEC's Network Interface box? Can we just cable CAT3/5 right to the DID-capable modem from the Network Interface or do we need some piece of intervening equipment? Regards, Dan ------------------------------ From: Fred Atkinson Subject: Re: GTE Cellular Tries to Hold Dead Man to Contract Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 12:46:32 -0400 Pat, This doesn't surprise me at all. There are so many people who look to take advantage of different folk's death. When they see the obituaries, a number of them send bills for goods and services that were never provided or performed. In fact, they may have never done business with the deceased. So, this person's son or daughter steps in to close out the bills. How does he or she know that the bill is a hoax? The only person that might have known and could have flagged it is deceased. I am 'Fred W. Atkinson, III'. When my grandfather, 'Fred W. Atkinson, Sr.' passed away, he had been living in my parents home where the telephone was listed as 'Fred W. Atkinson (without the Jr. on the listing). After we'd returned from the funeral, my dad (Fred, Jr.) was sitting in the living room and I was in the back of the house. My aunt, who was with us for the funeral, came inside and answered the telephone. The operator informed her that 'Fred Atkinson' was at a payphone and was trying to charge a long distance call to this number. The operator wanted to know if she'd accept the charges. Not knowing I was in the back room, she assumed it was me and accepted. Five minutes later I walked into the living room and my aunt shrieked in surprise. That's when she told me this story. As I listened to her, the telephone rang again. This time, *I* answered it. The operator said that 'Fred Atkinson' was at a payphone and was trying to charge a long distance call to this number. She wanted to know if we'd accept. I told the operator that we had buried 'Fred Atkinson, Sr.' this morning, that I had my eyes focused on 'Fred Atkinson, Jr.' and since I was 'Fred Atkinson, III' and there were no more at this address, I suspected that whomever was making that call was committing fraud. She thanked me and hung up. After I flew back home, my mother said she got several more of these types of calls. No doubt this person or these persons saw the obituary, looked up 'Fred Atkinson' in the telephone book, and tried to charge long distance calls to that number. So, watch it when you have a death in the family. There are some very unsavory types that would love to take advantage of it. And, like the slammers and crammers, they come up with some very resourceful ways of doing it. They figure that the family is too grief stricken to catch it or even care. Fred [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The most crummy bunch of losers in the 'sell to a dead person' con-game was the company which operated for more than twenty years starting sometime in the 1930's until they were put out of business in the late 1950's. By subscribing to several hundred medium and small town newspapers which were delivered to them each day, they were able to read the obituary column in each of the papers and pull their scam. Let's say John Smith died on Monday and his obituary was in the paper on Tuesday. They'd get the paper by Wednesday and prepare their product for shipment the same day. Their product? A very large, ornate 'family Bible' with the deceased's name in gold engraving on the front imitation leather cover. This was the style which was very popular for a century or more in the USA, with a large section in the center colorfully illustrated with maps and pictures of biblical persons -- as if anyone had the slightest idea what any of them looked like, but don't let a few little facts get in the way -- and most important, a section for recording a 'family tree' and listing the births and deaths of family members. Simulated gold edges on the paper, etc. Please recall that during about the first century of our government, until the late 1800's, birth and death records were not standardized, nor even required in many states. In order to 'prove' someone's age or the date of their marriage it was quite common to bring out the family Bible and review the records therein. Such a 'bible record' was considered acceptable proof by the US government in those days. So the company would send out this very lovely, very nicely boxed family Bible, engraved with the deceased's name **and mail it to the deceased** knowing the family would see it come in the mail a few days later, while still in a time of grief for the family, and would open the package which arrived addressed to dear old grandpa. Inside an invoice was enclosed with a 'personally written note' which said something like this, "Dear Mr. Smith, thank you for your order. Your Bible is enclosed, and we know you and your family will spend many treasured hours reading together from God's Word. Don't forget to begin now recording the vital details of your family's life on Earth using the family tree forms enclosed in the center. Won't this be a wonderful surprise when you present it to your family? As you requested, we've said nothing to anyone about your purchase, so you can be assured no one in your family knows what you have done. Our invoice for *twenty dollars* [my emphasis, 1940-50's money] is en- closed, won't you please honor it promptly, that we might continue to share the Word of God with others who seek it. Your friends at the Bible Publishing Society." Well! What do you suppose the family did? Of course they *assumed* that the old man had ordered it before he died, and not wanting to disgrace his memory or make his final purchase on credit turn him into a deadbeat by stiffing the company -- dead and stiff alright -- they would send in the money requested to the company. They'd see it engraved with his name and realize that returning it would be 'an inconvenience for the company' and wanting to do the 'right thing' they paid. One woman who was a witness at a hearing convened by a government agency (not the Federal Trade Commission, but some predecessor of that agency, I think) told the investigators that 'when I wrote and told the company I could not afford to pay it all at once, and offered to return the Bible to them, they wrote me back and told me very nicely it would be okay to pay in four month installments of five dollars each, and that they would not charge us any interest as long as our payment arrived on time each month. I sent them a money order on the first of each month.' The scam finally unraveled after years of successful operation when the 'Bible Publishing Society' (actually just a man and his wife who bought the Bibles for a couple dollars each and stamped them up with an engraving tool) made the mistake of sending out an 'order' to the family of some drunken, hell-raising old fool, himself a con- artist -- albiet now deceased -- who they knew perfectly well would never have made such a 'purchase', and went to the postal inspectors. The government investigators found that about thirty thousand families had been decieved in this way over approximatly twenty years, so careful were the man and his wife in selecting the 'right sounding names' (we don't want to send this to Jews) and 'right looking' obituaries (was he a church member, active in his community, etc). They also concentrated on rural, small town communities in the south and midwestern states, avoiding any place where they suspected the citizens would likely be more educated. They were caught when a delibe- ratly bogus obituary of a non-existent person of upstanding character and Christian conviction was placed in a newspaper and the merchandise arrived a few days later. Senator Everett Dirkeson of Illinois upon announcing something about the results of the investigation said 'The more I followed the testimony given by people who were victimized by the company, the more my stomach was churning. I think I shall go be sick now ...' He added a very witty postscript to it all saying, "I suppose this will risk me being in violation of the constitutionally mandated requirement for separation of church and state, and that the government may not support any establishment of one religion, ahead of another, however I will say it anyway. There is a special place in Hell already reserved for those two crooks." PAT] ------------------------------ From: Sidney Zafran Subject: Re: FCC Extra Line Charge Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 10:06:37 -0700 Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Reply-To: szafran@alum.mit.edu PacBell did the same to me in May. They, however, charged me the wrong retroactive rate from 4/23/99 forward. I was verbally informed that rate credit is forthcoming. "John S. Maddaus" wrote: > 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: herb@herbstein.com (Herb Stein) Subject: Re: Horrible Data Connection Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 20:00:39 GMT Organization: newsread.com ISP News Reading Service (http://www.newsread.com) In article , Dave O'Shea wrote: > Heather Drury 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! I have somewhat better luck in the Manchester area. But then I cheated. I retired from SWBT 2 years ago. But Dave is probably right about moisture. Big problem in the undergound cables. I eventually went to ISDN. > I finally broke down and got ISDN service - $172.00 per month. Ouch. My current ISDN bill is $130 plus or minus. I think that's abount $90 for the BRI and $11 for the ability to dynamically bond the 2 B channels together into a 128K connection and still be able to use the lines for voice. Who knows what the other $30 is. Since I also use one of the B channels as a business line, I bought an Ascend Pipeline P75 ISDN router to terminate the line ($600 - ouch!). I've not looked at the ADSL pricing yet, but I've heard it's about the same as ISDN. More bandwidth though. I have asked about a bandwidth guarantee and not heard back yet. Since I provide hosting services Herb Stein The Herb Stein Group www.herbstein.com herb@herbstein.com 314 215-3584 ------------------------------ From: Steve Uhrig Subject: Re: Does Anyone on the West Coast Use Caller ID? Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 12:56:40 -0400 Organization: bright.net Ohio Steven Lichter wrote: > 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. Probably for good reason. I keep all of our switch room phones blocked also. If you call a customer with the CID on, they think they now have a personal phone number to report their problems to. I get enough phone calls each day without having customers calling in wanting to report their problems to me instead of the 800 reporting number. ------------------------------ From: leob@best.com (Leonid A. Broukhis) Subject: You Believe *67 Works? Date: 08 Jul 1999 17:09:50 GMT A popular belief says that if one dials *67 and then calls a regular phone number, the caller will be identified as "private", "anonymous", etc. Not so with the phone numbers provided by www.webley.com (312-416-xxxx). They will report the caller ID info to the subscriber even if the caller has dialed *67. Is it a violation of any regulations, or does it mean that, generally speaking, there is no way to ensure privacy when calling a regular phone number? Leo [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If what you are saying is true, and not just some fluke occurance because of a technical problem, I think it is a terrible invasion of privacy. Have you reported it? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jul 99 10:17 PDT From: lauren@vortex.com (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: Calling Number ID vs. Unlisted Numbers Greetings. Contrary to what was stated in a recent piece excerpted from the L.A. Times on this topic seen in a recent TELECOM digest, there is in general no direct, default relationship between unlisted numbers and Calling Number ID blocking status. Even here in California, where per-line CNID blocking is available, you don't just get it automatically when you have an unlisted number -- you have to ask for it. It would certainly have seemed logical for unlisted numbers to have CNID blocking by default, and attempts were made to mandate this setting, but they were not adopted. So just because you have an unlisted number, don't assume you have Calling Number ID blocking! --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: Eric@AreaCode-Info.com (Eric Morson) Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 17:58:50 -0400 Subject: Caller ID & Star-69 (Was: Weird Wrong Number Calls) > 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. That is incorrect. Star-69 will work if the call came from a number serviced by your local provider. A cellular number, T1, trunk line, etc, will not work even if the number is local. Even though caller ID may show a number from WAY out of state, it may or may not work with Star-69. Eric B. Morson Co-Webmaster AreaCode-Info.com EMail: Eric@AreaCode-Info.com ------------------------------ From: steven@primacomputer.com (Steven) Subject: Re: Help! I Paid Good Money For These Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 08:02:08 +0800 Organization: Prima Computer Sorry, Docomo is digital 800, which is a Japanese system compleetly incomparable with the GSM 900 (possibly a few 1800 cells) in the PI. Steven In article , wengmacaraig@ hotmail.com says: > 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. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 13:02:45 -0500 From: Jason A. Lindquist Reply-To: Jason Lindquist Subject: Re: Want to Stop Caller ID? *67 Can be a Quick Fix In Usenet comp.dcom.telecom, newsgroup moderator said: > 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] I was curious about this myself, and gave it a try (though without *67.) If I set my home (PacHell) phone to forward to one of my cell phones (Airtouch and Sprint PCS,) the inbound caller's number does show up on the cellphone's CNID display. Jason Lindquist <*> "Mostly though, I think it gave us hope, linky@see.figure1.net That there can always be a new beginning. KB9LCL Even for people like us." -- Gen. Susan Ivanova, B5, "Sleeping In Light" ------------------------------ From: davidesan@my-deja.com (David Esan) Subject: Re: Request For Local Calling Area Information Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 20:11:34 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. I don't really want to be a doom sayer, but this project, particularly as proposed, is doomed to failure. There are about 22,000 distinct localities in the NANP (that is places with distinct V&H coordinates). Many locations have hundreds of exchanges that are considered local. New York and Chicago have thousands. Consider New York City -- calls that I would define as local are all the exchanges in LATA 132. This includes area codes 212, 516, 718, 917, part of 914, and the new area codes 646 and 347. That's a lot of information! And consider that you would have to have entries for each locality in the New York area. Try the 300 different localities in Chicago. Veramark does call accounting. Maintaining a database of local calling areas is part of what we do. It is also one of the most problematic areas that we have. The NANP is averaging 2000 new exchanges and three new area codes a month. How are you going to maintain your database? As noted elsewhere this does not include the various expand and contracted local plans. Florida sites often have the choice of three plans. Then you have those places where you can buy various expanded calling plans for a few dollars more. I won't even get into the various plans available in Louisiana, plans that seem to change by town, parish, day, and who is bribing whom that week (sorry Mark!). BTW, when we can't find the information in tariffs, and we can't get it from the local telephone company (its a secret you know), we have to pay a service to provide us with the information. If you can provide it for free, that would be wonderful. :-). David Esan Veramark Technologies desan@veramark.com ------------------------------ From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) Subject: Re: Cell Phone Companies Go by Own Rules Date: 8 Jul 1999 17:36:52 GMT Organization: Netcom Mike Pollock writes: > 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. By international agreement, toll billing begins at the point the connection goes bidirectional. But apparently this doesn't apply to cellular. John Nagle ------------------------------ From: Rowena C. Macaraig Subject: Re: Asian Telecoms Search Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 01:51:26 -0700 I have a listing of all GSM operators all over the world, including web site addresses of some. If you think they 'd be useful , I'd be glad to email them to you. Weng [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: People who want this can write direct to Weng for a copy. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 12:32:47 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Snooping OK on Pager Numbers? by Declan McCullagh 3:00 a.m. 7.Jul.99.PDT WASHINGTON -- Police can easily "eavesdrop" on pagers if a bill approved by the US Senate becomes law. The bill says law enforcement officials can monitor all messages sent to targeted pagers without having to convince a judge that the information can be found only in that way. "Congress is trying to do an end run around the Constitution and gut the privacy of millions of pager owners," said David Banisar, author of The Electronic Privacy Papers. http://www.wired.com/news/politics/story/20597.html ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #201 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Jul 9 03:49:10 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id DAA13449; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 03:49:10 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 03:49:10 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199907090749.DAA13449@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #202 TELECOM Digest Fri, 9 Jul 99 03:49:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 202 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Jurassic Telecommunications, Part I (Donald E. Kimberlin) Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce (Michael David Jones) Multiple Location Cell, Landline & Long Distance Service (D. Snow) Re: Horrible Data Connection (Ray Sanders) Re: Rotary Dial Telephone (Ray Sanders) Re: VoiceNet Calling Card Experiences Wanted (Julian Thomas) Asian Telecom Search (kho@ph.ibm.com) Re: Selective Call Screening (Heywood Jaiblomi) 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, 08 Jul 1999 19:22:13 -0400 From: Donald E. Kimberlin Subject: Jurassic Telecommunications, Part I Jurassic Telecommunications, Part I This is the first in a series about the beginnings of what we today so casually take as Telecommunications. Reaching back into those late Victorian and Edwardian era times before the world had electronics, the first developers were forced to accomplish their feats with unwieldy, often heavily mechanical methods one could as easily credit to Jules Verne. While a large part of these methods have become obsolete, it is amazing to consider what those first contributors to telecommunications did accomplish. At the same time, seeing their methods reveals some delightfully simple ways of understanding how the patchwork of today's technology operates and how to manage it. Valdemar Poulsen - The Doctor Frankenstein of Telecommunications? Poulsen is perhaps best known for his other major contribution to the art of telecommunications, a literal fire-breathing monster that functioned as a radio transmitter. That story, however, stands quite apart from one that more closely parallels Mary Shelly's tragic hero. If the immortality we hope for really exists, then it follows there is likely a collegium of archangels or a pantheon of gods of man's higher accomplishments. Valdemar Poulsen rightly deserves a place in such a group for his contributions to man's shrinking of time and space; to man's increase of social intercourse, and thus, one would hope, the furtherance of peace and harmony in the world today. However, one of Poulsen's major contributions has had its dark sides as well as its benefits. The first notion of recording sound by magnetic means seems to have been stimulated rather early in Thomas Edison's spew of development around 1880. Then-prominent American mechanical engineer Oberlin Smith, after a visit to Edison's Menlo Park, NJ laboratory, filed an 1878 patent caveat that was never followed up. It described the notion of recording electrical signals produced by a telephone onto a steel wire. While investigating ways in which speech might be recorded, Edison;s assistant Sumner Tainter noted on March 20, 1881; "A fountain-pen is attached to a diaphragm so as to be vibrated in a plane parallel to the axis of a cylinder. The ink used in this pen to contain iron in a finely divided state, and the pen caused to trace a spiral line round the cylinder as it is turned. The cylinder to be covered with a sheet of paper upon which the record is made." (1) It's interesting that had the Edison team followed this route and succeeded, the world may have had postally mailable recordings on paper sheets a hundred years ago. Rather, however, developments focused on purely mechanical means to record and play back sound. Not yet having any of the electronics necessary to amplify the weak magnetic signals or to prepare the magnetic medium by biasing it, mechanical recording certainly would have been seen as the only practical method of the era. From the Edison notebooks, it seems that idea lay fallow for almost two decades. Oberlin Smith decided in 1888 that he would not pursue his idea. He "donated" it to the public by publishing his ideas about magnetic recording in the journal Electrical World. (2) This publication may have caught the interest of Poulsen, who after all, had attended the university at which earlier Danish physicist Hans Oersted made the connection between electricity and magnetism in 1820. By 1893, then 24- year-old Poulsen was working for the Copenhagen Telephone Company. Poulsen attacked a point about magnetic recording that Edison had not addressed -- the matter of how to play back a magnetically recorded message. He found that, indeed, Faraday's principle of magnetic induction would operate to make a magnetic recording playable. Poulsen's first demonstration device was simply a steel chisel edge along which he moved a small pickup coil. He sidestepped a suggestion by Smith of using cotton thread impregnated with iron powder, advancing directly to a wire suspended across a room. He mounted the record/pickup coil on a moving trolley. To achieve a compact and portable device for his patent application, Poulsen had by 1898 formed the wire into a drum-like vertical coil. This was rotated with a crank to cause the wire to pass under a fixed record/pickup coil assembly, as shown here. (3) Poulsen's earliest patent papers showed he was aware that tape was a practical option to wire. It was not until later designers attempted to store steel wire on reels that wire twisting became an irritating source of high audio frequency loss. That change was not to ensue until around 1928, when Germans working for AEG and BASF addressed the Edisonian notion of applying iron power to a paper (by now paper tape) backing. This created the Magnetophon tape recorders used in German broadcasting until their discovery by American Jack Mullin at the end of WW2. But, back to Poulsen and his first development. At the outset, his Telegraphone was intended to store either analog speech or digital Morse telegraph signals. Poulsen's original Danish patent application indicated his Telegraphone was intended for use to answer unattended telephone lines and record messages for later playback. Thus, we see that Valdemar Poulsen's first plan for his development was to provide Copenhagen Telephone Company with central office based voice mail, which of course, has a parallel in the telephone answering machine and other forms of voice mail we now encounter daily. Much is made by persons in the recording industry of Poulsen inventing magnetic recording, but little or nothing is said of the often frustrating other outcome of his work! It would appear, however, that the world little appreciated Poulsen's breakthrough at the outset. He took it to the Paris Exposition of 1900, there paralleling a promotional device used by Alexander Graham Bell a quarter-century earlier. Just as Bell managed to get the Emperor of Brazil to exclaim interestedly that a telephone worked (in Philadelphia in 1878), Poulsen snagged Emperor Franz Joseph of Austria into a demonstration of recorded voice on the Telegraphone. Based on that royal attention, the Telegraphone was described in glowing terms by the technical and scientific press as superior to the phonograph and a great advance in physics as well. It won Poulsen a gold medal, but not business success. Poulsen obtained patents on his Telegraphone in a number of nations, and even founded an American Telegraphone Company in 1903, with a manufacturing plant in Wheeling, West Virginia. Efforts to market the Telegraphone as a business office dictation machine met with little success, but a number of Telegraphones were marketed to railroads through Western Union Telegraph as recording devices for Morse telegraph messages. Correspondence in the Lemuelson Collection of Western Union at the Smithsonian Institution attests to use of Telegraphones on the P. and R. railroad, the Northern Pacific railroad, the L. and N. and the D. and H. railroads. One can surmise the Telegraphone drew AT&T's attention, as a version was offered that could answer an unattended telephone - even in 1903! American Telegraphone moved to Springfield, Massachusetts in 1910, then went into bankruptcy receivership in 1918, never to emerge; only to finally close in 1944 following Poulsen's 1942 death. Other interests, however, benefited and prevailed from Poulsen's original concepts, even during his firm's bankruptcy. Not the least was AT&T, which for reasons not completely published, began delving into magnetic recording in 1930. Bell Telephone Laboratories initiated a major research effort in magnetic tape recording under the direction of Clarence N. Hickman. By 1931, prototypes designs were made for a steel tape telephone answering machine, a central-office message announcer, an endless loop voice-training machine, and a portable, reel-to-reel recorder for general purpose sound recording. None were said to enter production except for the voice trainer, which failed in the marketplace. AT&T's official policy on telephone recording devices was that they would not be allowed on public telephone lines. (4) The steel tape ramification of magnetic recording seems to have been of particular interest to AT&T. Although their interest in magnetic recording was declared not an AT&T business objective, I personally saw steel tape playback units used in AT&T's overseas radio station for Miami at Fort Lauderdale, Florida. In that use, vertical steel tapes ran in a glass-enclosed cabinet about 6 feet high over flat brass rollers to endlessly play back the message heard by so many on HF radio over the years, This is a test transmission from a station of The American Telephone and Telegraph Company. This station is located near Miami, Florida. Similar messages emanated from plants near New York and San Francisco for decades. ostensibly from those Telegraphone-like steel tapes. Obviously, by the 1960's, the later developments by Armour (since Marvin Camras' work in 1939), Brush and Ampex interests were mushrooming so as to overshadow any remembrance of the start Poulsen gave to the recording art. Along the way, however, there was a heinous incident in which Poulsen's conception figured. At the Telefunken radio long wave radio stations built around 1910 at Tuckerton, New Jersey and Sayville, New York, Telegraphones were found useful for first recording Morse radio messages at normal speed, then transmitting them at high speed on the radio link so as to gain throughput on their expensive, gargantuan international radio links to Germany. It just so happened that by 1915 Telegraphone-originated high speed transmissions raised the curiosity of radio experimenter Charles Adgar in New Jersey when WW1 was still a European war. Adgar, when one day playing back recordings of the US - German link, had the spring wind down on his Edison machine. Messages from Sayville became readable. One of them was a copy of the infamous 'Zimmerman letter', in which the German Foreign Minister encouraged Mexico to attack the United States, to divert attention from the European war. The final straw was the message on May 7, 1915 telling German submarine U-39 to 'get Lucy', ordering the sinking of the passenger ship Lusitania. On intercepting that message, the US Navy immediately seized the Sayville and Tuckerton plants of Telefunken, ultimately expropriating them after the war. Finally, when GE and Westinghouse joint ventured the Radio Corporation of America, the new RCA was given them as part of reparations for the war. Poulsen, who obviously knew of his machine's involvement in that action, may indeed have felt like our tragic hero, Doctor Frankenstein. Want to know more? Here are some references and websites with related information: (1) http://www.dmg.co.uk/ibex/museum/25years_a.htm (2) 'Some possible forms of phonograph' by Oberlin Smith, The Electrical World, September 8th 1888. (3) Danish Patent 1,260, Valdemar Poulsen, 1898. http://www.cinemedia.net/SFCV-RMIT- Annex/rnaughton/POULSEN_BIO.html (4) http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~dmorton/mrchrono.html http://www.asb.com/usr/w2g3zfj/lusit.htm http://www.asb.com/usr/w2g3zfj/fliwh1/hiscom.htm [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If you were reading this Digest several years ago, you will recall that Donald Kimberlin was a very frequent contributor; then he just sort of dropped out of sight. I hope that the above means we are going to be hearing from him again on a regular basis. Of course his article above will receive permanent placement in the Telecom Archives at http://telecom-digest.org/archives/history very shortly. Welcome back, Don! PAT] ------------------------------ From: jonesm2@rpi.edu (Michael David Jones) Subject: Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce Date: 8 Jul 1999 16:33:12 -0400 Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY, USA steve@sellcom.com (Steve Winter) writes: > 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)? > [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. OTOH, how often do you hand your credit card to a waiter in a restaurant who disappears with it for 3-5 minutes? You have no idea how many impressions he may have taken with it, and he's certainly had enough time to write down the name, number, and expiration date which he could use over the phone or internet. *You* may not use your card over the Internet, but if you're like most people you've probably handed it to at least two dozen people in the last six months who *could*. Mike Jones | jonesm2@rpi.edu Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons. - Popular Mechanics, forecasting the relentless march of science, 1949 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are correct that there are many times a person will take your credit card out of sight for some short period of time. A waiter in a restaurant is a perfect example. But then you go on and fill in the blanks for me. Where is the ideal place for him to use this hijacked number? On the internet of course where after all, the physical plastic cannot be presented, and a signature in his handwriting is not a desirable thing either. Even then, he might have a problem however unless he knows your address. Many inter- net businesses do make use of AVS -- address verification service -- as part of the approval process. They ask you on line what your address is, and it best match what the sales authorization people have on file when they try to obtain an approval. One 'adult' site which was getting hit horribly with fraud -- yeah, yeah, I know, they should talk, with their fraudulent peep-show 'live hidden cams, watch those nude teens who do not know they are being observed' -- also tosses another fly in the ointment, or two flies really. Many/most VISA cards also have a 'security number' printed on them; right above the first four embossed digits one will see four digits as part of the card design itself. Usually these four digits are the same as the first four embossed digits. So this site says to its prospective users, 'what are the four little digits printed on the card right above the first four embossed digits?' Oops! Oh, I guess you did not think to write those down, tiny little print that they are in when you purloined the rest of the number in the back room at the restaurant or whatever. Their other gimmick is this: They have a master list of which bank belongs to which first four numbers. All VISA cards begin with a 4 and all MC cards start with 5. Discover Cards by the way always start with '6011'. So let's say the series '4432' is issued by Podunk Bank in the town of Podunk. The customer gives an address in Podunk, okay so far so good. But then the site says, "well, we are just curious about something ... your card was issued in Podunk, and you live in Podunk, but we 'happened to notice' that you are calling through an ISP over in Timbuktu, 2000 miles away. Do you usually do business with a 'local ISP' a couple thousand miles away? ... ah, you must be on vacation, or a business trip, is that it?" And the fraud user about that point decides these people know too much, and splits. Now there are flaws here obviously. A card from a national issuer like let's say CitiBank or BankOne is likely to show up anywhere. If the user is connected through a national ISP, he will likely show up anywhere also, so you cannot always assume the worst. But for a large number of customers, you are going to find them in the same town as where the issuing bank is located (or nearby) and you are going to find them showing up with an IP address that relates to the same general area. One web site begins its order-taking process by explaining 'we will only make delivery to the address which is listed for the card; you must tell us that address before we begin to validate your card, and the associated telephone number. We will soon attempt to verify the telephone number and call it to speak with the cardholder. We note that you are connecting to us from IP address xxxxxxx which is the (name of) ISP in (city name). This will be part of our records in the event there is some misunderstanding or a need to clarify the order you are placing.' Does it surprise you they get very few fraud orders? This works with sites that have merchandise to be delivered, and they *always* get a signed receipt on delivery. A problem comes up with web sites which have no merchandise to deliver in person to your door, and are charging only for 'information' services, i.e. the adult sex site operators. Their fraud rate is much higher, and a good many people personally could care less about the well-being of people who run those sites anyway; the more fraud there is, the sooner they will leave. I guess that is the rationale. But if your business on the net is legitmate, try adding these few extras to your validation process -- 'What is the security code on your card?' I believe the answer is always that they will be the same as the first four embossed digits although some VISA operators may choose to not put them there or use them. A person with only a fraud number and name might well not know about 'those extra four tiny digits printed above the account number.' ALWAYS get the address in the user's own words, and spend the couple cents extra in the sales authorization process to use Address Verification Service. Make sure the user knows this is the ONLY address which can be used for delivery. Have a database showing the clearing house number for each VISA and MC franchisee bank, i.e. '4421' is the Podunk Bank. Ask your customer 'what bank issued your VISA card?' Likewise, if 4421 is the Podunk Bank, why is the customer in another state somewhere? Visiting his relatives in another state, used their computer to login, was surfing the net and just decided to buy your product? Well, yeah, possibly, but not likely. Begin building a database of attempted and successful frauds. Is there always one particular ISP that seems to be a problem with his customers? (You should definitly do a reverse DNS lookup while you are in the sales approval process). If so, then lock that ISP out; block his whole class C ... or maybe do not lock him out, just wave red flags like crazy when you see one of his users coming. From your database of fraud attempts (or successful) try and begin developing trends; see if you can't get to the point you can almost successfully predict a fraud before it happens. Get an email address from your customer; try and finger him right then and there, can you do so? Do the names match? Consider the time of day/day of the week when someone comes to your site to make a purchase. You should log it, along with his IP and his service provider anyway, but give some thought to it ... is someone going to log in to your site at 5 AM on Sunday morning to make a purchase using a credit card issued to a business? If he has a card in a business name at any time of day, does your site sell things that a business would be likely to purchase via computer and credit card? Ditto in reverse. Pretend you were the person buying the merchandise, is that how you would go about it? You have to be reasonable about these things, and no one single red flag should stop the sale, but all things taken in context by a smart business person should help reduce fraud. =========================== A funny story: Twas the day before Christmas, and credit card sales authorizers will tell you Christmas week is the worse week of the year for fraud; they come out of the woodwork the week of Christmas, holiday cheer and all that. Bum checks, stolen credit cards, you name it. Friend of mine in Chicago worked for Marshall Field Department Store at the time, about ten years ago. He was a sales authorizer in the credit department, working the night shift. The day before Christmas. A limouisine pulls up and out steps this man who looks like some kind of European royalty, elegantly dressed, expensive ring on his finger, etc. With him, a young lady about half or maybe one-third his age. Of course all the sales people start frothing at the mouth and finding out where to get in line so they can suck up and all that. Well, this fellow decided that for his lady friend he would take a fur coat, value $3000. He also wanted a ring for her with a price tag of about $1000. Oh, a few other odds and ends of course, the total bill a little over $5000. "Just open a new account for me and put it on my bill says the gentleman ..." and of course the phone was soon ringing up on the tenth floor in the back offices where the credit people work, with the manager of the fur department on one line and the manager of the jewelry department on the other line each trying to get the new account set up for this fellow. The sales authorizer, the only person in the department because the customer service people and clerks go home at 5 pm although the store itself is open until 10 pm goes over to the credit bureau machine, types in what he wants, 'pulls a bureau' on the identification given, has done it so many hundreds of times that he can spend ten seconds looking it over and make a decision; he sees that the credit all just appears to be impecable ... absolutely perfect ... but as he said to me later, 'something just grated on me, something just seemed wrong with it. Here it is fifteen minutes before closing, this guy rushing all the sales clerks to get his purchases ... why now? Why a woman in her early twenties it would appear and him in his late fifties? He said he picked up the phone where the fur manager was waiting on the line impatiently, and just told him flat out, "I am not going to give him shit ...". Oh, well you should have heard the fur flying then. With the customer being one of these 'Do you know who I am, my good man, I will get you fired tommorrow' types ... The fur manager and the jewelry manager actually called the vice-president in charge of credit sales at his *home* at ten pm demanding to get an approval for the customer. The VP calls the sales authorizer and wants to know the problem. The authorizer tells him this customer is a total fraud, but I am not going to say it to his face. The VP says he will approve it the next day so the authorizer leaves the paperwork on the VPs desk and leaves for the night. Fast forward three months ... the authorizer, who was carrying a vendetta anyway at getting overruled on it by the VP of credit has kept a note with the guy's account number on it. He sees that the account aged out, and gone to in-store collection but the collection supervisor had already placed the account with an attorney. He goes in the VP's office where the collection manager happens to be sitting anyway and laughs hysterically in both of their faces and says 'I told you that guy was 100 hundred percent pure fraud', and of course there was nothing they could do but sit there and be abused by their employee, with more than $5000 in merchandise gone. It turns out the guy had completely stolen identification from some person with good credit, had the guy's wallet with all the ID in it, had gotten the $400 suit and the expensive ring he was wearing on his own pinky finger using the guy's credit cards somewhere else, and had stiffed the driver of the limouisine that was taking them around town by paying him with a stolen check drawn on an otherwise worthless account anyway. Presumably the young lady with him got paid in cash, but who knows ... he had paid for their dinner and drinks using -- you guessed it -- a fraud card. The day before Christmas, last minute shoppers, rush, rush, rush ... knowing the sales clerks want to get out and go home; make that one last nice big sale, etc. =========================== He told me later that two days earlier he had called the security officer on one of the floors and had him pull a credit card from someone using it for payment and bring the card up to the office. He described the customer as a young black kid, about 19-20 years old. I asked him was it on account of bad credit? No, he said, it just didn't seem to me his name would be Sadie Rosenblum; if you were an African American mother, it that what you would name your kid? No, I guess it isn't. He said the kid even tried to claim that Sadie was his grandma ... and when it was suggested then let's call grandma and have her come on down the store now, the kid ran. Most people doing credit card fraud are not that bright. You internet merchants play with their head a little and shake them down; you'll eliminate huge gobs of your fraud. PAT] ------------------------------ From: dsnow Subject: Multiple Location Cell, Landline & Long Distance Service Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 15:15:51 -0600 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Hello all, Telephone costs are eating me alive. I have homes in Las Vegas, Nevada and Salt Lake City, Utah. Telco's are Sprint and US West, respectively. I have cellular service in Utah (Airtouch) and recently dropped a 2nd NAM account in Vegas. Thank God my ISP (Mindspring) can be accessed from either location. While I doubt there is much I can do about the land lines, is there any combination or bundle of cellular and long distance services that might save me a few bucks? I have AT&T long distance, but for a decent rate they wanted thier $5 service charge on the lines at both locations. Since I can only be in one place at a time the extra charge usually ate up any savings. (The AT&T rewards program was a joke too, they told me they couldn't combine my useage at both locations because they were from different telephone companies.) What I'd really like is a local number in both cities that can find me wherever I am and reasonable long distance rates on both POTS lines and wireless. I'd need modem (internet) access at both locations. Glad to see this newsgroup is alive and well. I used it regularly years ago when I was running a BBS and fighting with the telco ... Thanks, D Snow [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yeah, I am still alive and well for now at least. Glad I could be of help back then; maybe we can help you this time also. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Ray Sanders Subject: Re: Horrible Data Connection Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 00:13:16 -0400 Organization: Gopher Tortise DMZ Reply-To: rsanders@gate.net Dave O'Shea wrote: > 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! Yep, sounds familiar. I'm about 4000' from the SLC box. But that in itself is not the problem, one of the techs explained to me that my lines (and everyone else on this rural road) are just taps on the cable as it goes by. The cable is about 10K feet in length. So I'm parallel connected to 10K of cable, even though I'm only 4K feet from the SLC. > I finally broke down and got ISDN service - $172.00 per month. Ouch. Your lucky. The SLC here (north central Florida) is connected to the CO via a multi-pair copper cable (several T1s). No fiber, therefore (as BellSloth sees it) no ISDN. I *did* have an FR-56 thru that box for two years, but declined to pick up the $175/month fee (to get it to the cloud and on to the ISP) when I changed employers. > Chip in with neighbors for a fractional T1? If only I could get these people to envision broadband. A cable modem would blow them away. I'm even looking into radio modems (64K sync full/duplex) to bypass BS for the six miles into town. There's gotta be a better way! Ray Sanders rsanders at gate dot net ------------------------------ From: Ray Sanders Subject: Re: Rotary Dial Telephone Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 00:22:20 -0400 Organization: Gopher Tortise DMZ Reply-To: rsanders@gate.net LARB0 wrote: > 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. True, COs are generally prepared to run for a week or more with no mains power. But those of us in rural America have another problem. Our service is provided from the CO to the residence via a SLC box. The SLC box has batteries which are good for 24-48 hours. After that, the SLC goes dead. And along with it, all the phones serviced by the SLC. The local techs tell me they have portable generators at the CO to be distributed to the SLCs if such a situation happens. Might get interesting, a couple dozen generators sitting at lonely rural intersections hummin away in the midst of a small population with no electricity. Ray Sanders rsanders at gate dot net ------------------------------ From: jt5555@epix.net (Julian Thomas) Subject: Re: VoiceNet Calling Card Experiences Wanted Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 03:14:52 GMT In , on 07/07/99 at 10:52 PM, jt5555@epix.net (Julian Thomas) said: > 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. Jason got back to me on this - his voicenet calling card has this URL: http://WWW.voicenetcard.COM/ voicenet.com seems to be primarily an ISp with some internet telephone stuff. 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: kho@ph.ibm.com Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 07:15:52 +0800 Subject: Re: Asian Telecom Search huck siang LIM wrote: > 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 read your query and decided to reply ... "PHILIPPINE Scenario" 1. Regulatory Body: National Telecommunications Commission - regulates the dialling prefices, calling rates, radio frequency licenses, watchdog of the Philippine Gov't on all telecom related affairs and etc... Executive Order #59 - Issued on February 1993. EO59 is a policy guideline for the compulsory interconnection of all authorized public telecommunications carrier. 2. Telecom Operating Companies (Huck Siang, I'll just write down the major telecom players in the Philippines, although there are still quite a number of small telcos located in some remote places) A). International Gateway Operators(IGF) with Wireline services Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc.(ETPI) Philippine Global Communications, Inc (Philcom) Capitol Wireless, Inc. (Capwire) International Communications Corporation (ICC) or Bayantel Digital Telecommunications Philippines, Inc (Digitel) Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. (PLDT) B). Cellular Mobile Telephony System(CMTS) ONLY Pilipino Telephone Corp (Piltel) - NAMPS & CDMA Extelcom - NAMPS C). IGF & CMTS with Wireline Services Isla Communications Co., Inc.(ISLACOM) - GSM Globe Telecom (Globetel) - GSM Smart Communications, Inc.(SMART) - ETACS & GSM Most of these operators have their wireline commitments to the Philippine Government. Such that if you are a CMTS operator you are required by the government to install about 400,000 landlines and all IGF operators have a commitment to install about 300,000 telephone service. If both CMTS and IGF then a total of 700,000 is required. Hope this helps. Gary Y. Kho Business Analyst/IT Specialist ICMS Enablement IBM Global Services 2/F IBM Philippines, Incorporated IBM Building, 8758 Paseo de Roxas 1226 Makati City, Philippines Work : (63-2) 8781929 Mobile : (63-912) 8004752 Pager : (63-2) 141-962552 Internet: kho@ph.ibm.com ------------------------------ From: hjaiblomi@gloucester.com (Heywood Jaiblomi) Subject: Re: Selective Call Screening Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 02:20:39 GMT Organization: Department of Silly Walks In article , Peter_Simpson@ne.3com. com wrote: > 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") This product already exists, and is a card which fits in your PC. Art Hunter (hunter@drex.ca) made them in the early 90's and there may still be some left. The only thing on your list that it does not do is accept an "access code" but it does have time choices, blocking of numbers, it knows the difference between out of area and blocked, it allows you to block by name, it allows you to search by number, and all kinds of other neat stuff. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #202 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Jul 9 13:47:08 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id NAA05429; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 13:47:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 13:47:08 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199907091747.NAA05429@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #203 TELECOM Digest Fri, 9 Jul 99 13:47:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 203 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Please Contact FCC re: SBC/Ameritech Merger (Monty Solomon) Help Defeat UCITA (Monty Solomon) Book Review: "Connecting to the Internet", Andrew F. Ward (Rob Slade) How Secure Are Leased Lines Today? (John Eichler) How Does AOL, etc Offer Dial Up in So Many Cities? (ONG SoftWare) Area Code 321 on Jeopardy! (Carl Moore) Bills Would Fence Off the Facts (Monty Solomon) Re: Snooping OK on Pager Numbers? (Adam H. Kerman) Re: Caller ID & Star-69 (Was: Weird Wrong Number Calls) (Danny Burstein) Re: You Believe *67 Works? (Leonid A. Broukhis) Re: FCC Extra Line Charge (Dan Lanciani) 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, 9 Jul 1999 01:02:09 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Please Contact FCC re: SBC/Ameritech merger Message forwarded: Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 21:07:11 -0600 (MDT) From: Audrie Krause Subject: ACTION ALERT: Contact FCC re: SBC/Ameritech merger Sender: phones-owner@consumerchoice.org * * * * * * * * * ACTION ALERT * * * * * * * * * FCC Invites Comments on the Proposed Conditions to the SBC/Ameritech Merger PLEASE CIRCULATE WIDELY TO APPROPRIATE LISTS AND NEWS GROUPS Comments must be filed by July 13, 1999; reply comments by July 20, 1999 (Disregard this notice after July 20, 1999) Three years after Congress deregulated the telecommunications industry, local phone service is still a monopoly. And the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is on the verge of making it an even bigger monopoly. The FCC is asking for comments on proposed conditions for the SBC/Ameritech merger. The conditions were proposed by SBC and Ameritech in response to concerns raised earlier this year by FCC Chairman William Kennard. See: . The FCC is recommending that the merger be approved subject to these conditions. This is very likely the LAST CHANCE consumers will have to express concerns about the merger before the FCC issues a final decision. The proposed conditions do not provide the concrete assurances that consumers need regarding local phone competition. News reports have characterized the proposed conditions for competitive local service as "fuzzy," since the details are vague regarding SBC's commitment to expand outside its existing service territory. SBC's track record with consumers is the worst in the nation. Without specific, concrete proposals and timelines, the vague proposed conditions will remain just that. Local phone competition will continue to be supressed and consumers will be stuck with an even larger and more powerful monopoly. Address email comments to: ecfs@fcc.gov . The Sample Comment included below contains the minimum required information in the required format. The Docket Number is correct and must be included when you submit your comments. Substitute your own name and address, and write your own comment below the field (or copy and paste the sample comment). A summary of the proposed conditions is available on the FCC's web site at . * * * SAMPLE: THIS IS HOW YOUR COMMENT SHOULD BE FORMATTED * * * 98-141 Jane M. Doe 902 Snyder Lane Wichita KS 29988 Dear Commissioners, The proposed conditions for the SBC/Ameritech merger are too vague to ensure that consumers will finally see the benefits of local phone competition. The FCC must do more to ensure that local competition develops before approving the merger. * * * * * * * END OF SAMPLE COMMENT * * * * * * * A Public Notice with complete information on how to file email comments is at . You can request the instructions and a sample by sending an email message to: ecfs@fcc.gov . Leave the subject line blank and in the message field type: get form . Instructions and a sample form will be sent in a reply. Comments are due by Tuesday, July 13, 1999. Oppositions or responses to these comments are due by Tuesday, July 20, 1999. The Docket Number is 98-141. See for more background on this issue. THIS ACTION ALERT IS IN EFFECT THROUGH JULY 20, 1999. PLEASE DISREGARD THIS MESSAGE AFTER JULY 20, 1999. For more information, contact: Audrie Krause Email: audrie@consumerchoice.org http://www.consumerchoice.org To subscribe to this Action Alert list: Send a message to: majordomo@consumerchoice.org (no subject needed) In the message body type: subscribe phones To remove your address from this list: Send a message to: majordomo@consumerchoice.org (no subject needed) In the message body type: unsubscribe phones To subscribe or unsubscribe from an address other than the address you are presently using, contact the list owner at: phones-owner@consumerchoice.org ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 00:58:10 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Help Defeat UCITA Forwarded message: Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 02:19:14 -0400 From: Free Software Foundation Subject: Help defeat UCITA [The Free Software Project is posting this message to aid a campaign led by others (see below) against UCITA. For more information, please see the web sites below. Please repost this message as widely as possible, wherever it is appropriate.] UCITA (formerly UCC article 2B) is a plan to change the law in the US, state by state, to give software publishers unprecedented power over software users, through "shrink wrap" licenses. Software owners would be able to prohibit you from doing reverse-engineering to figure out the protocol used by the program, prohibit you from telling the public about bugs you encounter, insist that you can only sue them in Paraguay, change the license terms post-facto, and enter your computer to shut off the software if they claim you have violated their one-sided license. UCITA would also apply to other products that contain software or information -- for example, digital watches, microwave ovens, and cars. Wave goodbye to consumer protection laws. Fortunately, there is a strong campaign to oppose UCITA. Infoworld has organized a letter-writing petition campaign which you can join. See http://forums.infoworld.com/threads/get.cgi?115803. The principal vote (in late July) will by a committee of the state representatives to the commission on uniform state laws, and there is also a campaign asking you to write to your own state's commissioner. See http://www.badsoftware.com/ for advice on how to do this, and much more information about UCITA. Another resource page about UCITA is http://www.pdos.lcs.mit.edu/~cananian/UCITA/. I hope each US citizen or resident reading this message will help oppose UCITA in one way or another. ------------------------------ From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 08:15:35 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "Connecting to the Internet", Andrew F. Ward Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKCNTTIN.RVW 990618 "Connecting to the Internet", Andrew F. Ward, 1999, 0-201-37956-2, U$19.95/C$29.95 %A Andrew F. Ward %C P.O. Box 520, 26 Prince Andrew Place, Don Mills, Ontario M3C 2T8 %D 1999 %G 0-201-37956-2 %I Addison-Wesley Publishing Co. %O U$19.95/C$29.95 416-447-5101 fax: 416-443-0948 bkexpress@aw.com %P 291 p. %T "Connecting to the Internet" The preface states that the book is for experienced network administrators who are connecting their LAN to the Internet for the first time. Chapter one outlines IP internetworking and Internet services, but spends most of its time dealing with routing. The routing content is, at one and the same time, much more detailed than most first time administrators would probably want, and not particularly clear. There is a broad, but rather generic, guide to Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in chapter two. For connecting your LAN to the provider, chapter three gives a comprehensive, but terse, outline of access circuits. A number of concepts and details of Internet security are discussed, albeit very quickly, in chapter four. Chapter five looks at practical details of network design, based on the prior material, in terms of configuration. Testing and diagnostics are reviewed in chapter six. Going live, in chapter seven, notes the throwing of the final switches, as it were. However, it is also evident, at this point, that a number of areas, such as policies, registration, and so forth, have been ignored in favour of getting the hardware and software running. The final chapter talks about management, but seems to assume some ideal network where both users and providers are much more capable than is generally the case. As only one example, the text states that complaints from users tend to come in the form, "Do we have some kind of firewall that stops Application x from running?" In reality, you most often hear something like "My BuddyBox won't pop!" and must then determine a) whether the user is trying to run a Wintel client on a Mac, b) what and where the BuddyBox server is, c) that "pop" means send, d) that the user has no Buddies, and e) that BuddyBox Inc. never got beyond alpha release, and, in any case, has been bankrupt for eight months. Unfortunately, while there is a good deal of information in the book, it has concentrated on those areas that sysadmins probably will already have explored to some extent. The topics left unexamined are precisely those that technically aware Internet novices would need. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1999 BKCNTTIN.RVW 990618 ====================== (quote inserted randomly by Pegasus Mailer) rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@sprint.ca slade@victoria.tc.ca p1@canada.com I finally realized why Windows is truly multitasking. I find myself keeping some secondary task (like ... mail) handy so I can make good use of the time I spend waiting for Windows.'n -Steve Edelson http://victoria.tc.ca/techrev or http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~rslade ------------------------------ From: John Eichler Subject: How Secure Are Leased Lines Today? Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 07:58:19 -0500 Pat, I would like to know if you or any of the Digest readers have any references to the security aspects of leased lines today. My gut feeling is that today such leased lines (with the possible exception of lines from the central office to the customer's premises) are more virtual rather than physical, especially when long distances are involved. This would be for overseas leased lines also. As such, it seems that they would be susceptible to the same interception as regular lines would be. I would like to have some facts to back up what was said in the above paragraph and would appreciate any information pertaining to this topic. Thanks in advance, John Eichler ------------------------------ From: ref@ongsw.com (ONG SoftWare) Subject: How Does AOL, etc Offer Dial up in So Many Cities? Date: 9 Jul 1999 13:44:10 GMT Organization: ONG SoftWare Reply-To: ref@ongsw.com I am wondering how the system is set up so that AOL and your other major service providers are able to have dial numbers in so many cities. I am talking now and prior to the internet days, what I mean is before the internet took off and AOL started to offer it. What type of equipment is used, leased lines, etc. Thanks and I look forward to all the information you can provide. _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ ONG SoftWare - ref@ongsw.com -= Creators of Web Organizer for OS/2 =- HomePage: http://www.ongsw.com [The Complete OS/2 Links Page! ] http://www.ongsw.com/links/links.html _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 10:56:50 EDT From: Carl Moore Subject: Area Code 321 on Jeopardy! In the Jeopardy! game I saw yesterday, the final clue (category was "U.S.A.") was that the counties near Cape Canaveral had gotten this new telephone area code. The response, which no one got, was "what is area code 321". The wrong responses were area codes 747 , 351 , 813 (you know 813 is already in use on the Gulf Coast of Florida). ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 12:34:36 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Bills Would Fence Off the Facts by Oscar S. Cisneros 3:00 a.m. 6.Jul.99.PDT A coalition of big money data vendors is pushing database protection bills through the US Congress that could fundamentally disrupt the basic functions of the Internet and radically alter how information can be shared. There are two competing bills that would protect data compilers by prohibiting the duplication of their databases. Critics fear the more restrictive of the two, Collections of Information Antipiracy Act (HR354), would make criminals of companies that collect and aggregate data -- companies like Yahoo and Amazon.com. http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/20550.html ------------------------------ From: Adam H. Kerman Subject: Re: Snooping OK on Pager Numbers? Organization: Chinet - Public Access since 1982 Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 06:07:15 GMT > WASHINGTON -- Police can easily "eavesdrop" on pagers if a bill > approved by the US Senate becomes law. > The bill says law enforcement officials can monitor all messages sent > to targeted pagers without having to convince a judge that the > information can be found only in that way. > "Congress is trying to do an end run around the Constitution and gut > the privacy of millions of pager owners," said David Banisar, author > of The Electronic Privacy Papers. I'm not aware that there is an existing privacy right. Wireless communications take place in the shared public spectrum. Use of a pager does not convey an exclusive license to a portion of the spectrum while telemetry is sent. Even those who do hold licenses can only exclude others from broadcasting, not from listening. The federal cell phone eavesdropping law is an exception. I still consider it to be an outrage. We have the right to be secure in our person, papers, and possessions. But we have another right, a natural right to use the public way. That includes the airwaves. The more rights we grant individuals to use the public way and exclude everyone else, the more we infringe upon our own rights. ------------------------------ From: dannyb@panix.com (Danny Burstein) Subject: Re: Caller ID & Star-69 (Was: Weird Wrong Number Calls) Date: 9 Jul 1999 02:21:08 -0400 In Eric@AreaCode-Info.com (Eric Morson) writes: > 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. Close, but not exactly correct. There are a whole bunch of possibilities and many of them get handled differently, based on whether the incoming call is local or long distance, and whether it's been set for caller-id "block". Taking these step by step (with the caveat that this is how things are 'supposed to work'): a) local call without blocking: caller id shows the number, *69 returns the call b) caller id WITH blocking: caller id shows "private". *69 may do any of the following depending on local practice: 1) give you an error message 2) return the call, but list the number on your monthly bill as, say, 555-XXXX [with the X's used in place of the real four digits. or you might, more often, see '555-0000') c) long distance without blocking: caller id gives you the number. however, *69 will *not* put the call through (it may read you the number, but it won't complete it because for some reason or another the ILECs don't pass these calls over to an IXC. I've never heard a good reason why they don't simply use your pre-selcted ixc, but they don't d) long distance with blocking: caller id gives you 'private'; *69 gives you error msgs e) cellular calls to you: if the real cnid of the actual phone is passed to you (as opposed to gettign the number of an outgoing trunk or some other quasi number), then this should be handled the same way as a regular call and be returnable based on local/long distance criteria. Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] ------------------------------ From: leob@best.com (Leonid A. Broukhis) Subject: Re: You Believe *67 Works? Date: 09 Jul 1999 08:02:26 GMT In article , Leonid A. Broukhis wrote: > A popular belief says that if one dials *67 and then calls a regular > phone number, the caller will be identified as "private", "anonymous", > etc. Not so with the phone numbers provided by www.webley.com > (312-416-xxxx). They will report the caller ID info to the subscriber > even if the caller has dialed *67. > Is it a violation of any regulations, or does it mean that, generally > speaking, there is no way to ensure privacy when calling a regular > phone number? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If what you are saying is true, and > not just some fluke occurance because of a technical problem, I > think it is a terrible invasion of privacy. Have you reported it? PAT] It is true. I've been told that this is legal because "webley.com is not a local phone company" [whatever that means]. The reason is they used to have only 800-series numbers for their subscribers, but started selling regular numbers (for the Chicago area only) and handle them the same way as 800-numbers. By the way, whom should I report it to? Leo [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I would start with the Illinois Commerce Commission, which regulates telephone companies in Illinois. Second, I would try to make sure that as many wembly.com customers as I could reach were informed of the matter. Also, a couple of the telephone consumer organizations in the Chicago area. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Dan Lanciani Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 04:17:17 EDT Subject: Re: FCC Extra Line Charge jmaddaus@NO_SPAM.usa.net (John S. Maddaus) wrote: > 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. These little fee increases are appearing at an alarming rate, and the spins the LECs put on them are a bit disturbing. My mother recently received the following notice from Bell Atalntic: ``Beginning January 1, 1999, the Federal Communications Commission required Bell Atlantic to define all additional telephone lines at a residence as non-primary and subject to a higher FCC Line Charge of $6.07 per month, instead of the rate for a primary line of $3.50 a month. (The FCC Line Charge on the first or only line at a location remains $3.50 per month.)'' ``Bell Atlantic has identified a telephone line at your residence that is subject to the higher FCC Line Charge. The last four digits of the number for the line are shown on the mailing label. Bell Atlantic attempted to identify these lines to begin billing the increased charge in January. However, some of the lines were identified only recently.'' [They go on to explain that you will be billed retroactively.] So, the question is, just how big is this lie? We know that the FCC's numbers (which did increase recently) are caps on how much the LEC can charge (and of course, this charge goes into the LEC's pocket; it isn't a tax or fund fee or such as they would like you to believe). So the part about the FCC requiring BA to charge more is itself untrue. Raising a cap is hardly the same as requiring an increase. This makes me question their assertion that the FCC required a new definition of non-primary lines at all. Does anyone have any information on this? I suspect that Bell Atlantic is just trying to catch those clever people who put their second line in their cat's name or such. In my case, my mother is being penalized because of my line which is (and always has been) in my name. I'm not sure how they decided that my line is primary since her line has existed since about 1959 while mine is only ~15 years old. Meanwhile, the following appeared in current BA bills: ``Changes in Federal Charges Beginning July 1, 1999'' ``Effective July 1, 1999, the FCC Non-Presubscribed Line Charge will increase for residence customers who have not chosen a long-distance carrier for any or all of their phone lines. For single line customers, this charge will increase from $.53 to approximately $1.04 per month. For customers with additional lines or residential ISDN lines, this charge will increase from $1.50 to approximately $2.53 per month.'' ``These rate changes are a result of reductions in access charges paid by the long distance carriers and do not represent new revenue to Bell Atlantic.'' Again they make it sound like the money isn't going right into their pockets. I infer from this increase that the PICC chargeback from various IXCs will soon increase again (this is beyond the recent USF chargeback increase). It's great to live in this time of inexpensive telephone service. Dan Lanciani ddl@harvard.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #203 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Jul 9 14:40:13 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id OAA08819; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 14:40:13 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 14:40:13 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199907091840.OAA08819@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #204 TELECOM Digest Fri, 9 Jul 99 14:40:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 204 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Baby Steps Toward Privacy Marketing (Monty Solomon) Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce (John Eichler) Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce (Derek Balling) Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce (John R. Levine) Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce (Jeff Colbert) Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce (Steve Winter) Re: You Believe *67 Works? (Steven J. Sobol) Re: You Believe *67 Works? (Joseph Wineburgh) Re: Rotary Dial Telephone (John R. Levine) Re: Bell Geolocation Technology Pinpoints Wireless 911 (Herb Stein) Re: Calling Number ID in California (Herb Stein) Re: Calling Number ID vs. Unlisted Numbers (Herb Stein) Re: Calling Number ID vs. Unlisted Numbers (Pete Weiss) 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, 9 Jul 1999 01:16:21 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Baby Steps Toward Privacy Marketing http://tbtf.com/archive/1999-07-08.html Just because they have a policy doesn't mean they respect your privacy In an early issue of TBTF [19] Nick Szabo predicted [20] that we would see companies competing for customers by touting their respect for privacy. Under the implied threat of government privacy regulation, this trend seems finally to be emerging. In April IBM, the second largest Web advertiser, announced they would no longer advertise on sites lacking a clear privacy policy [21], [22]. Earlier this month Microsoft, the number one advertiser, followed suit [23]. Now Disney has upped the ante in the privacy marketing game [24]: as of 1 Octo- ber Disney.com will neither place ads with nor accept ads from com- panies that lack a privacy policy. The new rule also applies to Dis- ney's other media properties, Excite, GO network, ESPN.com, ABC.com, ABCNews.com, and Family.com. Personally I consider these actions to be baby steps. The existence of a privacy policy does not demonstrate a company's commitment to protect consumer privacy -- merely a pledge not to violate it in secret. I would be more impressed if Microsoft announced that as of a given date they would no longer use cookies to track users and would not sell or transfer any identifiable consumer data to any other organization; nor would they accept or place advertising with any company that did. [19] http://tbtf.com/archive/1995-11-03.html [20] http://tbtf.com/resource/priv-marketing.html [21] http://www.internetworld.com/print/1999/04/12/ecomm/19990412-ibm.html [22] http://www.adage.com/interactive/articles/19990405/article1.html [23] http://www.foxmarketwire.com/wires/0622/f_ap_0622_74.sml [24] http://www.lycos.com/cgi-bin/pursuit?query=3224&fs=docid&cat=zdnet&mtemp=zdnet ------------------------------ From: John Eichler Subject: Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 07:51:39 -0500 Pat, You made a statement in your comments regarding this posting that requires a little more justification, IMHO, on your behalf. You said that, > 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." There are other factors which deal in when using SSL such as the degree of protection afforded by using different key lengths. Our government has not allowed the export of any type of encryption that exceeded 40-bit key lengths, a stance which, in certain situations, is changing now. However, if you look at the latest Netscape security they have a wide variety of encryption algorithms and key lengths (40-bit, 56-bit, 128-bit and even 168-bit) available. . A short while ago I decided to try net banking with NationsBank. Rather than just blindly accepting the encryption defaults, I changed my options to only accept 128-bit key length. To my surprise my connection would not work. I thought it was the fault of NationsBank. After going around and around with them for a while, I learned that to use 128-bit keys one had to download a "special" version of Netscape for use in the U.S. only. Once I downloaded that version, I had no problem with the SSL link. My only advice is to not blindly accept a link as being secure just because that little padlock closes on the screen. Pay close attention to the options settings for SSL. From everything I've seen, SSL is very secure these days. (They had a major problem with it a few years ago due to a faulty pseudo random number generator which has now been fixed.) Pat, I would appreciate any published references you could provide me showing where the 128-bit key length SSL using a secure block cipher has been cryptographically broken. I would like to include such references in a white paper I am currently writing on net security. Thanks, John Eichler ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 06:31:46 -0700 From: Derek Balling Subject: Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce At 03:49 AM 7/9/99 -0400, TELECOM Digest Editor noted: >> [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. > OTOH, how often do you hand your credit card to a waiter in a > restaurant who disappears with it for 3-5 minutes? You have no idea > how many impressions he may have taken with it, and he's certainly had > enough time to write down the name, number, and expiration date which > he could use over the phone or internet. *You* may not use your card > over the Internet, but if you're like most people you've probably > handed it to at least two dozen people in the last six months who > *could*. All this talk of "imprinting" confuses me ... when was the last time your card actually got imprinted? The last time it happened to me was when the local gas station's modem line was done, so the very-confused clerk had to manually validate each charge using the old imprinter most of us know and love. Aside from that, I haven't seen an imprinter actually USED in years. Your charge card number, if you go to most stores, will appear mostly blocked out on your receipt (maybe), but probably appears in full on the journal tape that stays in the register. "Skippy the salesclerk" could easily go back through that and get all your information that he needs. And on the issue Pat brings up later about signatures ... have you EVER had your signature checked? Especially in today's society of swipe-it-yourself POS stations, my card rarely ever ends up in "Skippy's" hands at all, so he'd be hard pressed to compare the signatures with the "master signature" inside my wallet in my back pocket long before it becomes time to sign the receipt. I'm far more inclined to trust cdnow.com or whomever , because they are far more conscious of credit card fraud possibilities than the average K-Mart will ever dream of being. Neither situation is fool-proof, to be certain, but at least the online merchants have "customer security" as a buzzword, which is more than the average brick-and-mortar retailer. D ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jul 1999 10:30:58 -0400 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA >> 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. Except that it's never happened. I've been asking for years for reports of credit card numbers being stolen in transit over the net, and I have yet to get a credible report. As you note, there's plenty of credit card fraud on the Internet, but it's all perpetrated against merchants, not against cardholders. 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: What about the situation recently where someone was at amazon.com and passed their bank account number only to later have their account cleaned out? What about the 'everyone qualifies for a VISA card' program run by the outfit in Clearwater, FL which pushes through an automatic withdrawal on checking accounts without telling anyone, or telling them only at the last minute? What about the numerous people like J. Collie who admittedly offer only a simple, very crude scam against consumers, but often times a very effective one? What about the numerous 'adult' sites which require the user to present a credit card as 'proof of being over 18' who say they will not charge the credit card while you use your 'free membership' and then put through some outrageous charge anyway? What about the numerous commercial sites which absolutely insist that you exchange cookies with them to merely look at their site and then proceed to trade those cookies around with other devious merchants like themselves? You are going to sit there and tell me fraud on the internet is purely a one-sided thing with the netizens totally at fault and the companies completely innocent of any wrong doing? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Jeff Colbert Subject: Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 15:23:56 GMT Just a side note. I have had several problems buying merchandise online due to the fact that my local postoffice does not do mail delivery to the house. My bills come to my PO Box, Packages are picked up at the window. Packages not going through the postal system go to my street address. I quit doing business with Egghead as they could never get it right. There has to be some leeway in the system for people with my situation and for the most part, smaller businesses take the time to check. Jeff ------------------------------ From: steve@sellcom.com (Steve Winter) Subject: Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 05:40:25 GMT Organization: WWW.SELLCOM.COM Reply-To: steve@sellcom.com TELECOM Digest Editor wrote to Gregory L. Abbott saying something like: > [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. ACK!!!! (excuse me) ahem... What is to stop that clerk from writing down your credit card info from the sales slip after you have demonstrated physical absence by your departure and later making phone orders with it or giving it to his buddies? > 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 We use SSL secure connections for credit card data transfer and our records are protected by an armed guard. > 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 No no no no no!!!! (excuse me) ahem ... I mean how can you be so sure that the employee or anyone else with access to those slips doesn't copy your number name exp date etc and then do something dishonorable with it? > 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. I believe that it is more secure than a reasonable small percentage of disgruntled (or even semi-postal) employees somewhere. What's to stop the waitre or waitress from just writing down your number when he/she takes your card to the register? > 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 Please see my ramblings above. > 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 I am crushed > 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 OUCH!!! > (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 A guy asked me today if he didn't like a phone once he got it and I told him he would have a better chance getting money back from a tel evangelist (really, I said that, we have an all sales final policy). > 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. Oh come on. Has this actually happened to you? FedEx and UPS are both very very good at delivering packages. If they fail to get a package delivered on time (and it was their fault) they refund the shipping costs. > 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- I have been in stores where the sales people were rude. I have been in stores where I would not have handed a credit card to the person behind the counter. > 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/ People have been killed and car jacked in mall parking lots, Pat. > 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. Every happy ending has a story. Just imagine in Y2K if that happens to everyone. > 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. What do you think of sites like www.thepubliceye.com and such like? > 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] We have a few major accounts that have net terms with us. But I would certainly agree not to order doughnuts through the mail. 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: sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net (Steven J Sobol) Subject: Re: You Believe *67 Works? Date: 9 Jul 1999 04:35:06 GMT Organization: North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.4NET On 08 Jul 1999 17:09:50 GMT, leob@best.com allegedly said > A popular belief says that if one dials *67 and then calls a regular > phone number, the caller will be identified as "private", "anonymous", > etc. Not so with the phone numbers provided by www.webley.com > (312-416-xxxx). They will report the caller ID info to the subscriber > even if the caller has dialed *67. > Is it a violation of any regulations, or does it mean that, generally > speaking, there is no way to ensure privacy when calling a regular > phone number? The web site says you get a personal 888 number. Since the 888 owner gets billed for the call -- and even if you aren't getting charged per minute, Webley still is -- they get the information. Not through Caller ID, but through ANI which can never be blocked (and shouldn't, since the person being billed has a right to know who's calling him). I just went back and looked at the Webley FAQ. You are billed per minute for 888 access, just as with any toll free number. Therefore it is to your advantage that calling numbers are listed on your bill. 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: Don't you think they should allow each user to decide for himself if he wishes to use the 'advantage of having the calling numbers listed on his bill' ? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Joseph Wineburgh Reply-To: Subject: Re: You Believe *67 Works? Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 09:34:10 -0400 It's a toll-free 'personal' number service. Similar to the one on the west coast you pitch from time to time. They use ANI, which we all know is impervious to *67 or the like. #JOE [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But toll-free numbers begin with 800, 888 or 877 don't they? They do not begin with 312-416 do they? If I call a number 312-416-xxxx I can reasonably assume I am paying for the call, can't I, and entitled to the use of *67 if I wish? I would certainly make no such assumption of privacy regards an 800 number. I would agree with anyone who said that overriding *67 was proper in the case of a 'toll-free' call; the person paying for the call always has a right to know what he is paying for. What prevents me from obtaining a 312-416 number then advertising it as some sort of confidential counseling service and writing down the numbers of all the people who call it thinking they are speaking to me with thier calling number hidden? Is that as bad as getting an 800 number and then charging the caller for using it (we have been through all that here in the past) or is it worse? Subscribers are placed in various blocks of numbers which traditionally identify the class of service they have for good reason. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jul 1999 11:26:38 -0400 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Rotary Dial Telephone Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > True, COs are generally prepared to run for a week or more with no > mains power. But those of us in rural America have another > problem. Our service is provided from the CO to the residence via a > SLC box. The SLC box has batteries which are good for 24-48 > hours. After that, the SLC goes dead. And along with it, all the > phones serviced by the SLC. The local techs tell me they have portable > generators at the CO to be distributed to the SLCs if such a situation > happens. That seems to be the plan. My local rural telco still uses only SLC-24, because they can be powered from the CO, but customers don't like them because the voltage on the line is only about 24V which makes a lot of marginal phones and answering machines fail. The engineer tells me that he's not eager to go to a plan that might require driving around on icy, snowy roads, moving generators from one SLC to another. 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: herb@herbstein.com (Herb Stein) Subject: Re: Bell Geolocation Technology Pinpoints Wireless 911 Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 15:46:11 GMT Organization: newsread.com ISP News Reading Service (http://www.newsread.com) Jon Charleston would also have died last year, last decade or last century. The fact that a leading edge technology was not deployed did not cause his death. The automobile accident did. Were I to be convinced that only E911 operators would ever have access to the location information it would not be too disturbing. But once it's available, the NSA, FBI, CIA and state and local law enforcement will all want to use it. This year the mantra will be "War on Drugs" or Save Our Children." Next years there will be different windmills to tilt at. (I know, never end a sentence in a preposition.) The fact of the matter is that I'm willing to give up some safety in the name of privacy because I do not trust our government. Especially at the Federal level. Read alt.privacy for some frightening insight into your loss of privacy and the consequences. The world is not perfectly safe. People are injured. People die. We have come so far today with safer cars and better drugs that we are in the process of addressing the last 1% of a problem that will cost immeasurably to solve. And the cost is not only financial. How would you like to have your insurance company use this technology to find out that you spend 4 hours a night 5 nights a week in a tavern parking lot? Or your wife to use it to find out that you spend 4 nights in the parking lot at the apartment complex where that good looking secretary at work lives? There are major down sides to "being able to be found." At a minimum, I'd like to see people willing to pay for this additional safety bear the full cost. I should be able to opt out. Implemented correctly, it should be required that I opt in. In article , wrote: > 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 , J.F. Mezei >> 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. Herb Stein The Herb Stein Group www.herbstein.com herb@herbstein.com 314 215-3584 ------------------------------ From: herb@herbstein.com (Herb Stein) Subject: Re: Calling Number ID in California Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 16:08:04 GMT Organization: newsread.com ISP News Reading Service (http://www.newsread.com) Hi- Maybe I'm crazy, but let me describe my use of CNID. I have it on my home line. I do not have it on my business line. I want to talk to my friends and family on the home line and avoid telemarketers. I want to talk to any and all potential customers on my business line. I'm located in Missouri if that matters to anyone. I never block CNID delivery except maybe to jerk a friend around. I don't have per-line blocking, so I suppose if I called a suicide hotline and forgot to block CNID I might accidently be saved. Otherwise I think CNID is largely a non-issue. I always answer "Out of area" calls. I never answer "Anonymous" calls. When I do get CNID, I don't answer the carpet cleaners, siding salesmen etc. The best way to avoid the anonymous calls is with your own software and/or hardware. Most modern modems support CNID features. Answer the anonymous call and play back a message designed to waste as much of their time as possible. This means the the call has supervised and is costing the caller money. This doesn't happen,I don't think, if you use the phone companies blocking feature. It's probably the only effective method to eliminate these calls. In article , lauren@vortex.com (Lauren Weinstein) wrote: > - 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 Herb Stein The Herb Stein Group www.herbstein.com herb@herbstein.com 314 215-3584 ------------------------------ From: herb@herbstein.com (Herb Stein) Subject: Re: Calling Number ID vs. Unlisted Numbers Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 16:10:14 GMT Organization: newsread.com ISP News Reading Service (http://www.newsread.com) I believe that, as a general rule, I receive the CNID of both non-published and unlisted numbers here in St. Louis. In article , lauren@vortex.com (Lauren Weinstein) wrote: > Greetings. Contrary to what was stated in a recent piece excerpted > from the L.A. Times on this topic seen in a recent TELECOM digest, > there is in general no direct, default relationship between unlisted > numbers and Calling Number ID blocking status. Even here in > California, where per-line CNID blocking is available, you don't just > get it automatically when you have an unlisted number -- you have to > ask for it. It would certainly have seemed logical for unlisted > numbers to have CNID blocking by default, and attempts were made to > mandate this setting, but they were not adopted. Herb Stein The Herb Stein Group www.herbstein.com herb@herbstein.com 314 215-3584 ------------------------------ From: pete-weiss@psu.edu (Pete Weiss) Subject: Re: Calling Number ID vs. Unlisted Numbers Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 08:44:13 -0400 Organization: Penn State University -- Office of Administrative Systems On Thu, 8 Jul 99 10:17 PDT, lauren@vortex.com (Lauren Weinstein) wrote: > So just because you have an unlisted number, don't assume you have > Calling Number ID blocking! Good advice: assume nothing. Here is Bell Atlantic PA land, they (BA) provide a toll-free number to call to check on CLID blocking. Pete ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #204 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Jul 9 15:42:22 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id PAA12919; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 15:42:22 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 15:42:22 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199907091942.PAA12919@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #205 TELECOM Digest Fri, 9 Jul 99 15:42:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 205 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Railroads and the Telephone/Telegraph (Re: Stentor Changes) (Mark Cuccia) US Admits Crypto Export Controls Are About Signals Intelligence (M Solomon) Hazards of the Young and Mobile (Monty Solomon) Help Needed Configuring SoftPhone (Raymond T. Joseph) Re: Rotary Dial Telephone (LARB0) Re: Multiple Location Cell, Landline & Long Distance Service (John Levine) What do Carriers Look For? (Daniel Liis) Pager Dilemma (Thomas Hinders) Re: GTE Cellular Tries to Hold Dead Man to Contract (Mike Fox) Re: How Secure Are Leased Lines Today? (Thor Lancelot Simon) Re: You Believe *67 Works? (Thor Lancelot Simon) Re: Jurassic Telecommunications, Part I (Mark Brader) 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, 09 Jul 1999 13:28:43 -0500 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Railroads and the Telephone/Telegraph (Re: Stentor Changes) Louis RAPHAEL wrote: > Mark J. Cuccia wrote: >> "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." > How typically Canadian ... until the Trans-Canada Highway (in most > places, an undivided two-lane highway) came around, the same had to > be done to drive across the country ... or put the car on the train. Something I don't think I'd mentioned in my 1996 report on the history of Candian telephone service was that there were some earlier experiments of long-haul voice/telephone transmission prior to the TCTS network of 1931/32. The long-haul voice experiments were truly intra-Canadian, not having to traverse part of the way via the US, but were using the *TELEGRAPH* circuits of CN or CP Railways! And in the US, there were also some early experiments of long-haul voice/telephone transmission via telegraph channels of Western Union and probably Postal Telegraph. MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut-1-2497 WORK:__mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu|4710-Wright-Road|__(+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity-5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New-Orleans-28__|fwds-on-no-answr-to Fax:UNiversity-5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 01:14:42 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: US Admits Crypto Export Controls are About Signals Intelligence http://tbtf.com/archive/1999-07-08.html Fighting a losing battle to keep Echelon relevant In its petition for a re-hearing of the Bernstein case [18], the Jus- tice Department admits, for the first time, that the true goal of US export controls on cryptography is to preserve the country's ability to gather SIGINT. The petition is refreshingly free of the incend- iary cant about stopping pedophiles and drug dealers that federal authorities customarily emit as rationale for the ever-more-dubious controls. > The government's foreign intelligence-gathering activities > include signals intelligence (SIGINT), the collection and > analysis of information from foreign electromagnetic signals. > The SIGINT capabilities of the United States can be signifi- > cantly compromised by the use of encryption. [18] http://jya.com/bernstein-pet.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 01:20:23 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Hazards of the Young and Mobile http://tbtf.com/archive/1999-07-08.html ..Is your cell phone damaging your brain? The research arm of the cell-phone industry, Wireless Technology Re- search, was asked to get to the bottom of persistent rumors that cell-phone use may endanger human brains. Their results [33] suggest a correlation between cell-phone emissions and brain tumors and DNA breakage in rats. While far from conclusive, this research demands in-depth follow-up studies. [33] http://www.wired.com/news/print_version/technology/story/20321.html?wnpg=all ------------------------------ From: Raymond T. Joseph Subject: Help Needed Configuring SoftPhone Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 23:06:24 -0500 Organization: World Trade Network, Inc. (WT.net) How can I set up my PC as a phone set? I have a Sportster Voice V.90 and an AWE32 Soundblaster. I would like to see how to make call over POTS and also through my ISP. Is there wireless solution for the headset connection to the soundcard? Ray rjoseph@wt.net.wt.net remove redundancy ------------------------------ From: larb0@aol.com (LARB0) Date: 09 Jul 1999 15:11:28 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Rotary Dial Telephone A good point ... but at least the DLC has batteries for 24 to 48 hours ... you'll have a couple days to work out alternatives rather than worrying about when you last charged the batteries in your PCS/cellular phone. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jul 1999 11:24:03 -0400 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Multiple Location Cell, Landline & Long Distance Service Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > While I doubt there is much I can do about the land lines, is there > any combination or bundle of cellular and long distance services that > might save me a few bucks? > I have AT&T long distance, ... Well, there's your first mistake. AT&T doesn't want your business. That's what they've been telling you with their silly rules and nuisance charges. Pretty much any other LD carrier in the country will be happy to bill all your LD together on one bill, with the only per-line charge the unavoidable PICC charge that's passed through to the local telcos. The going rate for interstate calls is 7 or 8 cents/minute, or maybe 9 cents day, 5 cents night. > What I'd really like is a local number in both cities that can find me > wherever I am and reasonable long distance rates on both POTS lines > and wireless. I'd need modem (internet) access at both locations. I suspect you don't want to buy everything from one vendor. For your Internet access, any of the national ISPs offer dialup access in all large cities and charge between $15 and $20/mo. Some LD carriers give you a discount on their ISP affiliates, but I haven't seen and with LD rates low enough to make the ISP discount worth it. For wireless, I'd look at Sprint, Omnipoint, and other PCS carriers. You should be able to find bundled minutes packages for about 10 cents/minute, no extra for roaming or long distance. I'm not up on follow-me services, but you might find that all you need is remotely programmable call fowarding on your regular phone line, so you can forward calls from one house to the other or to your mobile. 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: danielliis@my-deja.com (Daniel Liis) Subject: What do Carriers Look For? Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 15:25:52 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. Anyone out there have views on the top 5-10 things that Carriers want. i.e. good price per port. Thanks. ------------------------------ From: Thomas_Hinders@lotus.com (Thomas Hinders) Subject: Pager Dilemma Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 13:57:19 -0400 I am a home office worker and my Skytel one way pager (a Motorola Advisor Elite) is linked to my voice mail system and alerts me when a caller is trying to reach me or when a message has been deposited. My pager works fine everywhere except my home office, where the coverage (or whatever) simply is not strong enough. It does not seem to be the pager (I had three) nor does it seem to be local EMI, as it doesn't receive any better on my front porch or back yard. Is there any other receiving device I might obtain to either boost the local signal, or receive the pages via some other device? Please email me directly and I will compile and summarize back to the list. Tom Hinders thomas_hinders@lotus.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 12:39:40 -0400 From: Mike Fox Organization: not organized! Subject: Re: GTE Cellular Tries to Hold Dead Man to Contract Robert Bonomi wrote: > 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_. That's surprising to me, because every health-club type contract I've ever seen has an escape clause if the customer becomes disabled and is medically unable to continue with the program. I think death would qualify. Mike "We're not against ideas. We're against people spreading them." (General Augusto Pinochet of Chile) ------------------------------ From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) Subject: Re: How Secure Are Leased Lines Today? Date: 9 Jul 1999 14:17:20 -0400 Organization: PANIX -- Public Access Networks Corp. Reply-To: tls@rek.tjls.com In article , John Eichler wrote: > Pat, > I would like to know if you or any of the Digest readers have any > references to the security aspects of leased lines today. > My gut feeling is that today such leased lines (with the possible > exception of lines from the central office to the customer's premises) > are more virtual rather than physical, especially when long distances > are involved. This would be for overseas leased lines also. As such, > it seems that they would be susceptible to the same interception as > regular lines would be. This is a very complex subject and it's not one I'm comfortable giving a summary of the state of the art in. As a massive oversimplification, let me just say that while you're correct that leased lines are aggregated with other traffic (whether that traffic is voice trunks or data circuits of whatever bandwidth) you shouldn't assume that eavesdropping techniques are the same. The *spit* "anti-terrorism" bill they hammered through Congress a few years back may change all this if its horrific provisions regarding "law-enforcement access" are ever implemented, but by and large most wiretapping is done not on aggregated circuits between central offices (it's much harder to get the voice or data you want when it's buried in an OC-12 worth of other junk!) but at the switch frame or on the "last mile" out to the subscriber premises. This may be different for international circuits, where the NSA, British GCHQ, and Australian and New Zealand intelligence agencies are widely thought to use automated systems to intercept and monitor both voice and data communications on satellite and undersea cable systems. Punch line: if you want data security on your leased line, use encryption. If you're worried about link-layer attacks, use a link-layer data encryptor; several excellent models are available that use triple-DES or IDEA and operate as "bumps in the wire" on synchronous serial links of various speeds. Don't settle for anything less, particularly not models the U.S. gov- ernment has approved for export. They all have some deliberately introduced flaw. For an international application, specify equipment manufactured by a widely-known firm *outside the U.S.* for both ends. Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com "And where do all these highways go, now that we are free?" ------------------------------ From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) Subject: Re: You Believe *67 Works? Date: 9 Jul 1999 15:15:12 -0400 Organization: PANIX -- Public Access Networks Corp. Reply-To: tls@rek.tjls.com In article , Steven J Sobol wrote: > On 08 Jul 1999 17:09:50 GMT, leob@best.com allegedly said >> A popular belief says that if one dials *67 and then calls a regular >> phone number, the caller will be identified as "private", "anonymous", >> etc. Not so with the phone numbers provided by www.webley.com >> (312-416-xxxx). They will report the caller ID info to the subscriber >> even if the caller has dialed *67. >> Is it a violation of any regulations, or does it mean that, generally >> speaking, there is no way to ensure privacy when calling a regular >> phone number? > The web site says you get a personal 888 number. Since the 888 owner > gets billed for the call -- and even if you aren't getting charged per > minute, Webley still is -- they get the information. Not through > Caller ID, but through ANI which can never be blocked (and shouldn't, > since the person being billed has a right to know who's calling him). That's just fine -- *if* the call is made to an 888 number, and completed as a freephone call. But Webley can't sidestep all the regulations on local carriers just by pretending they're "only an 800/888 carrier" while they sell 312-xxx numbers. I imagine the ICC would take an *extremely* dim view of this argument. Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com "And where do all these highways go, now that we are free?" [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That was my belief also in referring the original writer to the Illinois Commerce Commission. If you want to give tollfree service, and thus be able to get the calling party's telephone number, give it on 800/888/877 type numbers. PAT] ------------------------------ From: msbrader@interlog.com (Mark Brader) Subject: Re: Jurassic Telecommunications, Part I Date: 9 Jul 1999 15:44:10 -0400 Donald Kimberlin writes: > ... Messages from Sayville became readable. One of them was a copy of > the infamous 'Zimmerman letter', in which the German Foreign Minister > encouraged Mexico to attack the United States, to divert attention > from the European war. The final straw was the message on May 7, 1915 > telling German submarine U-39 to 'get Lucy', ordering the sinking of > the passenger ship Lusitania. Considering that the Zimmerman telegram was sent in January 1917 and the US entered the war in April 1917, it seems fair to state that nothing to do with the Lusitania could have been "the final straw". Mark Brader \ "The world little knows or cares the storm through Toronto \ which you have had to pass. It asks only if you msbrader@interlog.com \ brought the ship safely to port." --Joseph Conrad My text in this article is in the public domain. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #205 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Jul 10 05:59:09 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id FAA13453; Sat, 10 Jul 1999 05:59:09 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 05:59:09 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199907100959.FAA13453@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #206 TELECOM Digest Sat, 10 Jul 99 05:59:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 206 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson At DefCon: Lovable Geeks or Crackers and Phreaks? (Monty Solomon) Third Voice Rips Holes in Web (Monty Solomon) No More Late Fees (Monty Solomon) Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce (Linc Madison) Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce (J.F. Mezei) Re: Snooping OK on Pager Numbers? (Linc Madison) Re: Snooping OK on Pager Numbers? (Terry Kennedy) Re: Qwest: Raising My Intrastate Rates and Imposing Fees (Rickman) Have You Used Siemens Hicom 150E (srini@global.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: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 02:24:25 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: At DefCon: Lovable Geeks or Crackers and Phreaks? http://www.thestandard.com/articles/mediagrok_display/0,1185,5468,00.html At DefCon: Lovable Geeks or Crackers and Phreaks? Time was, only Wired wrote feature articles about hacker conferences. But this year's Melissa and Explore viruses have put malicious computer programs on the front page. So it's not surprising to see the {New York Times} and other outlets previewing DefCon, the annual hacker conference which returns to a soggy Las Vegas this weekend. To hear the Times' Matt Richtel tell it, DefCon is just a big frat party. Geeky, mostly harmless but excessively pierced guys in their 20s (some who "will have their first beer") can spend some quality time with the Feds who spend the rest of the year chasing them. Richtel even got the terminology right, differentiating between hackers and the more malicious "crackers" - a welcome sign that even the grayest of old media gals is becoming a bit more tech savvy. No need to worry about these lovable pups: the worst they've done in past years is hack into casino Web sites or "toyed with elevator systems." Don't you just want to take one home? Well, no one's laughing over at MSNBC. Bob Sullivan led with a warning that a group known as the Cult of the Dead Cow would release an updated software tool at DefCon called "Back Orifice," designed to hijack and control Windows NT machines through the Net. "Much mischief is expected to follow," Sullivan cautioned, shortly before the parenthetical reminder that Microsoft is a partner in MSNBC. The Times' Richtel buried mention of the Back Orifice tool in paragraph 13. The Cult members must be smirking and stifling giggles when they maintain that Back Orifice is just a network administration tool, designed to expose security holes in NT that Microsoft should then fix. No one who's ever dealt with a teenager is stupid enough to buy that. But Richtel went to the trouble to quote Open Source pit-boss Eric Raymond, who expertly told the Times that there was nothing well-meaning in the tool and that "people who do real work don't bother with DefCon." Grok is still trying to figure out if that includes journalists. Bitter Cyberspace Foes Make Nice at Convention http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/07/cyber/articles/09hacker.html [Registration required.] 'Cult' Gives Hackers Weapon vs. NT http://www.msnbc.com/news/287542.asp Inside the Virus Writer's Mind http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/20624.html Does the Media Cause Hacking? http://www.msnbc.com/news/287141.asp Copyright 1999 The Industry Standard ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 02:00:34 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Third Voice Rips Holes in Web by Chris Oakes 3:00 a.m. 9.Jul.99.PDT Third Voice, a Web annotation utility, is more powerful than its authors intended -- in addition to providing freedom of expression, it can call up users' data and be used to generate fake Web pages. Software programmers in the US and Europe have discovered security holes that turn Third Voice into a cracking tool. http://www.wired.com/news/news/technology/story/20636.html [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My, isn't that just wonderful news! When I first reported this here and in Computer Underground Digest a few weeks ago, it was just another case of Pat the Mindless Moderator foaming at the mouth again; making scare tactics and using inflamatory language to describe the service. So, now that others are reporting what I started talking about here the week that the software became available, would you care to listen to them also or will you remain in denial like you were when *I* told you those people were going to be troublesome? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 02:42:29 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: No More Late Fees http://www.thestandard.com/articles/display/0,1449,5446,00.html By Megan Barnett The name says it all: PayMyBills.com. Launching today, it's the latest startup to come out of Idealab's Internet incubator in Pasadena, Calif. While many electronic-bill-presentment firms have tapped the biller and bank space with payment solutions, PayMyBills.com hopes to appeal to the masses. Beginning July 19, consumers can have all of their regular bills paid automatically for $9.95 per month (The fee covers up to 15 bills; each one after that costs another 50 cents). Users have their billers send tabs to PayMyBills' processing center. The company opens the bills, scans them into an online account and sends an e-mail notification. The user then logs onto the account, views the bills, instructs PayMyBills on how and when to pay them, and the service automatically debits the consumer's bank account. The service works independent of financial institutions or billers. "We're freeing the consumer of the entire process," says John Tedesco, PayMyBills' president and CEO. "By paying 100 percent of the bills at one site, we're removing anxiety, stress and aggravation from consumers' lives." Indeed, the company operates under the slogan: "Live life! We'll pay the bills." Tedesco says that he and cofounder Jeff Grass conceived of the idea while travelling in Guatemala last summer in between years at Wharton business school. The pair was able to communicate with friends online and to keep up with news while on the road, but they returned home to late fees and a stack of pending utility cut-off notices due to unpaid balances. After examining the market during their final year in graduate school, the two hooked up with Idealab in April and opened up shop in Pasadena in May. Virginia-based Imaging Acceptance will handle opening and scanning the bills. PayMyBills will complete electronic payments through Chase Manhattan Bank. Costs of running the operation are at their highest point now, Tedesco believes. As technology improves and more billers come online, fewer paper bills will arrive, needing to be handled the old-fashioned way. The electronic-bill-payment market opportunity is tremendous. Forrester Research estimates that less than two million of the 92 million consumers online currently use a bill-payment service. Consumers haven't committed to it largely because of restrictions on either the bank or biller side of the equation. Appealing to consumers will likely work for PayMyBills.com in the short term, but players are entering this marketplace at record speed. Last month, Wells Fargo, First Union and Chase Manhattan formed a consortium to handle payment for both billers and consumers. Players such as CheckFree have had success in serving billers and banks; however, most of the bills they process still involve some kind of paper exchange. Ironically, the spread of paperless billing could spell trouble for third-party sites like PayMyBills. When the billing world finally catches the Internet wave, consumers might prefer to manage their finances at a bank or finance site. Copyright 1999 The Industry Standard ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 15:05:06 -0700 From: LincMad001@telecom-digest.zzn.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce Organization: LincMad Consulting In one of the moderator's notes on this thread, PAT mentioned a "security code" printed on Visa cards, and said this was the first four digits of the card number, printed flat, directly above the embossed number. I think the "security code" that various web merchants are now asking for is the one on the signature stripe on the back of the card. If you look at the signature stripe, you will see your 13- or 16-digit card number with a three-digit suffix, not immediately obvious from the card number. That is the code number that the web merchants should be asking for, not the bank code number that is the first four digits of the card number. Example: Card number 4123 4567 8901 2345, exp 02/01 Bank code 4123 Security code 4123 4567 8901 2345 123 Visa, MasterCard, and Discover all now use this system. I don't know about American Express, as I no longer have an AmEx card, but I would be surprised if they're not doing the same sort of thing. If you have a major card that doesn't have a three-digit suffix code printed on the back, I'd be surprised if it isn't very close to its expiry date. ** 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 will be read sooner! ------------------------------ From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 19:08:01 -0400 Steve Winter wrote: > ACK!!!! (excuse me) ahem... What is to stop that clerk from writing > down your credit card info from the sales slip Correct. And nothing prevents the e-commerce shop from doing the same. HOWEVER, each credit card merchant is monitored by his credit-card agency/bank for fraud amounts. If too much fraud in percentage of sales happens in his shop, it will ring some bells. Also, without a physical card, it restricts the fraudster to phone orders (or e-commerce which is essentially the same). And since phone orders generally require an address where the merchandise is to be shipped, it is much harder to maintain anonymity. (not impossible, but harder). What is left are shops who collude with the fraudster. And they will eventually be detected due to the high fraud amounts. Also, some of the larger banks have sophisticated fraud detection software that analyses the purchase patterns of stolen cards for usage before and after the theft. They can often state that card-X was stolen by the same gang/individual as card-Y because of matching patterns. And on a grander scale, if a single shop or country is involved in a lot of stolen cards, it will ring bells. (for instance, a large percentage of counterfeit cards are often associated with a legitimate trip to an asian city by the cardholder). Furthermore, professional credit-card gathering outfits act as resellers. They will sell the stolen credit card for a certain amount and provide the buyer with a "time since it was stolen" to gauge how fresh the card is. In an e-commerce environment, these thiefs won't have an easy way to collect real money from the sale of credit card numbers (can't send money via email ! (yet). The one advantage is that the card number will stay fresh until it is first mis-used since the cardholder will have no reason to declare it stolen (since the physical card is not stolen). Counterfeit card operators are perhaps the biggest beneficiaries from "sniffing cards" on the internet as they can produce bona-fide hard copy cards which they can sell for real money on the street, and will also often have the address information of the legitimate cardholder in the e-commerce transaction. > No no no no no!!!! (excuse me) ahem ... I mean how can you be so sure > that the employee or anyone else with access to those slips doesn't > copy your number name exp date etc and then do something dishonorable > with it? This is a problem with e-commerce. You have no real way of knowing if an online store is legitimate or not. A teenage kid is propably capable of faking a very professional looking store. And a large monster shop may nt have in-house expertise to produce a nice web site because their expertise is focused on older mainframe technologies. Which "store front" will you trust ? >> 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. From my understanding, SSL can be implemented in many ways. If you use the same key for all transactions, it is not as safe as if you request a new key for each transaction. There is a considerable performance/response time consideration even in the use of SSL. >> 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] I have had dealing with stores via email that ressembled this. One even agreed to photocopy the part of a book I needed and paper-mailed me the photocopies at only the cost of the copies and shipping. Remember that some of the smaller e-commerce storefronts are just a catalogue front end to and e-mail back hand and transactions are handled manually by a real human being which may call or email you to confirm or inform you of backorders etc. And some are highly automated faceless computers that blindly process your order and result in someone in an assembly line putting the right item(s) in the box with your address on it. But this not too different from large mail-order firms who have dealt on the phone-in-orders. The minute a computer is involved banks and people get very nervous. But I wonder why nobody has ever attemped to spy on the inbound phone line for a large mail order firm. Talk about stealing credit card numbers by the dozens ! Stealing from a site such as amazon.com would be harder if they use ssl. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What about the situation recently where > someone was at amazon.com and passed their bank account number only > to later have their account cleaned out? I am curious, does Amazon actually require bank account numbers? Why ? I though that they would stick to credit card orders only. How would your opinion change of e-commerce if you found out that it was an amazon.com employee who fraudulently stole a credit card number? Or an amazon.com IT employee who opened a back-door so one of the thieves could listen in on the conversations? Low and behold, while you are at it, how do you know if an ATM has a line which is physically secure and encrypted? Worse, yet, do you use banking-by-phone? That is totally unencrypted and how do you know nobody is listening in while you type you card's digits and pin number? And if you send a check by paper mail, how do you know it does not get intercepted and your bank account info as well as signature stolen/scanned? > What about the 'everyone > qualifies for a VISA card' program run by the outfit in Clearwater, This is an issue you can take up with Visa International who allowed such an outfit to use their names. I suspect the second Visa Intl finds out one Visa issuer is fraudulent, they'll lose their license very fast. This has nothing to do with e-commerce. > effective one? What about the numerous 'adult' sites which require > the user to present a credit card as 'proof of being over 18' who say > they will not charge the credit card while you use your 'free membership' > and then put through some outrageous charge anyway? Sorry, if you give your credit card number out to an unknown entity, it is your fault. Same could be said to a seedy sex shop who will make copies of your credit card etc etc. > What about the > numerous commercial sites which absolutely insist that you exchange > cookies with them to merely look at their site and then proceed to > trade those cookies around with other devious merchants like themselves? That is another issue not related to e-commerce per say. > You are going to sit there and tell me fraud on the internet is purely > a one-sided thing with the netizens totally at fault and the companies > completely innocent of any wrong doing? PAT] 1- e-commerce captures something very powerful: IMPULSE BUYING. As such, yes, a lot of consumers are lured to a site and buy stuff with their eyes closed. 2- dis-honest merchants will fairly quickly lose their right-to-bill credit card privileges if their fraud rates rise above certain levels. It is no different than other stores or mail-order-by-phone outfits. The only difference in e-commerce is that transmission uses the internet. Should those info-mercials be banned on TV because you can't see what type of store is at the other end ? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Instead of my stance being internet versus real-place, perhaps I should say it is more a matter of preferring to do business in places where I know them and they know me. I just feel better that way. My first choice is to shop in a place where we know each other locally. My second choice is to shop locally even if we do not know each other; I always can go back to see them if necessary. If you add a long distance to the transaction it becomes okay if the company is pretty well known; but if you do not know *who* you are dealing with combined with not really knowing *where* they are at other than being a few strokes on your keyboard, then it becomes uncomfortable for many people, including myself. And as you point out, a con-artist can put up a beautiful looking page on the web; a highly professional looking commercial site, then sit there with no intention of delivering on the goods. Some have done just that. And yes, in personal face to face transactions you can get stung very badly also. Some can be absolutely horrible in their cruelty. A case in Chicago several years ago involved a travel agent responsible for a school trip to Washington DC. Fifty or sixty kids, all 14-15 years old would take the trip. It will cost quite a bit of money, so the kids wash cars, sell candy bars door-to-door, do whatever, and turn over all their money to the teacher, who has one of those big 'thermometer' charts on the wall where the marks each day show how close they are to reaching their goal. The kids' parents pitch in and the money is finally raised, and money is delivered to the travel agent. Okay, see you all bright and early at the airport next Tuesday morning. Comes Tuesday, here are two busloads of school kids at the airport with their teacher and a couple of parent chaparones. No one at Ohare seems to know anything about this trip. A phone call finds the 'travel agent' (who had set up shop for a couple months in a small furnished-office rental place) has split with about a hundred thousand dollars worth of airline ticket stock, and of course monies collected for at least one high school class trip. So here stands this group of minority kids and their adult chaperones wondering what they are going to do now. It turns out the 'agent' had not bothered to pay for the hotel reservations either. A sensitive passenger service agent put in a phone call to United Airline's executive offices a few miles away and said 'someone had come over and deal with this pretty fast ...' an executive from the airline was there about 30 minutes later and had a conference with the teacher and other adults. They still had not told the kids much of anything except that there 'would be a delay' in getting started. The airline executive needed about an hour to get approval from his superiors to get approval to issue a credit slip for an amount of money that size that could be taken over to the ticket agents and get a ticket for everyone, and someone at their headquarters office called the hotel in Washington, DC to get the rooms needed, which they were fortunatly able to get on such short notice. In the story in the {Chicago Tribune} about it the next day, the exec said he went over to talk to the group a few minutes later, and by that point apparently all the kids had found out about it; a couple of them asked him if it was true that 'someone has stolen all of our money' ... he said 'I see all these guys standing there with their duffle bags, Walkman radios, poloroid cameras and other stuff, and it about broke my heart telling them that yes, someone had stolen their money but that the airline would be resolving the matter with the person involved and they'd be able to go on their trip.' With a delay of only about four hours they were on their way. So is it better/worse to get ripped off in a personal transaction in your community by someone who smiles sweetly at you while they are looting your purse in their storefront just a few blocks away who was recommended by someone you know, or is it better/worse to have a retired school teacher learning her way around the internet get ripped off by a 'virtual storefront' who has never been in contact with the 'merchant' before or since? And many Chicagoans will recall the situation a couple years ago involving Margaret Hillis. Miss Hillis was the director of the Chicago Symphony Chorus, an accomplished musician, an extremely creative person. She employed a young man as her personal secretary and gave him the responsibility for her financial affairs, since by her own admission she was not very good with things involving her credit card bills, reconciling her checking account, etc. You can see it coming already can't you ... the young man and his roomate had a taste for the better things in life also, the finer restaurants, the more expensive seats at the Opera; when it all came unraveled, Miss Hillis, an older lady of very high esteem in Chicago was miss- ing about a hundred thousand dollars. There was some concern at first that some of it was money which belonged to Symphony, but it all had come from her personal funds. The young man and his gigolo, money-hungry roomate were both arrested but the money was long since gone, and once they got out on bail, so were they. She couldn't have gotten hurt that bad by turning all her bills over to that new company on the internet and having them handle it. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 15:27:46 -0700 From: LincMad001@telecom-digest.zzn.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Snooping OK on Pager Numbers? Organization: LincMad Consulting In article , Adam H. Kerman wrote: > I'm not aware that there is an existing privacy right. Wireless > communications take place in the shared public spectrum. Use of a > pager does not convey an exclusive license to a portion of the > spectrum while telemetry is sent. > Even those who do hold licenses can only exclude others from > broadcasting, not from listening. > The federal cell phone eavesdropping law is an exception. I still > consider it to be an outrage. > We have the right to be secure in our person, papers, and > possessions. But we have another right, a natural right to use the > public way. That includes the airwaves. The more rights we grant > individuals to use the public way and exclude everyone else, the more > we infringe upon our own rights. By that logic, law enforcement should be permitted to do a wiretap of any regular telephone line, without a court order, with only the consent of the telco, since it is not necessary to enter the subscriber's premises to do so. Indeed, if the wiretap could be effected at the point where the telephone wires are crossing the "public way," then your logic would allow for unregulated wiretaps by anyone for any purpose, so long as they did not damage anyone's property. So, yes, the fact that the conduct I've just described is extremely illegal does infringe upon your rights to wantonly eavesdrop on your neighbors/friends/business competitors/etc., but I, for one, think that's a very GOOD thing. As to the right to privacy, clearly the U.S. needs to follow the lead of California and put it explicitly into the Constitution. ** 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 will be read sooner! ------------------------------ From: Terry Kennedy Subject: Re: Snooping OK on Pager Numbers? Organization: St. Peter's College, US Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 03:19:06 GMT Adam H. Kerman writes: > The federal cell phone eavesdropping law is an exception. I still > consider it to be an outrage. Indeed. If cellphones were supposed to be secure, they would have been encrypted. However, the same set of statutes forbids receiving pager signals, except for tone-only pagers. Given that any random pager frequency likely carries a mix of POCSAG, Flex, and tone-only traffic, this is obviously unenforceable. However, the end result is that frequencies that have any pager traffic at all are illegal to listen to (since I don't know of any tone-only systems still in use). 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: Rickman Subject: Re: Qwest: Raising My Intrastate Rates and Imposing Fees Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 18:10:56 -0400 Mike Beaty 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 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. > 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 > ;-). I recently switched to ACT/erbia which promises 6.9 cents per min interstate and 5.25 per min intrastate in VA. You can check them out at their web site at http://advanced-communication.com/ They claim there is no minimum, no monthly fee and the calls are billed in one second increments. I don't see a down side. They bill direct rather than over the internet or on your phone bill. I have them at one of my houses and just switched at the other. Rick Collins rick.collins@XYarius.com remove the XY to email me. Arius - A Signal Processing Solutions Company Specializing in DSP and FPGA design Arius 4 King Ave Frederick, MD 21701-3110 301-682-7772 Voice 301-682-7666 FAX Internet URL http://www.arius.com ------------------------------ From: srini@global.com Subject: Have You Used Siemens Hicom 150E Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 06:28:31 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. Hello, I am considering the purchase of a Siemens Hicom 150E phone system. If you have used this system, I would like to hear your opinion about it. Thanks, srinis@dejanews.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #206 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Jul 10 21:38:31 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id VAA08671; Sat, 10 Jul 1999 21:38:31 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 21:38:31 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199907110138.VAA08671@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #207 TELECOM Digest Sat, 10 Jul 99 21:38:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 207 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Bills Would Fence Off the Facts (Fred Goodwin) Re: Does Anyone on the West Coast Use Caller ID? (Rickman) Re: Please Contact FCC re: SBC/Ameritech Merger (Steven Lichter) Re: Hazards of the Young and Mobile (L. Winson) Re: Hazards of the Young and Mobile (myself@best.com) Re: Hazards of the Young and Mobile (Pete Weiss) International Calls to Cellular = Big $$$ (Admin) Re: Request For Local Calling Area Information (Tony Toews) Re: Baby Steps Toward Privacy Marketing (Thor Lancelot Simon) Re: Third Voice Rips Holes in Web (Thomas A. Horsley) Re: Satellite GPS Can Locate Wireless Phones Within 15 Feet (L. Erickson) Re: US Admits Crypto Export Controls are About Signals Intelligence (Mezei) Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce (James Bellaire) Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce (Steve Winter) Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce (Johnnie Leung) Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce (James H. Cloos Jr.) 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: Fred Goodwin Subject: Re: Bills Would Fence Off the Facts Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 15:09:15 -0500 monty@roscom.com (Monty Solomon) wrote in : > There are two competing bills that would protect data compilers by > prohibiting the duplication of their databases. Critics fear the more > restrictive of the two, Collections of Information Antipiracy Act > (HR354), would make criminals of companies that collect and aggregate > data -- companies like Yahoo and Amazon.com. > http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/20550.html The proposed law says you can collect facts independently of extracting them from a database: Nothing in this chapter shall restrict any person from independently gathering information or using information obtained by means other than extracting it from a collection of information gathered . . . by another person ... Could someone please explain to me how HR354 makes criminals out of Amazon and Yahoo? Fred Goodwin, CMA Associate Director -- Technology Program Management SBC Technology Resources, Inc. 9505 Arboretum, 9th Floor, Austin, TX 78759 fgoodwin@tri.sbc.com (512) 372-5921 (512) 372-5991 fax ------------------------------ From: Rickman Subject: Re: Does Anyone on the West Coast Use Caller ID? Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 17:13:59 -0400 Steve Uhrig wrote: > Steven Lichter wrote: >> 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. > Probably for good reason. I keep all of our switch room phones > blocked also. If you call a customer with the CID on, they think they > now have a personal phone number to report their problems to. I get > enough phone calls each day without having customers calling in > wanting to report their problems to me instead of the 800 reporting > number. But how do you call people if 60% or 80% (I forget which) of the people in CA have you blocked? Or are you in another state? Rick Collins rick.collins@XYarius.com remove the XY to email me. Arius - A Signal Processing Solutions Company Specializing in DSP and FPGA design Arius 4 King Ave Frederick, MD 21701-3110 301-682-7772 Voice 301-682-7666 FAX Internet URL http://www.arius.com ------------------------------ From: stevenl11@aol.comstuffit (Steven Lichter) Date: 09 Jul 1999 21:32:06 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Please Contact FCC re: SBC/Ameritech Merger It would an act of God to stop that merger now. Now on the other hand stopping the GTE HellAtlantic would have a chance. 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: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (L. Winson) Subject: Re: Hazards of the Young and Mobile Date: 9 Jul 1999 22:14:09 GMT Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS Aren't hand-held cell phones a much lower power rating than the older style "bag" phones to avoid the risk of electronic field emissions? ------------------------------ From: myself@best.com Subject: Re: Hazards of the Young and Mobile Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 08:09:03 GMT Organization: Airnews.net! at Internet America On Fri, 9 Jul 1999 01:20:23 -0400, Monty Solomon wrote: > http://tbtf.com/archive/1999-07-08.html > ..Is your cell phone damaging your brain? > The research arm of the cell-phone industry, Wireless Technology Re- > search, was asked to get to the bottom of persistent rumors that > cell-phone use may endanger human brains. Their results [33] suggest > a correlation between cell-phone emissions and brain tumors and DNA > breakage in rats. While far from conclusive, this research demands > in-depth follow-up studies. What else is new? "We did some research and we found that we need more money." ------------------------------ From: pete-weiss@psu.edu (Pete Weiss) Subject: Re: Hazards of the Young and Mobile Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 09:20:11 -0400 Organization: Penn State University -- Office of Administrative Systems On Fri, 9 Jul 1999 01:20:23 -0400, Monty Solomon wrote: > Their results [33] suggest > a correlation between cell-phone emissions and brain tumors and DNA > breakage in rats. I was unaware that they had cell-phones small enough for rats to use ;-) Pete ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 15:18:33 -0400 From: Admin Subject: International Calls to Cellular = Big $$$ Dear Pat, I have just received a comprehensive rate proposal (for our T-1 dedicated service) from one of the larger carriers and I note that pricing per minute to international cellular phones is between $.20 and $.30 USD per minute higher than the per-minute cost to a wired phone in those same countries. I know that the policy outside of N. America is that "caller pays" but Holy Cow! Perhaps list members in those countries (or US carrier "insiders") can comment on what the price difference per minute **really** is with their country and/or whether this is the latest carrier "inflate-the-bill" technique. Countries that appear on the rate sheet which have "cellular" as well as "regular" rates are: Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Columbia, Ecuador, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Israel, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, Singapore, Sweden, Switzerland and the U.K. (I have no doubt that this list will grow. Programming for resellers will be a nightmare for sure.) Doug Terman Operations Manager Antilles Engineering, Ltd. ------------------------------ From: ttoews@telusplanet.net (Tony Toews) Subject: Re: Request For Local Calling Area Information Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 19:41:44 GMT Shawn Chandler wrote: > 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. For what it's worth this used to be very important to Fidonet sysops. All netmail (Internet name is email) and echoes (Internet name is newsgroups) used to be transferred via long distance call. As a result it was very important to know which phone numbers were long distance and which were local. The long distance phone numbers would be called only in the cheap calling time as per your local telco. The sysops would pass this information around in the form of text files for the front door programs and was given to any new sysops. Special arrangements would be made to "relay" echomail and netmail via BBSs in various local calling areas which in turn were local to more calling areas. Now however, up here in Canada anyhow, we have $20 per month unlimited evenings and weekend calling so this is less of a consideration. Also much of Fidonets echomail and netmail is now transferred via FTP protocols. Fidonet itself, of course, has lost, maybe 70% to 90% of its traffic in North America in the last few years as the Internet has become a local phone call to many people. It is still popular in Europe and other places around the world due to the lack of cheap ISPs and expensive cost of local calls. Now if you could hook up to the Fidonet network and ask your question in some sysop areas you might very well be flooded with these files. 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: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) Subject: Re: Baby Steps Toward Privacy Marketing Date: 10 Jul 1999 02:44:43 -0400 Organization: PANIX -- Public Access Networks Corp. Reply-To: tls@rek.tjls.com In article , Monty Solomon wrote: > http://tbtf.com/archive/1999-07-08.html > Personally I consider these actions to be baby steps. The existence > of a privacy policy does not demonstrate a company's commitment to > protect consumer privacy -- merely a pledge not to violate it in > secret. Exactly. The privacy policy for one (prominent) web site I did some work on was truly outrageous -- about 80 lines of legal gobbledegook that, ultimately, boiled down to a simple notion: you, the user, have no privacy at all. They'll sell your data to anyone they want to, without telling you, in aggregate or in specific ... you get the idea. Given that, all this "we won't do business with you if you don't have a privacy policy" garbage seems like an ornate marketing smokescreen to ward off legislative action. Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com "And where do all these highways go, now that we are free?" ------------------------------ From: Tom.Horsley@worldnet.att.net (Thomas A. Horsley) Subject: Re: Third Voice Rips Holes in Web Date: 10 Jul 1999 08:51:58 -0400 Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services > would you care to listen to them also > or will you remain in denial like you were when *I* told you those > people were going to be troublesome? You still have to install the Third Voice software on your computer to have a problem. Since only morons will use it, only morons have problems :-). >>==>> The *Best* political site >>==+ email: Tom.Horsley@worldnet.att.net icbm: Delray Beach, FL | Free Software and Politics <<==+ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: No, no ... the morons who install it will not have the problem, the web sites where they use it will have the problem. At least that's how I read it. Was I wrong? PAT] ------------------------------ From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) Subject: Re: Satellite GPS Can Locate Wireless Phones Within 15 Feet Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 05:21:31 PST Organization: Shadownet Bud Couch writes: > 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- > [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? And in both his scenario and yours, I can just stick the phone inside my lunchbox, which *just happens* to be all metal and form a nice faraday cage when closed. Heck, just wrapping it in alumium foil may work. The phone can't respond to signals that never reach it, nor can it send a signal that'll get anywhere outside the box. :-) Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow) shadow@krypton.rain.com <--preferred leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com <--last resort [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And you can shape up and fly right, or you won't be in a position to have a lunchbox at all; in fact you may be in someone's metal 'lunchbox' one of these days. :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: J.F. Mezei Subject: Re: US Admits Crypto Export Controls are About Signals Intelligence Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 18:08:22 -0400 Monty Solomon wrote: >> The SIGINT capabilities of the United States can be signifi- >> cantly compromised by the use of encryption. Either I am very stupid or the US government is very naive here. Can someone please explain to me why preventing export of a US encryption product would prevent foreigners from encrypting their data/messages with foreign-built encryption systems? Does the United States of America *really* believe that it is the only one of the world capable of building encryption systems that cannot be defeated? Does it really believe that other developped countries don't have good enough education systems to produce scientists capable of generating very strong algorythms? I am sorry if this sounds nasty, but I sincerely fail to understand why the United States of America continues to insist on preventing encryption exports. I assume that there must be some valid reason somewhere. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 11:19:27 -0500 From: James Bellaire Subject: Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce In TELECOM Digest V19 #202, Pat wrote: > But if your business on the net is legitmate, try adding these few > extras to your validation process -- > 'What is the security code on your card?' I believe the answer is > always that they will be the same as the first four embossed digits > although some VISA operators may choose to not put them there or > use them. A person with only a fraud number and name might well not > know about 'those extra four tiny digits printed above the account > number.' Thanks for telling them. Personally I don't like asking for the "security code" because some folks may confuse that term with PIN number -- and give you a non matching number. > ALWAYS get the address in the user's own words, and spend the couple > cents extra in the sales authorization process to use Address > Verification Service. Make sure the user knows this is the ONLY > address which can be used for delivery. Most net commerce transactions I have done have required address verification -- and this is where the first four numbers come in handy too. Ask what bank the card was issued by. Still possible to know with a photocopy, but a good use for those digits. The general ideas about identifying the IP numbers and networks are useful. My wife got suckered on one of those 'shipping charge' scams (mentioned in another post) at work about two years ago. When she got the book and the bill she sent it straight back by return UPS. They won't fool her twice. I treat e-commerce the same way as I treat mail to my home. If the pitch is unsolicited, the pitch is pitched. If the deal is too good to be true, it probably is. Trust but verify. (Any other cliche phrases? Still good advice.) My first and hard fast rule is a FIXED ADDRESS for the business. > is someone going to log in to your site at 5 AM on Sunday morning to > make a purchase using a credit card issued to a business? Yes -- and I have done that with the company card -- in the middle of the night. I don't mind using net commerce -- but I keep paranoid enough to prevent being burned. James Bellaire http://tk.com/telecom/ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Your mention of requiring a fixed address is something I have thought should be required. I would require that any site using .com have its correct legal name, its street address and a non-800 telephone number posted consicuously on the site. Any site which had things for sale (either actual tangible goods or just 'information', 'consulting', etc *OR* which required money to enter the site *OR* required the use of cookies to enter the site would be required to be situated as .com and observe the above rules. A sole proprietor or partnership or DBA thing would post their real names and addresses. A corporation would name the place in which it was incorporated and provide the name, address and telephone number of the person who was registered agent. The site could certainly use post office boxes and toll- free telephones if was more convenient for them to do so in the conduct of their business (or should we say the misconduct in a few cases?) as long as any netizen could see who they were. I might even suggest including a statement: 'our IP address is xxx.xxx.xxx. which is serviced by (name of ISP)' There are precedents for this in real life. The California Commercial Code requires a variation on this in newspaper/magazine advertising. In Illinois and many other states, persons who engage in certain kinds of businesses are required to idenitfy themselves. As an example in Illinois, a person engaged in 'the sale of alcoholic beverages at retail' (in other words, a tavern) must post on the wall somewhere in his establishment a copy of his city and state licenses both of which include his true name and **residence address** which he gave as identification at the time his license was issued/renewed. If owned by a corporation, then the same license will include the name of an actual person -- usually an attorney acting as registered agent -- and that person's office address and telephone number. Therefore if you go into a 7/Eleven Store in Chicago and buy some beer, if you look around you will see a certificate mounted on the wall saying that the license is held by Southland Corporation in Dallas, TX with some person's name and street address on it. Regards its 'conspicuous' display, they follow the letter if not the spirit of the law, and you may have to look hard to find it or squint your eyes to read it it it is mounted at a distance away such as behind the bar, but it will be there. The same people who must display a license in 'plain view' must also display evidence of their insurance coverage which will be either a certificate from their insurance company or a notice issued by the state saying that '(proprietor) has deposited a surety bond in the amount of (dollars) with the Secretary of State of Illinois to insure the protection of any patron' of the establishment up to (dollar amount) because of an accident, etc. And somewhere near the front door or on the door itself, the pertinent state laws about not serving minors, and requiring identification have to be displayed. I do not think it is unreasonable to require that persons on the net who transact business, demand cookies, etc lose a bit of their privacy. They still have rights of course, they just cannot hide and make it difficult for people to contact them; just like it is now in physical business places. How would this be implemented in an orderly way? Over a one or two year transition period, the agency or whoever is responsible as the domain name registrar would require that any new applicant for .com provide the required identification before getting the domain name assigned. Existing businesses would be required to comply with the rules beginning with their next renewal or the one following if the next one was less than a year away. Existing users with a domain name in .com who were NOT defined as above i.e. they do not solicit, they do not require money or an exchange of cookies in order to visit the site, would be invited at their convenience and at their option to relocate using whenever possible the same identical domain name but in .org or .net or something else. For as long as practical, their 'old' location would be forwarded to their 'new', non-.com location. They could remain in .com if desired, but be subject to the rules after a one or two year grace period. Just as .edu .us .gov and other names are restricted in use to only the agencies or institutions which are entitled to use them, so would the .com name be restricted to those places which were identified as such and had obtained (in effect) a 'license', like any store in your community would do. That's how I would do it. Steve Winter asked my opinion on sites such as publiceye and others which serve a kind of 'Better Business Bureau' function on the net. This is good, and should be encouraged. Assuming those organizations **have teeth and can enforce the use of their logo** I think voluntary participation in them shows the merchant's good faith in working with the net community. This is the same reason that I applied for, and was granted permission to place the logo of RSAC-i on the front page of http://telecom-digest.org ... the Recreational Software Advisory Council for the Internet encourages sites to voluntarily allow them- selves to be rated and registered for the benefit of Frightened Mothers and others who feel a need to control what their children might look at. There is no charge of any kind for registering; just like Truste and its 'Privacy Partners' program for small web sites, it is something the public will recognize as a place where sneaky things will not go on behind their back. I encourage participation by web sites in programs like that. PAT] ------------------------------ From: steve@sellcom.com (Steve Winter) Subject: Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 17:43:52 GMT Organization: WWW.SELLCOM.COM Reply-To: steve@sellcom.com JF Mezei spake thusly and wrote: > This is a problem with e-commerce. You have no real way of knowing if > an online store is legitimate or not. A teenage kid is propably > capable of faking a very professional looking store. And a large > monster shop may nt have in-house expertise to produce a nice web site > because their expertise is focused on older mainframe technologies. > Which "store front" will you trust ? That is why sites like www.thepubliceye.com have value. > And if you send a check by paper mail, how do you know it does not get > intercepted and your bank account info as well as signature stolen/scanned? Good point. 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 mentions sites like The Public Eye and again, **assuming those sites are legit and have teeth** and in the case mentioned I have no reason to doubt they are not legit. They serve an important role in educating netizens about 'which store front they can trust' on the net. Unless of course, you would rather just have the government take it all over and supervise everything. I would prefer to see how far we as netizens can go on our own in that direction first however. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Johnnie Leung Subject: Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 12:03:01 -0700 Organization: Netcom Linc Madison wrote in message ... > Visa, MasterCard, and Discover all now use this system. I don't know > about American Express, as I no longer have an AmEx card, but I would > be surprised if they're not doing the same sort of thing. American Express cards have the account number embossed on the reverse side, but not on the signature strip and without any additional 'security code'. However, AmEx cards have a four-digit number, whose purpose I have never been able to determine, printed close to the right edge, immediately above the last digits of the card number. > If you have > a major card that doesn't have a three-digit suffix code printed on > the back, I'd be surprised if it isn't very close to its expiry date. Then be surprised. My Royal Bank Visa (Canadian) that I received two months ago doesn't even have the card number, let alone the three-digit code, on the back. Johnnie Leung ------------------------------ From: James H. Cloos Jr. Subject: Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce Date: 10 Jul 1999 16:23:23 -0500 Organization: Illuminati Online Derek Balling writes: > All this talk of "imprinting" confuses me ... when was the last > time your card actually got imprinted? How about a week or two ago? If you charge, eg a taxi ride or delivered take out, they will, in my experience, use a portable imprinter. Many stores take the info via their fully automated, latest tech POS terminal and then imprint the printed receipts. I've even seen that done where the signature was recorded electronicly. One must presume that these vendors get a break on their merchant fees for doing this. Or at least have an easier time preventing chargeoffs. James H. Cloos, Jr. 1024D/ED7DAEA6 E9E9 F828 61A4 6EA9 0F2B 63E7 997A 9F17 ED7D AEA6 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: A lot of places even though fully on the 'card swipe' system still will imprint the card somewhere. A Radio Shack store near me swipes the card and does it all through the cash register, but then they take their copy of the sales reciept which was generated by the same cash register and put it in the little machine which imprints your number on their copy, and they have you sign it for their own records. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #207 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Jul 11 17:12:44 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id RAA10035; Sun, 11 Jul 1999 17:12:44 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 17:12:44 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199907112112.RAA10035@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #208 TELECOM Digest Sun, 11 Jul 99 17:12:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 208 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson US West Providing Cheap DSL With One Little Restriction (Paul Robinson) Re: US Admits Crypto Export Controls are About Signals Intell (Brett) Re: US Admits Crypto Export Controls are About Signals Intell (Ed Ellers) Third Voice Updates System to Bolster Security (Monty Solomon) Re: Third Voice Rips Holes in Web (Daniel W. Johnson) Re: Third Voice Rips Holes in Web (Zach Babayco) Re: Does Anyone on the West Coast Use Caller ID? (Steve Uhrig) Re: Does Anyone on the West Coast Use Caller ID? (Doug McIntyre) Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce (Dale Neiburg) Re: Bills Would Fence Off the Facts (John R. Levine) 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: 11 Jul 1999 04:25:36 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: US West Providing Cheap DSL With One Little Restriction C-NET Internet Radio carried an interview with Matt Rouder, an executive from U.S. West, the telephone company which operates in the mid- and northwest, who explained how they are providing extremely inexpensive 256K Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) service, at $20 a month. Note this is 256K symmetric capability, meaning the speed is 256K bits per second in both directions. Note that this price is plus ISP charges which the user can either get from USWest for an additional $18 a month or from any of about 175-200 ISPs operating in their service area, as long as you're willing to accept it with one tiny difference between it and "standard" DSL. This may or may not be tiny depending on your opinion, however. You have to dial up, same as with a typical analog modem. The service is called "Megabit Select" and you connect into a modem pool in the central office. "If a port is available you get the same dedicated bandwidth and high-performance of the typical DSL service" which is a permanent connection. The company is rolling this out in a limited testbed of four cities in the U.S., including Portland, Oregon; Tacoma and Seattle, Washington. It is expected within six months to be available in about 40 cities in the U.S. West Service area which includes the states of AZ CO ID IA MN MT NE NM ND OR SD UT WA & WY. However Mr. Rouder said he hopes within the next 3-5 months that, anyone who can get Megabit service from U.S. West will be able to get Megabit Select service. The modem is identical with the standard DSL modem which is used for the usual "always on" DSL service with the exception that it has a different software package to allow it to support dial-up capability. Unlike Cable Modems, service on DSL does not degrade as more users in your neighborhood sign up because the bandwidth you are supplied is dedicated. Mr. Rouder pointed out that unlike the restrictions of an @HOME service limiting upstream bandwidth and other rules, there are no restrictions on what you can use their DSL service for, you can have your own ISP (you don't have to use US West), and "you can put up a web server on your machine", or "whatever you want". U.S. West is also offering the hardware at essentially give away prices during a promotional offer. Literally, if you order off the web, in the case of an internal DSL modem, which is free, and $50 for an external model. One-Time installation charge is $59. This does not include hooking up the modem, but Mr. Roder says 90% of customers decide to install the modem themselves and 85% of those who try to do so are successful. Check out This week on CNET radio for the listing of shows, and choose the 2:00 PM Wednesday show for complete details. The audio for this show may be heard using the link for Windows Media or RealAudio. Note, however, that in some places you can get regular DSL for about $50. See a follow-up article for details on that. Paul Robinson (Formerly Paul@TDR.COM, TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM among too many others.) ------------------------------ From: brettf@netcom.com (Brett Frankenberger) Subject: Re: US Admits Crypto Export Controls are About Signals Intelligence Date: 11 Jul 1999 03:36:20 GMT Organization: rbfnet In article , J.F. Mezei wrote: > Monty Solomon wrote: >>> The SIGINT capabilities of the United States can be signifi- >>> cantly compromised by the use of encryption. > Either I am very stupid or the US government is very naive here. Can > someone please explain to me why preventing export of a US encryption > product would prevent foreigners from encrypting their data/messages > with foreign-built encryption systems? If you believe that the restrictions on export have not ever prevented a target of US electronic interception from encrypting their communications using a level of sophistication that the US Government cannot break, then you are naive. Export restrictions won't prevent all international use of high-security encrpytion, just as the police can't prevent all crime. But restrictions to reduce the usage of such encrpytion, just as the police do prevent some crime. "If you make it harder to obtain, fewer people will obtain it." > Does the United States of America *really* believe that it is the only > one of the world capable of building encryption systems that cannot be > defeated? No. However, the United States of America *really* believes that it is a major source of such technology, and that, by restricting the export thereof, it will make it more difficult for organizations outside the US to obtain encryption that the US Government cannot break, and that such an increase in difficulty will lead to a higher percentage of intercepted traffic being broken by the US Government. Regardless of the export laws, there will always be some intercepted traffic that the US Government can break, and some intercepted traffic that they cannot. The export law is all about favorably adjusting the balance between those two categories of traffic. Here's a simple example: While it's prefectly legal for USAns (living in the USA) to have the 128-bit version of Netscape, one consequence of the export law is that it's harder to get the 128-bit version than the 56-bit version (you have to full out a page of information for the 128-bit version). So a lot of people in the USA are probably using 56-bit SSL even though 128-bit is readily available to them, because 56-bit is easier to get. It's safe to assume that this logic applies to at least some overseas communications that the US is interested in listening to, > Does it really believe that other developed countries > don't have good enough education systems to produce scientists capable > of generating very strong algorythms? Encryption technology is much more complex that "educating a scientist, then having him write code". If all these other countries can develop rock solid algorithms, how come everyone in the USoA, where it's legal for private entities to get their encryption from *anywhere*, get their encryption using algorithms developed in the good ole USoA? (For example: a 128-bit key isn't very good if the random number generator that picks the key isn't very random. Code developed overseas is unlikely to be as robust as the constantly hacked-at and checked-out code written in the USoA.) But, yes, most foreign governments/organizations are capable of getting code written for themselves; however, the facts are that some of them will elect not to avail themselves of the opportunity. > I am sorry if this sounds nasty, but I sincerely fail to understand > why the United States of America continues to insist on preventing > encryption exports. I assume that there must be some valid reason > somewhere. Some of what I wrote above makes it sound as if I support maintaining the export restrictions. Nothing could be further from the truth. I think the current state of technology is such that the net benefit from the US Government being able to break some additional messages is vastly outweighed by the net cost to business of having to deal with silly export rules (has anyone ever carried a laptop with the 128bit NetScape out of the counter (Except to Canada)? -- that's illegal ...) and the net cost to businesses that can't sell their encryption software overseas. With the availablility of publically disclosd algorithms, and the legality of exporting information about such algorithms, and the fact that relatively low-end hardware (that isn't export controlled) can execute such algorithms, the number of interception breaks that are made possible by the export limitations are very small. We're restricted to targets that would (a) like to use lots-o-bits encryption and (b) aren't smart enough, or willing to spend the time, to write their own code or find a non-US company to sell them an executable. I'm just pointing out that there are real issues -- security isn't binary. Some outsiders have good encryption now, some don't. The same will be true if they get rid of this silly law, but the balance will shift -- the number of outsiders that have it will increase, the number that don't hve it will decrease. -- Brett ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: US Admits Crypto Export Controls are About Signals Intelligence Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 22:26:17 -0400 J.F. Mezei (jfmezei@videotron.ca) wrote: > Either I am very stupid or the US government is very naive here. Can > someone please explain to me why preventing export of a US encryption > product would prevent foreigners from encrypting their data/messages with > foreign-built encryption systems? It wouldn't, but it may well be that the NSA (or whoever) wants to *reduce* the variety of algorithms that they need to crack, even though some will still remain. > I am sorry if this sounds nasty, but I sincerely fail to understand > why the United States of America continues to insist on preventing > encryption exports. I assume that there must be some valid reason > somewhere. One editorial I saw a while back claimed that the real, hidden reason may be diplomacy. France has extremely strict controls on *domestic* use of cryptography, so strict that some of the later versions of MS-DOS had to be modified for use in France, and it is widely believed that the intention is to prevent French citizens from using any scheme that the French security services can't crack. If the U.S. lifted its export restrictions, strong crypto programs would then be made freely available on FTP sites in the U.S., and the theory is that the French government would see this as interfering in their domestic affairs and would retaliate by being even less cooperative with the U.S. than they already are (for example, they might ignore the embargo on oil exports from Iraq). ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 10:58:06 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Third Voice Updates System to Bolster Security http://www.thirdvoice.com/about/7-9-99release.htm Third Voice Adds New Redundancies to Further Secure System, Protect User Privacy REDWOOD CITY, Calif. - July 9, 1999 - Third Voice Inc., developers of the online service that allows users to post notes on any Web page, today announced that the company has added additional security precautions to its already robust system. Following information obtained earlier this week that claimed Web users could insert Java-type code into Third Voice notes, Third Voice immediately included new preventative measures to further detect and block harmful code from entering the system. Third Voice added the new security enhancements to the server side of its system, which will not affect the usage of Third Voice nor require users to download new software. "We will not tolerate anyone using Third Voice for malicious or deviant purposes," said Eng-Siong Tan, CEO and co-founder of Third Voice. "We have taken extra steps to further bolster the security of our system, and we will continue to prevent Third Voice from becoming a launching pad for malicious behavior, such as spreading viruses. We can assure all Third Voice users that we will not compromise the integrity of our system, and we will not violate the privacy of our users." To date, Third Voice users have not reported any harm coming from security violations, nor have any users accessed Third Voice to spread a virus. The company will continue to focus on making the system impossible to attack. Since the company's launch in May, security has been a No. 1 priority. The original system architecture included inherent redundancies to prevent harmful code from entering Third Voice for malicious use. The first level of security is on the client side where Third Voice has installed code to remove all text the system does not support, such as applets, objects and iframe. For text that the system does support, the client side conducts a second level of cleansing by removing all tags that could run harmful code. As part of the new security enhancements, Third Voice further sanitizes the notes by repeating security measures on the server side, where it now rejects all text the system does not support and removes tags that could contain harmful code. Additionally, the company has worked around the clock to clean up all existing notes to ensure the system is free of potentially harmful code. As with all security issues, Third Voice will continue to keep its users informed. Third Voice's support team is available to answer users' questions about the service. Users can email Third Voice directly at support@thirdvoice.com, and the company will respond within 24 hours. About Third Voice, Inc. Third Voice is committed to enabling inline discussion forums for private, group or public interaction. The Third Voice service allows users to freely and openly express ideas at points of references anywhere in a Web page. Based in Redwood City, Calif., the company is privately held and venture funded by Mayfield Fund and Draper Fisher Jurvetson. For more information, visit the Third Voice home page at www.thirdvoice.com or call 650.591.1200. Copyright 1999 Third Voice, Inc. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Third Voice Rips Holes in Web From: panoptes@iquest.net (Daniel W. Johnson) Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 12:35:10 -0500 TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Thomas A. Horsley : > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: No, no ... the morons who install it > will not have the problem, the web sites where they use it will have > the problem. At least that's how I read it. Was I wrong? PAT] Page 1: "Bowers said he could use the security glitch, for example, to cause faked versions of a Web page to appear to Third Voice users." "A Third Voice user interacting with a fake page ...." Page 2: "To test their feat, they claim to have placed scripts inside sticky notes that, when viewed by other Third Voice users, put login and password information at risk." "To be vulnerable, a Third Voice user has only to ...." I can find no reference in the article to using Third Voice to mess with web sites themselves. Daniel W. Johnson panoptes@iquest.net http://members.iquest.net/~panoptes/ 039 53 36 N / 086 11 55 W ------------------------------ From: Zach Babayco Subject: Re: Third Voice Rips Holes in Web Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 19:03:47 -0500 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Let me delurk here for a sec: No matter what security holes or whatever they find in this program, the fact remains that *the only people who this affects are those who installed the program on their system!!!!* Likewise, if you don't have it installed, like the vast majority of Net users, *you won't see the comments!!!!* The actual sites aren't changed in the slightest - the changes are stored on Third Voice's servers, and all the program does is route you to the server instead of the actual site. I honestly don't see where people are getting the idea that this program somehow goes out and changes sites - if you take the time to learn a little bit about the product, you'll see that's not the case. Zach Babayco zbabayco@oz-online.net "Applying computer technology is simply finding the right wrench to pound in the correct screw." ------------------------------ From: Steve Uhrig Subject: Re: Does Anyone on the West Coast Use Caller ID? Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 23:00:11 -0400 Organization: bright.net Ohio Rickman wrote: >> Probably for good reason. I keep all of our switch room phones >> blocked also. If you call a customer with the CID on, they think they >> now have a personal phone number to report their problems to. I get >> enough phone calls each day without having customers calling in >> wanting to report their problems to me instead of the 800 reporting >> number. > But how do you call people if 60% or 80% (I forget which) of the people > in CA have you blocked? If I have to call a line with ACR I can use a test phone that is outgoing calls only, or I can turn off their blocking to call them and then turn it back on after the call. > Or are you in another state? I am in Ohio. The number of lines with ACR is probably lower here than in California, but there are still a lot of them. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Does Anyone on the West Coast Use Caller ID? From: merlyn@visi.com (Doug McIntyre) Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 06:51:38 GMT Rickman writes: > Steve Uhrig wrote: >> Steven Lichter wrote: >>> 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. >> Probably for good reason. I keep all of our switch room phones >> blocked also. If you call a customer with the CID on, they think they >> now have a personal phone number to report their problems to. I get >> enough phone calls each day without having customers calling in >> wanting to report their problems to me instead of the 800 reporting >> number. > But how do you call people if 60% or 80% (I forget which) of the people > in CA have you blocked? > Or are you in another state? I can't believe the PBX system in use wouldn't let you set outgoing caller number on your outgoing calls. Mine does, (an Inter-tel Axxess), where we have support stations report themselves to be the general support DID, while my phone reports itself on outgoing calls as my own DID. We don't want customers grabbing support people's DID's and calling them directly, they just need to call into the general support ACD group. I know USWest also does the same thing, their Interprise division has one of two DIDs that all their calls appear as no matter where the actual techs are in the country (most are based out of Minneapolis anyway). This is with PRI's feeding our trunks. Doug McIntyre merlyn@visi.com Network Engineer/Tech Support/Jack of All Trades of Vector Internet Due to circumstances beyond your control, you are master of your fate and captain of your soul. ------------------------------ From: Dale Neiburg Subject: Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 14:26:15 -0400 In TELECOM Digest V19 #206, Linc Madison wrote: > Visa, MasterCard, and Discover all now use this system. I don't know > about American Express, as I no longer have an AmEx card, but I would > be surprised if they're not doing the same sort of thing. If you have > a major card that doesn't have a three-digit suffix code printed on > the back, I'd be surprised if it isn't very close to its expiry date. My American Express card (renewed two months ago) doesn't have the three-digit suffix on the back. Also (possibly since it's not issued by a bank as such), the bank code on front doesn't match the first four digits of the account number. Dale Neiburg ** NPR Satellite Operations ** 202-414-2640 I'm the guy...who put the "fun" in "dysfunctional"! [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I don't know if you knew it or not, but Amex got hit with an internal fraud a few years ago. One of the employees in their credit card processing center -- I think it is in Phoenix -- an insider with a lot of sophistication regards credit card processing/billing operations put together a scheme which allowed accounts which were unused for several years; i.e. dormant because the customer no longer wanted to use Amex, to get 're-issued' with new cards sent to the post office box of a confederate. Many of the 're-issued' accounts were so old Amex had no up-to-date credit inform- ation on file, and in most cases not even a microfilm copy of the original credit application; that is how old some of them were. The idea was, when the card was abused, the account aged out and went to collection, he did not want the collectors to have anywhere to go with it. If the collector tried to order microfilm of the original credit application so he could review it and find some information about the debtor, he would get nothing. If the collector ordered microfilm of the charge tickets, he would get that, but this guy and his confederate carefully avoided making any charges where paperwork could be produced showing a delivery-address or a license plate number from a car, etc. Since many gasoline service stations used to write down the license number of the car when a credit card was presented for a purchase, that posed a problem, you see, because among other tools at the collector's disposal are driver's records for all fifty states. The ones for Illinois used to be delivered from the Secretary of State's office on about ten reels of microfilm a couple times per year; in more recent times it is all computerized. The con-artist figured he was in the clear since the post office box the cards went out to was in the confederate's name and the confederate had his signature on the cards and the charge purchases (never, never do to have your own handwriting on those things would it?). The con-artist figured he was in the clear since it was basically a one-man operation with the confederate getting the cards, abusing them and then ditching them with the understanding that if he wanted cards to keep on arriving at that post office box addressed to customers who 'decided to reactivate their Amex account' that appropriate kick-backs in the form of cash had better keep making their way back to him in clandestine meetings now and then. By spacing out the 're-issued' accounts through the alphabet in such a way that they occurred randomly in all billing cycles (I think there were 22 billing cycles per month), no one collector would get too many in his 'cycle' to catch any attention, as in 'why are all these go-nowhere with skip tracing accounts hitting me this month' ... but the PO Box caught someone's eye finally, and one Postal Form 1391 sent to the Lock-Box Supervisor at that post office later, they had the name and street address of the confederate. As they gathered up what details they had; ie all re-issued accounts with new plastic sent out to the same PO box, all of them with a string of zeros in the field on the computer screen where the microfilm index number would otherwise appear (so old, they predated the current indexing system, the computer had nothing to put there in filling in the details), all issued using a customer service function on the computer for re-activating a customer's account and various terminals used around the complex of offices, etc. So they sat down with the confederate and asked him point blank, 'which one of our people taught you how to do this?' He was going to say nothing; mums-the-word and all that until they pointed out that after all, his handwriting appeared on all the charge tickets in the signature box; that they could demonstrate all the cards had come to a box he controlled; that the amount of bogus charges at that point had turned it into a felony matter instead of just a misdemeanor; that things like postal fraud were now involved, and oh, by the way, we 'just happened to notice' you have a problem, or two problems actually, one with cocaine and the other with some as of yet unfinished federal probation on another matter. So why not act in your own best interests and just tell us which one of our people got you in on this? He cooperated as they knew he would when faced with all the evidence they had at that point. It turned out the in-house person involved had a similar problem with coke, and I don't mean the kind of coke that comes from the fountain at the corner convenience store. The loss to Amex was not that bad considering the corporation's overall wealth. My contact said they were hit for around two hundred thousand dollars on it. Nothing could be recovered of course, there rarely is anything recoverable when those schemes are terminated. Amex's main concern and worry was the papers finding out about it with a resulting headline saying 'drug addict employed in sensitive position at credit card office' and the resulting bad public relations or loss of customer confidence. Amoco credit card and one of the very large credit grantors operating as a VISA affiliate have had similar 'internal situations' with back- office employees who 'had personal problems'. The schemes would vary, but the results always the same: money is gone, no one seems to know where, intensive audit discovers leak in the pipeline somewhere caused by employee who knows too much; too much 'meta knowledge' of the overall operation let's say. Better that you know only about the work on your own desk; not the work that happens in the room across the hall. And the response was always the same: get the offender out of here now; neutralize him if possible with what information we have about him; do not get authorities involved if at all possible, and under *no circumstances* let the media find out. What do you want, this time next week all those people on Usenet who squall and scream about their privacy being violated to find out that a cocaine addict had full access to our customer database records and credit bureau reports? It even becomes a verboten or forbidden topic of discussion in the office once it has been dealt with. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jul 1999 22:13:11 -0400 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Bills Would Fence Off the Facts Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > Nothing in this chapter shall restrict any person from > independently gathering information or using information > obtained by means other than extracting it from a > collection of information gathered . . . by another > person ... > Could someone please explain to me how HR354 makes criminals out of > Amazon and Yahoo? In Amazon's case, they and every other on-line bookstore create their catalog using data from Books in Print and other collections of books and publishers, In Yahoo's case, web spidering is enough like trolling through someone else's database to sound alarms. The last time I checked, there was no minimum threshold. Using one fact from someone else's database would set you afoul of this ill-considered and probably unconstitutional bill. (That's deliberate, one of the major reasons for this bill is to create a new flavor of protection for stock price quotes.) 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 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #208 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Jul 11 18:33:04 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id SAA13589; Sun, 11 Jul 1999 18:33:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 18:33:04 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199907112233.SAA13589@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #209 TELECOM Digest Sun, 11 Jul 99 18:33:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 209 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce (James Bellaire) Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce (J.F. Mezei) Re: Caller ID & Star-69 (Was: Weird Wrong Number Calls) (Stanley Cline) Re: You Believe *67 Works? (Stanley Cline) *67 and *71 (Casey Mak) Re: Cell Phone Companies Go by Own Rules (Craig Macbride) Re: Cellular 911 Position Location Issues (Alan Boritz) Re: No More Late Fees (Matt Ackeret) Re: Please Contact FCC re: SBC/Ameritech Merger (Steven J. Sobol) Re: Bills Would Fence Off the Facts (Thor Lancelot Simon) 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, 11 Jul 1999 10:07:01 -0500 From: James Bellaire Subject: Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce At 09:38 PM 7/10/99 -0400, Pat wrote: > I would require that any site using .com have its correct legal > name, its street address and a non-800 telephone number posted > consicuously on the site. Last night my wife visited http://howtodraw.com -- don't go there if you are easily offended. http://www.christophercolumbus.com goes to the *SAME* page and was found by one of my co-workers helping an eight-year-old with a history report. Both sites are "Copyright 1997-99 PornDirectory.Com. All Rights Reserved." I wouldn't mind seeing a law that required .COMs to be honestly named. (As well as have sales sites post a permanent address on the ordering pages BEFORE you give your information.) [snip reorg of .COM suggestion details] Hold the phone Pat - Moving non-selling business out of COM is too much! There are too many business and personal .COMs that are legit names for people DBA whatever is in front of the .COM . Would you tell PEPSI.COM to get out of .COM unless they served cookies or sold over the net? It won't happen. You have a better chance of getting all the non-brand name WATS users out of 1-800 and allowing only names that are spelt in that range. Returning to the original definitions would be good: .ORG - owned by organizations/not for profit .NET - owned by network operators .COM - owned by commercial entities/for profit/misc These lines have been blured enough that people are getting a .NET or .ORG who originally would not have qualified. And the names are competing with the .COM equivilents. (Note that telecom-digest.org can stay.) James H. Cloos Jr. also wrote: > Many stores take the info via their fully automated, latest tech POS > terminal and then imprint the printed receipts. I've even seen that > done where the signature was recorded electronicly. We did this when we needed to key in the number manually to 'prove' we had the card at the time of sale. When the swiper worked there was enough other data in the swipe to prove posession. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: A lot of places even though fully on > the 'card swipe' system still will imprint the card somewhere. A > Radio Shack store near me swipes the card and does it all through the > cash register, but then they take their copy of the sales reciept > which was generated by the same cash register and put it in the > little machine which imprints your number on their copy, and they > have you sign it for their own records. PAT] IIRC their swiper is part of the keyboard (connects through the keyboard port of the machine) so a salesmaker could type the information and the machine would not know if it was swipe or type. Meijer stores in the midwest have the customer sign an electronic pad, much like the ones you sign when accepting a UPS package. At first they just stored the signature, but now the register prints a second reciept with the signature for store use. James Bellaire [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I agree that site names should be required to correctly reflect the contents and that 'search engine spam' (or manipulating what the engine sees, etc) for the purpose of manipulating the site's placement in the listings is a totally unacceptable practice. I also believe commercial sites should be limited to one or two sites under the same ownership when the sites essentially dealt with the same subject. I would charge them more money for registering second or subsequent domain names just for the sake of having still one more frivilous name out there. I would not, as you suggest I claimed, require anyone to move from one place to another. I would just advise everyone that as of some date in the future, allowing time for everyone as needed, that certain rules would begin to be enforced on sites in .com, and that those same rules were in effect now regarding new applicants for .com names. If you wish to stay in .com you are welcome to do so, and after time has been allowed for you to comply with the new rules, you must follow them also. Since .com has always been defined as a place for COMmercial sites, just as EDUcational sites and non-profit ORGanizations have places assigned to them, perhaps some present occupants of .com would feel more comfortable elsewhere if the rules I suggest were implemented. I would even suggest the possibility of a new territory called PRIvate, to be used by just individual people who wish to have a web presence. Those users would need say nothing about themselves if they did not wish to do so; no way to contact them, nothing else other than what the use of reverse-lookups, fingers, etc could obtain anyway. They would be saying they are private individuals doing their own thing. You said in your letter that 'telecom-digest.org can stay', and I guess my question to you is, where should it be? I define my presence here as a not-for-profit educational activity to serve the net. I certainly am not commercial and have no interest in being commercial. Does the web site *even appear* to you as though it is a commercial endeavor? I certainly am not EDUcational in the traditional use of that domain, and although I happen to function from a site which is normally addressed as .edu my preference is that people visit the site using my alias 'telecom-digest.org' so that there is no confusion that I am somehow employed by or an 'official part of' MIT. I am only a user with a guest account at MIT. Yes, you can connect with the site by doing http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives (or substitute 'hyperarchive' or 'mirror' for 'massis' if you wish) but I do not think that is appropriate. Although I have never asked about it, I doubt that MIT would ever allow a .com to be aliased to any of their resources, and I would not want to be a .com anyway. No offense intended to those of you who do with to be there or who by the nature of your sites rightfully should be there. Where would you have me be, James? PAT] ------------------------------ From: J.F. Mezei Subject: Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 02:07:28 -0400 James H. Cloos Jr. wrote: > Many stores take the info via their fully automated, latest tech POS > terminal and then imprint the printed receipts. I've even seen that > done where the signature was recorded electronicly. A lot of the credit card infrastructure and procedures were geared towards preventing use of stolen credit cards. POS terminals enable banks to set $0 floor limits which means that all transactions get authorised (hence, as soon as card is reported stolen, no POS transactions are possible). What e-commerce brings is fraud at the merchant level. Banks and credit card companies (visa, Mastercard etc) have certain procedures but e-commerce brings new modus-operandi. The one aspect that is hard to control is the phoney store-front where they capture your credit card number and info and sell them to card counterfeit outfits and don't deliver any goods. (or perhaps grant you access to their XXX site). Banks don't have relationships with them and they illegally use the visa/mastercard symbols on their sites. So they are hard to spot, especially if they "look" legit and provide you with access to their web site so the customer does not suspect anything. However, in the majority of cases, I doubt that the problem occurs during transmission, it occurs at the merchant. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Oh, I would not lay it all at the feet of the merchants. To be sure, there are some real fraudulent sites on the net, but users know how to cheat also. PAT] ------------------------------ From: sc1@roamer1.org (Stanley Cline) Subject: Re: Caller ID & Star-69 (Was: Weird Wrong Number Calls) Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 02:37:50 GMT Organization: by area code and prefix (NPA-NXX) Reply-To: sc1@roamer1.org On Thu, 08 Jul 1999 17:58:50 -0400, Eric@AreaCode-Info.com (Eric Morson) wrote: > Star-69 will work if the call came from a number serviced by your local > provider. A cellular number, T1, trunk line, etc, will not work even if > the number is local. Here in BellSouth territory, *69 will READ BACK the number of cell phone, T1-trunk, etc. calls, but will not complete the call back to it. Same goes for any interLATA call. (*69 and other "TouchStar" features do work on intraLATA calls from ALLTEL, TDS, and other independent local telco territory.) Similar applies to *66, *60, *57, etc. -- if one attempts to trace or repeat-dial a cell phone, T1-trunk, interLATA, etc. number, or add one to a call block or priority ringing list, one gets a recording stating something like "this service cannot be used to call this number, trace this number, or enter this number on your list." Stanley Cline -- sc1 at roamer1 dot org -- http://www.roamer1.org/ ------------------------------ From: sc1@roamer1.org (Stanley Cline) Subject: Re: You Believe *67 Works? Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 02:37:33 GMT Organization: by area code and prefix (NPA-NXX) Reply-To: sc1@roamer1.org On 9 Jul 1999 15:15:12 -0400, tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) wrote: > That's just fine -- *if* the call is made to an 888 number, and completed > as a freephone call. Many cellular and PCS carriers now list the number of incoming calls on bills; some (primarily GSM carriers for some odd reason) list the number of incoming calls where the caller dialed *67, others don't. The numbers are received using caller ID, *not* ANI. I see showing incoming numbers on cell phone bills no different than showing numbers on toll-free bills since, after all, the caller is paying for the airtime -- unless CPP is in place, of course. Stanley Cline -- sc1 at roamer1 dot org -- http://www.roamer1.org/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 19:28:34 EST From: Casey.Mak@wirechf.xg.com (Casey Mak) Subject: *67 and *71 Organization: Chapter 91 - Telephone Pioneers of America TELECOM Digest Editor noted: > 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. > 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." If you are using Three-Way Calling, and already have two other people on the line, Call Waiting can no longer be used. All other callers during the time you are on the Three-Way Call will receive a busy signal (unless you have an answering service with forward busy). Also, your ISP can show you how to modify the dialing preferences on your computer software to add a pause after each * command. The pause is needed to allow the * command to be completed. When you dial *67, you need to wait for the second dial tone to come before dialing other numbers. When you dial *70 to cut off Call Waiting, another pause is required before you can dial a number on the dial tone. If you type in two commas into your computer, it should work. eg *67,,*70,,TN of ISP server. casey [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Do you think my ISP could teach me how to do something like that? Maybe I will ask him tomorrow. Actually, no Casey, you do not have to pause; you can plow straight through it in my experience. And regards talking to two parties and having other callers get a busy, it depends on how the call is organized. If I am talking to someone and get a call waiting and have two callers on my line as a result, then subsequent call-waits will get a busy signal. If I originate a three way call and have two parties on the line I am talking to at the same time in a conference, then if a call-wait comes I get the usual signal, can flash and take that new call, leaving the two parties in the confererence *I originated* both on hold. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Cell Phone Companies Go by Own Rules From: craig@glasswings.com.au (Craig Macbride) Organization: Nyx Public Access Internet Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 11:23:31 GMT nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) writes: > By international agreement, toll billing begins at the point the > connection goes bidirectional. But apparently this doesn't apply to > cellular. Initially, at least, the non-GSM carriers in the USA were basically selling a system that was lucky if it worked in more than 5 states, let alone overseas, so international agreements were probably not high on their priority list, compared to the idea of how to extract the maximum amount of money from consumers by cheating them. Also, it shows a disadvantage of very large amounts of competition. When a monopoly is in place, it rips you off by simply charging outrageously inflated amounts for its services. When a small number of competitors exist, their offerings are often well enough known that the consumer has some chance of understanding the differences. When a multitude of service providers exist, some are working on small margins. Some are cutting each other's throats. The only easy way to make money is to pretend you're giving a good deal, when in fact you're charging more than the consumer realises. At the same time, in that environment, the consumer has little chance of reading and accurately comparing the plethora of different companies and products. Companies will therefore make things as complex as possible so as to dupe consumers more easily. Of course, it helps for the consumer if the system starts from well- understood basis. Here in Australia, all calls (except toll-free ones) are paid for by the initiator of the call. All calls are charged from the time they are answered. Local calls have a fixed rate while all other calls (interstate, international or mobile) are charged per second, unless you choose special options to do otherwise. If a carrier of any sort were to suddenly charge for unanswered calls or charge the receiver of calls, etc, it would be noticed as not following the normal pattern and there would be an outcry. Craig Macbride ---------------------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: aboritz@cybernex.net (Alan Boritz) Subject: Re: Cellular 911 Position Location Issues Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 13:09:09 -0400 In article , Robert A. Rosenberg wrote: > 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). That was a hot issue in New York soon after the EZ PASS program was installed and functional in New York City. While the State of New York's PR line was pitching confidentiality of all collected data, the {NY Daily News} was publishing details of civil court cases and other non-criminal proceedings where individuals had little difficulty gaining access to this "confidential" data. The "lemmings mentality," for want of a better term, that has accompanied public support for EZ PASS is fascinating. Perhaps it's great that you can skip a few minutes waiting on line for a purposely slow cash lane, but if your vehicle is registered out of state (compared to where the EZ PASS is operating), you can expect to be a target of a tax audit and/or investigation, whether you live there or not. The State of New York has been doing this for years with individuals in certain occupations (it was the major reason why author Andrew Tobias moved away from New York, as he wrote in a {NY Times} article a while back). New York's Dept. of Taxation came after a company I used to work for a few years ago for NYS corporate income tax because of fuel tax records that showed trucks passing through New York (from New Jersey) to jobs in other states. There are many documented cases where state taxation agencies have gone after individuals for what they felt was a taxable activity (like a writer conceiving of an idea for a book in their state, therefore subjecting the writer to state income tax even though he wrote the book elsewhere) with the flimsiest of what passes for evidence. You can imagine the income they may anticipate from harassing businesses in other states after collecting bridge and tunnel crossing data for otherwise undocumented non-CDL vehicles (for companies who may have their entire fleet on EZ PASS). ------------------------------ From: mattack@area.com (Matt Ackeret) Subject: Re: No More Late Fees Date: 10 Jul 1999 21:38:35 -0700 Organization: Area Systems in Mountain View, CA - http://www.area.com In article , Monty Solomon wrote: > http://www.thestandard.com/articles/display/0,1449,5446,00.html > The name says it all: PayMyBills.com. Launching today, it's the > latest startup to come out of Idealab's Internet incubator in > Pasadena, Calif. While many electronic-bill-presentment firms have > tapped the biller and bank space with payment solutions, > PayMyBills.com hopes to appeal to the masses. > Beginning July 19, consumers can have all of their regular bills paid > automatically for $9.95 per month (The fee covers up to 15 bills; > each one after that costs another 50 cents). Users have their billers > send tabs to PayMyBills' processing center. The company opens the > bills, scans them into an online account and sends an e-mail > notification. The user then logs onto the account, views the bills, > instructs PayMyBills on how and when to pay them, and the service > automatically debits the consumer's bank account. The service works > independent of financial institutions or billers. If I still have to log onto the account and tell them to pay it, what advantage does this have? BillPay on my Wells Fargo account is _free_. (Yeah, sure, there is proably a minimum account requirement for it to be "free".. It used to have an explicit cost, and I didn't use it. Now it doesn't have an explicit cost, so I use it.) Also, I can use it via Lynx. Presumably most other banks have online bill paying also. Now, what I want is _true_ all electronic billing, from the various companies or utilities I deal with, to me. There would have to be backup paper billing if the email bounces, or simply provide them with a credit card or bank account number for default billing. The one situation that comes close to this is the BMG CD Club. There's now an entirely electronic version. No mailings of junk mail you have to return and/or throw away. (You've been able to respond to the mailings online for a few years now.) So you just get emailed with the default selection, and can respond on the web site. It's great. Now if the phone company, Visa, and other companies would go to a fully electronic version, we wouldn't get as much junk mail (I'm counting bills). The moderator will apparently hate this as he seems to be against e-commerce. Though this is not directly related, I got a phone call from Schwab today. It was regarding an order I had made a few minutes before (via the web). I had a sell stop limit order placed a few days ago, and today I put a sell limit order higher than the current price of the stock (Schwab, ironically). Apparently, even on the weekends, people are alerted to conflicting trades and call people up. (They're not actually conflicting, because I purposely meant to sell if it goes too low, but also sell if it goes much higher. I know there is a chance of both going through and I'd be in a short sell position. I did it on purpose however.) I'm not sure how I feel about this. It seems like they were "looking out for me", but it was an unnecessary phone call because I was doing exactly what I wanted to do. > "We're freeing the consumer of the entire process," says John Except you have to log onto the site. > Tedesco, PayMyBills' president and CEO. "By paying 100 percent of the > bills at one site, we're removing anxiety, stress and aggravation I already pay 100% of my bills at one site, and don't pay an added charge for it. mattack@area.com ------------------------------ From: sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net (Steven J Sobol) Subject: Re: Please Contact FCC re: SBC/Ameritech Merger Date: 11 Jul 1999 05:41:46 GMT Organization: North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.4NET On 09 Jul 1999 21:32:06 GMT, stevenl11@aol.comstuffit allegedly said: > It would an act of God to stop that merger now. > Now on the other hand stopping the GTE HellAtlantic would have a chance. Both mergers have their good points ... GTE Wireless is my cellular carrier, and I've always been happy with their service. Bell Atlantic Mobile has an excellent reputation for customer service also. So I don't mind that merger going through. Of course, I don't receive landline services from either company ... otherwise my viewpoint might be different. ;) The good thing about Ameritech/SBC is ... *ponder* Hm, I'll have to get back to you. I can't think of anything good about the Ameritech/SBC merger right now. In fact, Ameritech may not have a clue terribly often, but their customer service is still far better than some of the other Baby Bells. I suspect that will not be the case after the merger. Not that I'm trying to imply that the FCC has any cojones. I think no matter what we say, they'll allow the merger to happen. If they pass rules that allow broadcast companies to hold a dozen stations in one market ... not to mention hundreds of stations across the country ... I do not see much hope for those of us who would like to see this merger die. 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: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) Subject: Re: Bills Would Fence Off the Facts Date: 11 Jul 1999 15:13:54 -0400 Organization: PANIX -- Public Access Networks Corp. Reply-To: tls@rek.tjls.com In article , Fred Goodwin wrote: > monty@roscom.com (Monty Solomon) wrote in -digest.org>: >> There are two competing bills that would protect data compilers by >> prohibiting the duplication of their databases. Critics fear the more >> restrictive of the two, Collections of Information Antipiracy Act >> (HR354), would make criminals of companies that collect and aggregate >> data -- companies like Yahoo and Amazon.com. >> http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/20550.html > The proposed law says you can collect facts independently of > extracting them from a database: > Nothing in this chapter shall restrict any person from > independently gathering information or using information > obtained by means other than extracting it from a > collection of information gathered . . . by another > person ... > Could someone please explain to me how HR354 makes criminals out of > Amazon and Yahoo? If they get any of the information from anyone else's site -- any of it -- as I read the bill they infringe. That's a crock. That means that for some kinds of information, there's basically no way to get it without infringing. Furthermore, it bears notice that these bills are being heavily pushed by the West Publishing wanna-be-monopoly as a cure to their recent series of court defeats -- they want to "own" all legal opinions by collecting them and adding their own page numbers, so you can't cite them correctly without paying for a set of WestLaw books or their online service (or Lexis/Nexis, who license the data from them). The courts said there's no copyright in page numbers, so now they're pushing these bills trying to create one. This is a major impediment to equal access to the legal system. West books and Lexis/Nexis are *expensive*. Most courts require West numbering in citations. My uncle's a lawyer with Legal Services and they spend a substantial fraction of their budget every year on WestLaw and Lexis (which they can barely afford to use, generally only in an emergency) instead of providing actual legal services to the poor. Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com "And where do all these highways go, now that we are free?" ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #209 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Jul 11 20:00:10 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id UAA00694; Sun, 11 Jul 1999 20:00:10 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 20:00:10 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199907120000.UAA00694@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #210 TELECOM Digest Sun, 11 Jul 99 20:00:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 210 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Hazards of the Young and Mobile - Handheld Powers (Arthur Ross) Proving Negatives/Cell Phones & Gas Stations (Arthur Ross) Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce (Julian Thomas) Re: US Admits Crypto Export Controls are About Signals Intell (R. Seberry) Net Commerce Statistics? Credit Card Fraud Statistics? (Harvey Taylor) NPA List - Help Please (jca@majesticsoftware.com) Lower-Priced Always on DSL (Paul Robinson) FCC Investigating Minimum Monthly Fees For Long Distance (Danny Burstein) FCC to Probe Fees (Joey Lindstrom) Re: Please Contact FCC re: Ameritech/SBC Merger (Macy Hallock) Re: *67 and *71 (Joel B. Levin) 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, 11 Jul 1999 07:17:18 -0700 From: Arthur Ross Subject: Re: Hazards of the Young and Mobile - Handheld Powers lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (L. Winson) wrote: > Aren't hand-held cell phones a much lower power rating than the older > style "bag" phones to avoid the risk of electronic field emissions? No. They are lower power so they can be hand-held, i.e. so the battery can be smaller for the same talk time. Health benefits, if any, are incidental. A full-up AMPS mobile is about three watts. The portables are about ten dB less, roughly 1/4 Watt, at full power. The CDMA handsets, however, use closed loop transmit power control, the effect of which is to keep the actual power lower most of the time. The highest power is used only at the fringes of cell coverage. Measurements have shown that in typical use the power averages a few tens of mW. It is actually possible to be transmitting less power than you are receiving, if you are very close to the cell. GSM, by the way, can be as much as eight watts peak, but it is pulsed. So is D-AMPS (North American TDMA). So, if you believe that there are health risks from the radiation, you should either a) use a NON-wireless, i.e. wired, phone, or b) use the CDMA variety which has the very low average power. AMPS has power control too, but it more limited, coarse, and is often not really used by the operators, as it is not essential for the proper function of the system like it is in the CDMA systems. The lower max power has negative consequences for the maximum range of the phone, but the systems are engineered, or supposed to be, for the portables. If you believe the folklore re empirical propagation laws for cellular (an inverse fourth power fall-off of flux density with distance), then the reduction in range is, in dB units, about 10 dB/4 = 2.5 dB, or a little less than a factor of two. myself@best.com added to the conversation: > What else is new? > "We did some research and we found that we need more money." This is yet another of those "prove a negative" risk-to-the-public kinds of questions. Is electromagnetic radiation hazardous to your health? Obviously yes ... at SOME power level. It will cook you, as in microwave ovens (which, by the way, are not greatly different in frequency from the PCS wireless phones - 2450 MHz versus 1900 MHz, roughly). But are there risks other than thermal - more subtle effects? How do those risks scale with exposure? What level of risk is acceptable? The risk is obviously low for the powers involved in the portable phones, so the answers can be obtained only in a statistical sense. For a high degree of statistical certainty, large sample sizes are require. If there are bad effects that result from lifetimes of exposure, then lifetimes of experiment and data gathering may be required. While I am not familiar with this research in detail, it appears from the referenced magazine article, that SOME small effect was found, at SOME level of statistical significance. The degree of statistical certainty is calculable with some precision, based on sample sizes and the observed outcomes. The question is what INTERPRETATION you put on such results. The mass media love to sensationalize this kind of story, based on the naive presumption that a binary decision HAZARDOUS or NOT HAZARDOUS is possible, and that the study has concluded the former, thus exposing some heretofore concealed threat to the public health, heinous plots to foist dangerous products on an unsuspecting public by evil corporate America, etc, etc. Life, alas, is not that simple. I do think, by the way, that it was extraordinarily responsible of the industry to seize the initiative here and launch a real scientific effort, not a whitewash PR campaign. As I recall, the original motivation for the concern was a tort several years ago in which the family of a deceased cellular phone user claimed that her phone had given her cancer. -- Best -- Arthur -- Dr. Arthur Ross 2325 East Orangewood Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85020-4730 Phone: 602-371-9708 Fax : 602-336-7074 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 10:03:24 -0700 From: Arthur Ross Subject: Proving Negatives/Cell Phones & Gas Stations July 9, 1999 [The Wall Street Journal Interactive Edition] Phones Exploding at Gas Stations: Safety Hazard or Urban Legend? By KATHY CHEN Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL WASHINGTON -- First it was brain tumors. Then headaches and memory loss. Now cellular phones are being blamed for explosions at gas stations. It all started with news reports out of Asia that a man had caught fire at a gas station in Indonesia while talking on his mobile phone and filling his tank at the same time. According to the reports -- zipped along the Internet -- the phone battery had generated a spark, which ignited gasoline fumes. Oil and cellular-phone associations in the U.S. have been unable to verify the story, and industry officials say it doesn't ring true. Still, Exxon is taking no chances. Besides advising customers to turn off their engines and extinguish cigarettes, Exxon stations are now asking them to switch off their wireless phones. Spokesman Crawford Bunkley says Exxon decided to print up new warnings for its gas pumps world-wide to reflect warnings posted in phone-instruction manuals. But he stresses that the chance of a cell phone's becoming an ignition source is "remote." This isn't the first time that cell phones have been blamed in disasters or diseases. In 1993, the husband of a woman with brain cancer filed a lawsuit in Florida -- later dismissed -- claiming that her cell-phone habit fueled the disease. "I don't know why these suspicions get attached to cellular phones," sighs Jo-Anne Basile of the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association. "People are clearly concerned about the unknown." Norm Sandler, Motorola's director for strategic issues, says the cell-phone story has become "urban folklore," with unconfirmed incidents of phone-triggered explosions arising every few months in different parts of the world. But he says the only way a cell phone could possibly spark a fire at a gas station would be if the caller were to drop it, causing the battery to dislodge and hit the ground in a certain way. And even then, it's highly unlikely that the gas fumes at a filling station are sufficiently concentrated to result in an ignition. Yet phone makers can't dismiss the matter entirely. After all, standardized instruction manuals caution users to turn off their phones around "potentially explosive atmospheres," including gas stations. The alert was based on a now-obsolete U.K. regulation, and the wireless industry will soon consider deleting it, says Mr. Sandler. For now, the warnings haven't discouraged many consumers. Roxana Campos, manager of a San Francisco Exxon, says the new stickers went up a week ago, but "a whole lot of people still use cell phones when they pump gas. They don't really care." ******** End of WSJ Article ******** -- Best -- Arthur -- Dr. Arthur Ross 2325 East Orangewood Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85020-4730 Phone: 602-371-9708 Fax : 602-336-7074 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks for passing this along. For people who wonder why I feel the print media is extremely biased toward the Internet, take a look at the second paragraph of the story by Ms. Chen above. She relates that something which is apparently untrue, or at least has not been confirmed, was 'zipped along the Internet' as if to say this terrible rumor, which has posed such a problem for the oil companies is the fault of people on the net. Next thing you know, WSJ will be claiming they have never, ever printed something in their paper which was not true. The print media does not like the Internet because too many people read and talk about too much news that the papers have not yet decided how to report, or how to sanitize prior to reporting. As you read things in the print media from day to day, read carefully the snide references they make to the net in various articles. PAT] ------------------------------ From: jt5555@epix.net (Julian Thomas) Subject: Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 21:36:23 GMT In , on 07/09/99 at 11:19 AM, James Bellaire said: > Steve Winter asked my opinion on sites such as publiceye and others which > serve a kind of 'Better Business Bureau' function on the net. This is > good, and should be encouraged. I'm not familiar with publiceye, but for computer gear, I've gotten good input from http://www.sysopt.com/vendsurv.html 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! Air conditioned environment - Do not open Windows. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 22:06:06 +1000 From: Ralph Seberry Subject: Re: US Admits Crypto Export Controls are About Signals Intelligence On Fri, 09 Jul 1999 18:08:22 -0400 J.F. Mezei wrote: > Either I am very stupid or the US government is very naive here. Can > someone please explain to me why preventing export of a US encryption > product would prevent foreigners from encrypting their data/messages > with foreign-built encryption systems? US Software vendors have to choose between supporting two versions of software (one domestic and one international); or a lowest common denominator (weak crypto) version. The decision for the mass-market software vendor is a no-brainer. So the effect of the regulations is weak crypto in mass-market software available *domestically*. ------------------------------ From: Harvey Taylor Subject: Net Commerce Statistics? Credit Card Fraud Statistics? Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 09:05:02 -0700 Hi Folks, I got into a disagreement about the current statistics for net commerce [aka icommerce, e-commerce] and net-related credit card fraud. I had seen a news story, which I vaguely remembered, but when I did some web searches could not find definitive reports. [I don't trust the 'marketing' estimates search engines typically spit out.] Does anyone happen to have a handle on these stats? BTW, the Register reports that search engines currently index at max 16% of web data. [http://www.theregister.co.uk/990709-000015.html] "The earth is the cradle of mankind, but we cannot stay in the cradle forever." -Konstantin Tsiolkovsky Harvey Taylor het@despam.pangea.ca ------------------------------ From: jca@majesticsoftware.com Subject: NPA List - Help Please Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 18:49:48 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. I'm looking for a source of all NPA splits (completed, active and future) without having to spend a fortune. Isn't there some product besides Telecordia's? All I need is from/to area codes and affected prefixes. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I'll bet Linc Madison, Eric Morson and John Cropper will have sent you email by this time tomorrow telling you where to find the data you are seeking. Alternatively, look at the telecom-related links at http://telecom-digest.org/linkspage.html and select the very first two items in the list, 'Area Code Insanity' and 'Area Code Madness'. I gave up keeping track of it about the time that 708 was broken off from 312 since it got too confusing. But Linc, Eric and John are our three specialists now keeping track of it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: rfc1394a@aol.com (Paul Robinson) Date: 11 Jul 1999 04:27:22 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Lower-Priced Always-on DSL http://www.flashcom.com also at 1-877-Flashcom says they have DSL for as low as $49.95 a month (this is for one to three users.) Map shows them available in the Washington, DC area (it's a national map on their website so the specific area is hard to tell). Unlike the new dial-up DSL that U.S. West is rolling out in test areas for about $20 a month plus ISP charges, this company says it is always on: 'Stop wasting time with "dialup" providers. DSL is always connected and free from "per minute" charges.' It specifically mentions "Unlike cable or wireless technologies, DSL is a dedicated connection. Perfect for hosting mail, web, or e-commerce applications." Actually the pricing isn't bad. For Maryland customers, one to three users, two-year contract, 384/128K is $49.95, 768/384K is $79.95 installation and modem are free. SDSL at 384K both ways is $129 per month. I presume the lower number is the return bandwidth. For a three user service, 200K both ways is $129.95 a month, and the modem ends up being free after a $200 rebate. 384K both ways is $169 a month, modem and installation are free. However, if you're willing to pay $10 a month more (179.95), you can get 416K both ways and the modem is free after rebate again. You can get 1/2 of a T1 (768K both ways) for $259.95 a month, installation and modem free. All of these prices presuppose a two-year contract Paul Robinson ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 03:16:27 EDT From: Danny Burstein Subject: FCC Investigating Minimum Monthly Fees For Long Distance The Associated Press 07/10/99 1:56 AM Eastern WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Federal Communications Commission says it will look into the minimum monthly charges that some long-distance companies tack onto the bills of consumers who make little or no use of their services. In a 4-to-1 vote on Friday, the FCC approved the inquiry, which will begin next week. ------------------- Rest of article clipped for the usual reasons. It continues with the standard speech that most customers have benefited, etc., etc... and also quotes a few industry types who explain that it costs them money to service all accounts, including the low usage ones. Pretty much all of us on c.d.t. have heard it all before. Nothing currently on the FCC web page, but presumably they'll announce this in their digest in a cupla days. ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 05:41:23 -0600 Reply-To: Joey Lindstrom Subject: FCC to Probe Fees? NEW YORK (CNNfn) - Federal regulators will launch an inquiry next week into monthly minimum charges that some long-distance companies have begun imposing on certain customers, the {Washington Post} reported Saturday. Full story: http://cnnfn.com/1999/07/10/companies/fcc/ 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 If Windows is User-Friendly, why do you need to read a 678 pg. manual? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 18:55:56 EDT From: macy@apk.net (Macy Hallock) Reply-to: macy@apk.net Subject: Re: Please Contact FCC re: SBC/Ameritech Merger Organization: APK Net, Ltd. Cleveland, Ohio USA As quoted from sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net (Steven J Sobol): > On 09 Jul 1999 21:32:06 GMT, stevenl11@aol.comstuffit allegedly said: >> It would an act of God to stop that merger now. >> Now on the other hand stopping the GTE HellAtlantic would have a chance. > Both mergers have their good points ... GTE Wireless is my cellular > carrier, and I've always been happy with their service. Bell Atlantic > Mobile has an excellent reputation for customer service also. So I > don't mind that merger going through. Of course, I don't receive > landline services from either company ... otherwise my viewpoint might > be different. ;) GTE is restructuring itself in anticipation of this merger. GTE is selling off divisions as we speak. At least two are sold. There may be more. GTE has put their midwestern telephone properties up for sale. (Not high revenue urban markets like their LA, Tampa and Dallas are ...) There is some discussion about how their overlapping wireless territories with BAMS will be dealt with. I've also heard of plans to spin off the entire division. Have also heard there are some possible anti-competitive issues to be resolved with the internet operations of both GTE/BBN and BA Internet Services have some market overlap and size issues. Keep in mind that GTE is technically larger than any of the RBOC's (except BA/Nynex) already. Yet Alltel services many rural markets, as do Century and Telephone & Data and wants more ... however Alltel won't buy the GTE midwest properties 'cuz they are overpriced. My observation is that GTE _had_ to do something. And the merger is their solution, even if it doesn't come to be. My understanding is that the FCC most PUC's didn't have major issues with this merger, once the competitive issues above are worked out. PA. PUC seems pleased that GTE's PA properties would be merged into BA's. > The good thing about Ameritech/SBC is ... > *ponder* You are correct to ponder this. Its an anti-competitive mess. And SBC even more anti-competitive towards small ISP's than Ameritech is. Several states have gone on record objecting to this merger. Some, like IL, have been quite strenuous about it. (Not Ohio, of course, the PUC and Consumer's Counsel actually took the bone Ameritech threw them about "low income service area's" and ignored every other issue.) The FCC staff has informally said this merger did not make sense to them. So they appear to have a least of bit of healthy skepticism. Its not a done deal yet. Disclaimer: I'm a customer of all of the telco's mentioned except BA. I'm an ex employee of two of the telco's above. I'm an ISP in Ohio. And I think the consumers are getting the dirty end of the stick on all these ILEC mega merger deals. Macy M. Hallock, Jr. N8OBG +1.216.241.7166 fax +1.216.241.7522 macy@apk.net APK Net, Ltd. 1621 Euclid Ave. Suite 1230 Cleveland, OH 44115 USA ------------------------------ From: levinjb@gte.net (Joel B Levin) Subject: Re: *67 and *71 Organization: On the desert Reply-To: levinjb@gte.net Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 23:19:47 GMT > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Actually, no Casey, you do not have > to pause; you can plow straight through it in my experience ... This is switch dependent. Most places I have tried this, the switch echoes a stutter dial tone to acknowledge the *70 and doesn't listen till after that. These switches drop the first two or three digits of the number if you don't pause. /JBL [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If the switch is not listening when it is sending stutter dialtone, how do people who have voicemail with stutter dialtone as the message-waiting indicator ever get to make any calls? The stutter dialtone never goes away for them if there is a message in their box does it? When I have had telco voicemail in the past, the stutter dialtone did not just stay there a couple seconds and go away, it just kept on stuttering as long as I sat there listening to it. Once I no longer had 'new messages' I no longer got stutter dial tone. By the way, if you do have telco voicemail from Ameritech, I think most switches allow the use of *98 or *97 as a shortcut 'speed dial' to voicemail for message retrieval. See if it works in your central office. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #210 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Jul 12 02:59:04 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id CAA20281; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 02:59:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 02:59:04 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199907120659.CAA20281@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #211 TELECOM Digest Mon, 12 Jul 99 02:59:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 211 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Satellite GPS Can Locate Wireless Phones Within 15 Feet (Bill Newkirk) Re: Have You Used Siemens Hicom 150E (Chris) Re: Third Voice Rips Holes in Web (Walter Dnes) Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce (Derek Balling) Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce (Steve Winter) Re: Does Anyone on the West Coast Use Caller ID? (Anthony Argyriou) Re: *67 and *71 (Joel B. Levin) Re: *67 and *71 (Bill Meek) Re: Bills Would Fence Off the Facts (Derek Balling) Re: Proving Negatives/Cell Phones & Gas Stations (Anthony Argyriou) Re: Snooping OK on Pager Numbers? (Adam H. Kerman) Calling Number ID and Cellular (Lauren Weinstein) Re: Please Contact FCC re: SBC/Ameritech Merger (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: Bill Newkirk Subject: Re: Satellite GPS Can Locate Wireless Phones Within 15 Feet Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 19:20:34 -0400 Organization: Posted via RemarQ, http://www.remarQ.com Isn't this what the crew in Star Trek has with their "badges"? if they have their comm-badge with 'em, they can be located OR selectively called by the ship or others in the away team? The folks in the Federation don't seem to mind having a universal locator/pager/telephone they wear just about 100% of the time. So it must certainly be just fine in the future ... and the future must be like star trek, right? Bud Couch wrote in message ... > 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. Probably could track 'em by noticing the discontinuity in location between the time it "disappeared" and the time it appeared again. Leonard Erickson wrote in message ... > And in both his scenario and yours, I can just stick the phone inside > my lunchbox, which *just happens* to be all metal and form a nice > faraday cage when closed. Heck, just wrapping it in alumium foil may > work. > The phone can't respond to signals that never reach it, nor can it send > a signal that'll get anywhere outside the box. :-) ------------------------------ From: Christopher W. Boone Subject: Re: Have You Used Siemens Hicom 150E Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 20:05:45 -0500 Organization: Clear Channel Radio, Dallas TEXAS - Engineering Stay away from Siemens ... if you want a somewhat tech friendly switch get a Nortel Meridian Opt11 or Lucent PBX (NOT the Legend ... it is almost as bad as the HICOM). Chris > I am considering the purchase of a Siemens Hicom 150E phone system. > If you have used this system, I would like to hear your opinion about > it. ------------------------------ From: waltdnes@interlog.com (Walter Dnes) Subject: Re: Third Voice Rips Holes in Web Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 02:04:53 GMT Organization: Interlog Internet Services On 10 Jul 1999 08:51:58 -0400, Tom.Horsley@worldnet.att.net (Thomas A. Horsley) wrote: > You still have to install the Third Voice software on your > computer to have a problem. Since only morons will use it, > only morons have problems :-). [...deletia...] > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: No, no ... the morons who > install it will not have the problem, the web sites where > they use it will have the problem. At least that's how I > read it. Was I wrong? PAT] Not very often; but this time it's a resounding YES. Let's start from square 1. Many ISP's have local caching Third Voice has local web proxies. caching web proxies. If your ISP's web proxy is If you don't install Third not the "transparent" kind, Voice's software and/or use you can bypass it and connect their proxy, you'll see the direct to an exterior website. original, "untouched" website. If you use your ISP's caching If you use Third Voice, it proxy, you could see a *LOCAL will route your http lookups CACHED COPY* rather than the through their caching proxy. original website. You could see a *LOCAL CACHED COPY ON THEIR PROXY*. Unlike your ISP, Third Voice allows third parties to mark up the local cached copy, but otherwise the principle is exactly the same. ISP A may have a web caching proxy, but it won't affect what ISP B's customers see when they connect via ISP B unless they deliberately invoke ISP A's web proxy in their browser configurations. I don't know Third Voice's reaction to this, but I wouldn't be surprised if the following experiment works ... find out the IP address of Third Voice's caching proxy and manually define it as the caching proxy in your browser. You might see the marked up webpages without Third Voice's software. On the other hand, if you *DON'T* want to browse the marked up copies, don't use Third Voice's software or caching proxy. Walter Dnes 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 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 19:41:07 -0700 From: Derek Balling Subject: Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce >Returning to the original definitions would be good: > .ORG - owned by organizations/not for profit > .NET - owned by network operators > .COM - owned by commercial entities/for profit/misc Can you show me where this was "originally defined"? .ORG has always been the "misc" category, and nowhere that I can find (in a true "definition" has it ever been reserved for not-for-profit. (Many have made that claim, thinking ORG=Non-Profit-Organization, but I've yet to find anything resembling an official document to that effect). > IIRC their swiper is part of the keyboard (connects through the > keyboard port of the machine) so a salesmaker could type the > information and the machine would not know if it was swipe or type. Correct. In many of those cases, the card-swipe sits on the keyboard-cable (and acts as a passthru object for the regular keyboard) and allows the cardswipe to simply act as though keys were typed on the numeric keypad. Similar items also exist for bar code scanners. > Meijer stores in the midwest have the customer sign an electronic > pad, much like the ones you sign when accepting a UPS package. At > first they just stored the signature, but now the register prints > a second reciept with the signature for store use. I've had a lot of fun with stores, since knowing security (or lack thereof) as I do, I steadfastly refuse to sign on those pads. :) > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I agree that site names should be > required to correctly reflect the contents and that 'search engine > spam' (or manipulating what the engine sees, etc) for the purpose > of manipulating the site's placement in the listings is a totally > unacceptable practice. I disagree, Pat. Intelligent search engines will be the ones people use. As I mentioned in my earlier message, search engines like Yahoo and about.com that use real humans instead of spiders to index sites provide value-add that other search engines cannot match. Its strictly capitalism ... you can either go to a site that can "have the ballot stuffed" as it were, or go to a site where the search hits are more relevant to your search terms, as decided by a real-live-breathing human being. > I also believe commercial sites should be > limited to one or two sites under the same ownership when the > sites essentially dealt with the same subject. I would charge them > more money for registering second or subsequent domain names just > for the sake of having still one more frivilous name out there. Never happen. Ford Motor Company certainly wants to have www.ford.com, www.mustang.com, www.taurus.com, etc., just as other large companies want to cover all their bases. More importantly, the restictions on TLD's need to come down, so that more TLD's can be opened up. > new rules, you must follow them also. Since .com has always been > defined as a place for COMmercial sites, Any "business" can claim a .com as an advertising expense. Likewise, any person can claim it is for a home business, or a money-making hobby. The only way to enforce it is to demand that you surrender tax records to InterNIC ... ain't gonna happen. I trust InterNIC as far as I safely spit a large NYC sewer rat. > just as EDUcational sites > and non-profit ORGanizations have places assigned to them, See above on the "non-profit / .ORG" situation. > possibility of a new territory called PRIvate, to be used by just > individual people who wish to have a web presence. See the proposed ".NOM" TLD. (nom being French, I believe?) This TLD, along with a bunch of others, is currently mired in 14 tons of bureaucracy before it can actually get implemented, but it IS on the drawing board. D ------------------------------ From: steve@sellcom.com (Steve Winter) Subject: Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 04:00:57 GMT Organization: WWW.SELLCOM.COM Reply-To: steve@sellcom.com J.F. Mezei spake thusly and wrote: > The one aspect that is hard to control is the phoney store-front where > they capture your credit card number and info and sell them to card > counterfeit outfits and don't deliver any goods. (or perhaps grant > you access to their XXX site). Very few years ago we had a fraudulent phone order (this was before we were doing internet transactions). To make a long story short I managed to keep them on the phone the next day while the detective drove out to the mall phone booth where the kids were (on the phone waiting for us to get the FedEx man to bring their order to them heh heh ...). They were captured. But what is almost funny is: They had put up a porn site (web or BBS, I don't remember) and this credit worthy citizen had provided his credit card info for access. They just took his number and went phone shopping. (they had good taste in modems and this was back when a decent USR was quite a few hundred dollars). Telecom Digest Editor said: > Steve Winter asked my opinion on sites such as publiceye and others > which serve a kind of 'Better Business Bureau' function on the net. > This is good, and should be encouraged. Assuming those organizations > **have teeth and can enforce the use of their logo** I think voluntary > participation in them shows the merchant's good faith in working with > the net community. This is the same reason that I applied for, and The way it works is that the logo contains a link to the merchants record and says something like "click for report". For SELLCOM the code is http://208.8.12.151/report.cfm?key=4779 and then anyone can see our report. So it is much more than the mere appearance of a logo, but rather the ability to go immediately and check out the status of the online business. We would be listed with more places, but I don't want to have to give browsers a cookie just to look at our site. As you mentioned as "desirable" elsewhere in your post, we publish our phone, 800 phone and physical address etc. 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: anthony@alphageo.com (Anthony Argyriou) Subject: Re: Does Anyone on the West Coast Use Caller ID? Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 02:55:02 GMT Organization: Alpha Geotechnical Reply-To: anthony@alphageo.com Rickman wrote: > But how do you call people if 60% or 80% (I forget which) of the people > in CA have you blocked? Is that _really_ the percentage of Californians who use automatic call rejection? With 50%+ of all numbers not giving out Caller-ID, I see no need for a caller-id box or service, and I can't imagine that many people would automatically reject "private/unavailable" calls. I've _never_ gotten a message saying my call was rejected, and I have automatic no-id. Anthony Argyriou ------------------------------ From: levinjb@gte.net (Joel B Levin) Subject: Re: *67 and *71 Organization: On the desert Reply-To: levinjb@gte.net Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 01:32:15 GMT In , levinjb@gte.net (Joel B Levin) wrote: > This is switch dependent. Most places I have tried this, the switch > echoes a stutter dial tone to acknowledge the *70 and doesn't listen > till after that. These switches drop the first two or three digits of > the number if you don't pause. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If the switch is not listening when it > is sending stutter dialtone, how do people who have voicemail with > stutter dialtone as the message-waiting indicator ever get to make > any calls? The stutter dialtone never goes away for them if there is > a message in their box does it? . . . ] I was loose in my technical terminology. What I hear after *70 in (for instance) Nashua, NH, Bell Atlantic territory, is two quick bursts of dial tone followed by continuous dial tone ("boop boop booooooo...p"). Numbers dialed during the boop-boop are not heard. This isn't theory of switch operation, it's what has happened when you tried it on those switches. The behavior of the US West switch in Casa Grande, AZ which serves me now is similar, except the two beeps are the tones used for busy signal rather than for dial tone. This is not stutter dial-tone in the technical sense, what you referred to, and I apologize for confusing the issue (even if the boop-boop does sound like a stutter). /JBL ------------------------------ From: billmeek@enteract.com (Bill Meek) Subject: Re: *67 and *71 Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 01:52:19 GMT Organization: EnterAct L.L.C. Turbo-Elite News Server On Sat, 10 Jul 1999 19:28:34 EST, Casey.Mak@wirechf.xg.com (Casey Mak) wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Do you think my ISP could teach me how > to do something like that? Maybe I will ask him tomorrow. Actually, > no Casey, you do not have to pause; you can plow straight through it > in my experience. Both of you are correct. In a previous life, I wrote code that caused test devices to dial calls (among other things). The 5ESS was able to accept digits without a pause. The DMS100 would miss digits if a pause wasn't inserted. In both of these cases, these were lab machines and the above was true even with the load boxes turned off. I can't speak to all combinations of feature codes or other switch types. Bill ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 18:52:40 -0700 From: Derek Balling Subject: Re: Bills Would Fence Off the Facts >> Could someone please explain to me how HR354 makes criminals out of >> Amazon and Yahoo? > In Yahoo's case, web spidering is enough like trolling through someone > else's database to sound alarms. That's all well and good except that Yahoo doesn't spider. Yahoo employs a team of human beings who individually review data, submitted by users, for inclusion in their database. The only data (that I'm aware of, I work in engineering, not in surfing) stored in that transaction is the e-mail address of the submitter, the URL in question, a brief description (displayed in the search results), along with some miscellaneous extraneous info (submission date, publication date, who reviewed it, etc. etc., but nothing demographic about the owner of the URL _TO_MY_KNOWLEDGE_. Derek Balling dredd@megacity.org / dballingyahoo-inc.moc (don't really want to put THAT one out there for harvesters to find *g*) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And that is one of the reasons I consider Yahoo to be about the best site on the net today; they carefully review each site and have a very good directory. Their news ticker service is very good also. It was broken for awhile but seems to be working okay now. I think it is very unfortunate that they got mixed up with Geocities recently -- I honestly do not know who bought who, or if was a straight merger or what -- but I certainly hope that Yahoo does not now start on that popup window advertising stuff. Hopefully Yahoo will be able to raise Geocities to its level, rather than Yahoo getting dragged down to the same level of disrepect that most netizens have for Geocities. I guess time will tell. I always personally look at sites which have requested being listed in little directory I have at http://telecom-digest.org/linkspage.html and only put in sites that I feel are equal to or better than my own. PAT] ------------------------------ From: anthony@alphageo.com (Anthony Argyriou) Subject: Re: Proving Negatives/Cell Phones & Gas Stations Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 03:14:10 GMT Organization: Alpha Geotechnical Reply-To: anthony@alphageo.com Arthur Ross wrote: > Norm Sandler, Motorola's director for strategic issues, says the > cell-phone story has become "urban folklore," with unconfirmed > incidents of phone-triggered explosions arising every few months in > different parts of the world. But he says the only way a cell phone > could possibly spark a fire at a gas station would be if the caller > were to drop it, causing the battery to dislodge and hit the ground in > a certain way. And even then, it's highly unlikely that the gas fumes > at a filling station are sufficiently concentrated to result in an > ignition. In my experience, the much greater risk would be sparks on stepping out of the car. It happens to me about one time in three, and that spark is less than a foot off the ground, where the vapor concentration is likely much closer to LEL than up where I keep a cell phone while using it. Anthony Argyriou ------------------------------ From: Adam H. Kerman Subject: Re: Snooping OK on Pager Numbers? Organization: Chinet - Public Access since 1982 Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 03:55:41 GMT Linc Madison wrote: > Adam H. Kerman wrote: >> I'm not aware that there is an existing privacy right. Wireless >> communications take place in the shared public spectrum. Use of a >> pager does not convey an exclusive license to a portion of the >> spectrum while telemetry is sent. >> We have the right to be secure in our person, papers, and >> possessions. But we have another right, a natural right to use the >> public way. That includes the airwaves. The more rights we grant >> individuals to use the public way and exclude everyone else, the more >> we infringe upon our own rights. > By that logic, law enforcement should be permitted to do a wiretap > of any regular telephone line, without a court order, with only the > consent of the telco, since it is not necessary to enter the > subscriber's premises to do so. Indeed, if the wiretap could be > effected at the point where the telephone wires are crossing the > "public way," then your logic would allow for unregulated wiretaps > by anyone for any purpose, so long as they did not damage anyone's > property. You ignore my chief concern, as usual, which is assigning exclusive rights to a portion of the radio spectrum. A telephone cable, even when in the public way, is still private property. Allowing utilities to use the public way does not exclude all other users. You make an apples and oranges argument. Giving a privacy right to communications which use the public radio spectrum excludes others. If such a right is desireable, it should be sold at market value. Otherwise cell phone users, cordless phone users, and pager users should assume someone could be listening and take appropriate steps. Years ago, we had a broadcast television station in Chicago with a scrambled signal; that was an outrage. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Do you remember how all the guys would either make their own decoder boxes for Channel 44 or else if they were not good at that sort of thing they would buy one from someone else? Do you remember how Channel 44 sent out SWAT teams looking for people with those boxes so they could confiscate them? They would run entrapment classified ads in newspapers saying they wanted to buy a 'channel 44 box' then if some guy took the bait and arranged to meet them in the parking lot at McDonald's the cops would swoop in and arrest the guy, arranged for of course by the lawyers at Channel 44. They played a lot of semantic games. If you had boxes for sale and claimed they were 'genuine', the lawyers would try to get you for fraud saying the only genuine boxes were the ones which Channel 44 licensed and which came from its manufacturer. If you made no claim that what you were selling was 'genuine' then they would try to say you were stealing their signal (which only went through the air, it had nothing to do with a cable of any sort). Presently the heat got so bad that no one would deal in the converter boxes publicly at all. Quite a few of the guys started selling educational kits instead, for people who liked experimenting with RF signals. They would assemble most of the parts, but leave two parts for the end user to fasten in place. They'd include a notice which said put part 'A' in slot 'A' and part 'B' in slot 'B' and the notice further warned that 'if you do it the other way around by accident, you will possibly see on your screen or hear from your speaker the signal from a local pay-TV station. If you accidentally get the parts connected wrong and notice the pay-TV reception on your screen you must immediatly disconnect those parts because it is illegal to steal their signal ... or if you decide you want to continue receiving the signal from that pay-TV company you are required to immediatly notify them and begin paying their monthly fee.' When all the educational hobby kits started showing up the Channel 44 lawyers got real obnoxious again and tried to get that stopped also. They never could get that stopped except in a couple cases; I am not sure why they succeeded on those two cases. Mostly they would pick on the guys they knew had no money or resources to fight back. I felt for myself it was best only to teach people how to do it but not personally supply the parts. Those lawyers were even trying to get the people who would deliver the necessary parts without actually putting them together. So what I did was start an organ- ization called the Radio Hobbyists Guild. The purpose of the Guild was to teach people about convertor boxes for RF signals, such as those sent out by Channel 44, and that it was illegal to build boxes like those I illustrated in my tutorial booklet. I included detailed schematics (someone helped by making these for me), a parts list, and step by step instructions on what NOT to do in the order given to keep from creating an illegal decoder box. On each page of my illustrated and I think rather well written and arranged tutorial, I included the statement in large letters, "DO NOT DO THE THINGS LISTED HERE BECAUSE IT IS ILLEGAL." All of the schematics and illustrations also noted that 'if you do it exactly in the way it is shown here, it will be an illegal to operate converter box for Channel 44'. I included several 'friendly' stores which sold electronic parts and cautioned the readers of my tutorial that they should obtain the parts but make no statement to the store clerk about building a box like this, because if he sold you the parts knowing your intentions for them, he might be guilty of conspiracy. People could order my tutorial through the mail by sending just five dollars to the Radio Hobbyists Guild in care of my post office box; their tutorial would be be mailed out the same day. On the front and back covers I stressed that 'this tutorial will show you a way in which electronic parts must NOT be connected if you do not want to do anything illegal.' I also enclosed with each tutorial I mailed out (a couple hundred in total) a copy of the pertinent FCC regulations about overhearing radio signals which were not intended for yourself. I was really glad to see that rip-off bunch go out of business. I guess most people were because only a very small number of people actually signed up for 'legal' service with a decoder box to go with it. About 90 percent I would say of the viewers had built their own box or bought it from a pirate source. That was about 1980 I guess. We also talked about it a lot on CB radio and since many of the CB'ers were also radio and television techs some of them held their own tutorials, giving lessons over the radio to anyone who wanted to listen in, but the lawyers from Channel 44 would listen to the radio at night also and try to trick the guys into meeting them 'privatly' somewhere to 'do business' by sounding real sincere. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Jul 99 22:05 PDT From: lauren@vortex.com (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: Calling Number ID and Cellular Greetings. Stanley Cline (sc1@roamer1.org) writes: > Many cellular and PCS carriers now list the number of incoming calls > on bills; some (primarily GSM carriers for some odd reason) list the > number of incoming calls where the caller dialed *67, others don't. > The numbers are received using caller ID, *not* ANI. I've heard such reports in the past, but whenever I've checked into them with the companies involved, they've failed to pan out. In some cases, I've taken this question to very high levels within the companies. If any readers believe they are seeing numbers on their bills from incoming calls that have Calling Number ID blocked, I'd like to know the names of the companies and the locations involved. Any such display of blocked numbers on billing materials would pretty clearly be a serious violation of Calling Number ID handling regulations, with a range of major implications. --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: sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net (Steven J Sobol) Subject: Re: Please Contact FCC re: SBC/Ameritech Merger Date: 12 Jul 1999 05:08:54 GMT Organization: North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.4NET On Sun, 11 Jul 1999 18:55:56 EDT, macy@apk.net allegedly said: > There is some discussion about how their overlapping wireless > territories with BAMS will be dealt with. I've also heard of plans to > spin off the entire division. As long as the service stays good ... I've had NOTHING but good service from GTE and have heard only positive comments about Bell Atlantic Mobile on alt.cellular. >> The good thing about Ameritech/SBC is ... >> *ponder* > You are correct to ponder this. > Its an anti-competitive mess. And SBC even more anti-competitive > towards small ISP's than Ameritech is. So what are we (ISP's) doing to deal with the merger? I tried www.phonereform.org and got nowhere. They haven't called me back in three months. Maybe Ameritech caught wind of what they're doing and cut off their phone service. :P > Several states have gone on record objecting to this merger. Some, > like IL, have been quite strenuous about it. > (Not Ohio, of course, the PUC and Consumer's Counsel actually took > the bone Ameritech threw them about "low income service area's" and > ignored every other issue.) Flaming idiots ... I figure that the Ohio PUC has been bought. That's the only logical explanation. That, or they're all smoking crack. :) (Never attribute to malice or stupidity what is more properly attributed to corruption. :) 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 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #211 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Jul 12 14:32:18 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id OAA12384; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 14:32:18 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 14:32:18 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199907121832.OAA12384@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #212 TELECOM Digest Mon, 12 Jul 99 14:32:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 212 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson "Caller ID Capital of the World" (Wayne Lorentz) U S West Telephone Customers Can Call Ahead to Year 2000 (Tad Cook) Re: Proving Negatives/Cell Phones & Gas Stations (Steven J. Sobol) Re: US Admits Crypto Export Controls are About Signals Intell (Steve Sobol) Re: US Admits Crypto Export Controls are About Signals Intell (TanMD) Re: US Admits Crypto Export Controls are About Signals Intell (R. Freeman) Re: International Calls to Cellular = Big $$$ (Peter Corlett) Re: International Calls to Cellular = Big $$$ (David Clayton) Re: Satellite GPS Can Locate Wireless Phones Within 15 Feet (Andrew Green) Re: SLC and Power Failure (Matt Simpson) 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: aa@/THOUSHALTNOTSPAM/worldnet.att.net (Wayne Lorentz) Subject: "Caller ID Capital of the World" Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 15:40:31 GMT Organization: Fairlight Genetics - "Making Perfect People Every Day." Telephones become crime-stopping tools with caller ID HOUSTON (AP) -- Caller ID devices have become as common in Texas homes as dishwashers and compact disc players and are even more common than computers, Southwestern Bell says. Last week, for the first time, caller ID eclipsed call-waiting as the phone company's most popular add-on service, the {Houston Chronicle} noted in its Sunday editions. And Southwestern Bell says its surveys indicate that 80 percent of customers are convinced that having caller ID reduces or controls harassing phone calls. The service costs $6.50 a month plus installation and hardware. Southwestern Bell says it added 595,000 caller ID subscribers in the first three months of 1999 in the five-state southwest region. Officials also say telephones with caller ID have become effective crime-stopping tools. When Austin public schools were peppered with 40 telephone bomb threats immediately after the Colorado school shootings, authorities had little trouble catching several young suspects. Nearly all 911 emergency systems use the service to verify incoming-call locations. Businesses including pizzerias, delivery services and taxi companies routinely use caller ID to thwart pranksters and deter fraud. Nationally, more than 25 percent of phone lines are equipped with the detection equipment, but Southwestern Bell says 55 percent of Texas lines are set up for the service. In Houston and San Antonio, the service's penetration rate is right at 55 percent, with 53 percent in Dallas. The company describes Laredo as the "caller ID capital of the world" because of its 70 percent rate. Critics lambasted caller ID in 1995 when a San Antonio woman was killed as a result of information obtained by her ex-boyfriend. Yet, the same technology led to the recent conviction of two Galveston murder suspects who were caught in a lie by caller ID. Last week, Mark Thomas Dixon was found guilty of capital murder in the 1997 slaying of Curtis Holder, his girlfriend's husband. The girlfriend, Barbara Holder, also was convicted and given a life sentence. Three days after Holder was slain, an acquaintance helping to care for the Holders' child alerted police when Barbara Holder called claiming to be at the police station while she apparently was calling from a Webster hotel. Police arrested her and Dixon at the hotel. "A lot of crooks are not the brightest individuals in the world," retired Austin police Sgt. Sam Cox, a radio commentator, said. "But nothing's infallible, and the longer it's in place, the more bad guys and bad gals will be able to circumvent this situation." Calls to some numbers -- 911 or numbers with the prefixes 700, 800, 888 or 900 -- cannot be blocked. But a $20 "caller ID blocker" device, available at electronics shops, prevents the identity of the caller from being revealed to other numbers. Texans can have their identities blocked for free if they request the service known as "per line blocking" in writing. Or they can block it for free on a per-call basis by first dialing star-67. Users of caller ID also can program their phones to reject calls made by those who block their identities, a tactic often used by telemarketers. Many simply screen out telemarketers, who often hang up if an answering machine answers, by not picking up incoming anonymous calls. Caller ID hardware was invented in 1983 and first offered to the public by New Jersey Bell in 1987, but it wasn't approved in Texas until 1993. (Copyright 1999 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.) ------------------------------ Subject: U S West Telephone Customers Can Call Ahead to Year 2000 Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 00:15:54 PDT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) By Peter Roper, The Pueblo Chieftain, Colo. Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News Jul. 11--U S West is offering customers a chance to call the year 2000 -- right now -- as a way to reassure people that their telephones will function properly next year and not be crippled by the year 2000 computer problem, commonly called Y2K. The telephone company has set up a public network switch with an internal clock system that is running a year ahead of the present, in the year 2000. By calling the switch, and getting an answer, a customer can be assured that their personal telephone system will function after Jan. 1. "It's a way to self-check your telephones for Y2K readiness," said Abel Chavez, U S West district manager. "We hope it will reassure people that the public network is prepared for the Y2K problem. Right now, about 95 percent of our network has been tested and is ready." To check your telephone, call 877-837-8925 (toll free if you are U S West customer). For other telephone users, call 303-787-2000. More information about the self-check system is available on the U S West Web site on the Internet (at www.uswest.com/year2000). Customers can also check whether their local switching system has been upgraded and repaired for Y2K problems, simply by typing in their phone numbers. "The switches that serve the Pueblo area are Y2K ready and I've personally checked the local telephone exchanges on-line," Chavez said Friday. U S West serves customers in a 14-state region and it has roughly 1,400 switches routing calls through that region. All together, the company reported to the federal Security and Exchange Commission that it would spend about $240 million repairing its public network and business technology systems for Y2K problems. U S West began work on the Y2K problem in 1996. As public awareness of the computer problem grew, U S West has stressed to the public that anxiety about the Y2K problem can become a self-fulfilling prophecy is eveyone tries to make a "check the phone" call in the early minutes of Jan. 1, 2000. That would overload the system. While Pueblo city officials reported last month that the city's 911 emergency phone network needs to be replaced because of Y2K problems, Chavez reminded customers that they will be able to call for police, fire or ambulance assistance directly, just by using the regular seven-digit phone numbers. "We've all gotten used to using 911 for emergencies, but people should keep in mind that the regular telephone numbers will function next year, whether a local 911 system is ready or not," he said. ------------------------------ From: sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net (Steven J Sobol) Subject: Re: Proving Negatives/Cell Phones & Gas Stations Date: 12 Jul 1999 05:12:19 GMT Organization: North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.4NET On Sun, 11 Jul 1999 10:03:24 -0700, a.ross@ieee.org allegedly said: > Norm Sandler, Motorola's director for strategic issues, says the > cell-phone story has become "urban folklore," with unconfirmed > incidents of phone-triggered explosions arising every few months in > different parts of the world. But he says the only way a cell phone > could possibly spark a fire at a gas station would be if the caller > were to drop it, causing the battery to dislodge and hit the ground in > a certain way. (With the battery's metal contacts scraping the ground and causing a spark.) 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: sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net (Steven J Sobol) Subject: Re: US Admits Crypto Export Controls are About Signals Intelligence Date: 12 Jul 1999 05:17:44 GMT Organization: North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.4NET On Sat, 10 Jul 1999 22:26:17 -0400, ed_ellers@msn.com allegedly said: > export restrictions, strong crypto programs would then be made freely > available on FTP sites in the U.S., and the theory is that the French > government would see this as interfering in their domestic affairs and > would retaliate by being even less cooperative with the U.S. than they > already are (for example, they might ignore the embargo on oil exports > from Iraq). So what are they doing about other countries that allow the use of strong crypto? 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: tuanmd@scn.org (TuanMD) Subject: Re: US Admits Crypto Export Controls are About Signals Intelligence Reply-To: tuanmd@scn.org Organization: Seattle Community Network Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 06:56:46 GMT In article , J.F. Mezei wrote: > Monty Solomon wrote: >> The SIGINT capabilities of the United States can be signifi- >> cantly compromised by the use of encryption. > Either I am very stupid or the US government is very naive here. Can > someone please explain to me why preventing export of a US encryption > product would prevent foreigners from encrypting their data/messages > with foreign-built encryption systems? Of course not. > Does the United States of America *really* believe that it is the only > one of the world capable of building encryption systems that cannot be > defeated? Nope, not really, not right now; but nothing wrong if we aim to achieve that status. > Does it really believe that other developped countries > don't have good enough education systems to produce scientists capable > of generating very strong algorythms? You misspelled "developed" and "algorithms" but I guess your education is good enough. (Just kidding, don't you get bent out of shape. Now only if I can find a good grammar checker.) > I am sorry if this sounds nasty, but I sincerely fail to understand > why the United States of America continues to insist on preventing > encryption exports. I assume that there must be some valid reason > somewhere. Remember the time when Soviet's submarines suddenly become just as quiet as US' subs when the Russia was able to obtain softwares and hardwares (to machine their subs' propellers) through leaky export controls. Their engineers and mathematicians may have figured out the shape of the ultra-quiet sub's propeller but it may take years for their manufacturing technology to catch up with the West. The delay would represent an edge over strategic defense and negotiation advantage. (We coulda maintain that edge and widen the gap.) As far as current encryption technology goes, the prevention of encryption exports may not help much but perhaps all it does is trying to maintain a slight edge IF some new developments turn up in the US. It is stupid to think that strong encryption technology can only come from US but the possibility is the next breakthrough may come out of US' research programs and the law acts as a valve just in case. If we wait until the threat is realized by hindsight then it may be already too late. That's my 2 cents. uh ... I mean 2.8 cents if you read this in Canada. Tuan PS: Your questions should be posted in a cryptology related newsgroup. Jimmymac, would you please suggest one. Thanks. ------------------------------ From: rfreeman@netaxs.com (Richard Freeman) Subject: Re: US Admits Crypto Export Controls are About Signals Intelligence Date: 12 Jul 1999 15:03:29 GMT Organization: newsread.com ISP News Reading Service (http://www.newsread.com) On Fri, 09 Jul 1999 18:08:22 -0400, J.F. Mezei wrote: > Monty Solomon wrote: >>> The SIGINT capabilities of the United States can be signifi- >>> cantly compromised by the use of encryption. > Does the United States of America *really* believe that it is the only > one of the world capable of building encryption systems that cannot be > defeated? Does it really believe that other developped countries > don't have good enough education systems to produce scientists capable > of generating very strong algorythms? This seems like a moot argument to me. International versions of PGP (with full 128bit session keys and 2048 bit RSA keys) are easily downloadable over the net. These can be downloaded from any country that does not censor them in some manner. I can see how making it more difficult to obtain advanced crypto (ie the downloaded version of Netscape is 56bit) might make it easy for the common citizen deciding to engage in a little fraud to make the mistake of not realizing that his SSL connection is insecure. On the other hand, any organization like a terrorist one would have the specific goal of having clandestine communication, and would download free of charge (and more difficult to trace) something like PGP or PGPfone, which is not feasible to decrypt with modern technology and which doesn't even cost them a cent besides. Commercial encryption software which is the whole center of the argument appeals more to a business as it generally features transparency and ease of use - people don't buy them because they are hard to break, but because they are easy to use (meaning they are more likely to be used in the first place). If you just want to encrypt a disk file before emailing it there are tons of programs which are already free to do it. So the software which is being blocked by current legislation is of more use to a business than a terrorist anyway. Besides, who knows what backdoors exist in commercial software, a real terrorist would download the source to something like PGP, compile it themselves, and know what they are using. Richard T. Freeman - 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 ------------------------------ From: abuse@verrine.demon.co.uk (Peter Corlett) Subject: Re: International Calls to Cellular = Big $$$ Date: 11 Jul 1999 21:25:56 GMT Organization: B13 Cabal Admin wrote: > Countries that appear on the rate sheet which have "cellular" as well as > "regular" rates are: [...] U.K. It is quite expensive to call a mobile phone in the UK, as compared to calls to landlines. Here's a sample of the retail prices for calls that Cable and Wireless offer on their UK Call tariff, dated 2/1/99: Daytime Evening Night Weekend 0800-1800 1800-2200 2200-0800 All Day Mon-Fri Mon-Fri Mon-Fri Sat-Sun Local (<~20mi) 3.95 1.38 1.38 1.00 National (>~20mi) 6.58 2.40 1.66 1.66 GSM1800 Mobile 27.21 15.20 15.20 7.51 GSM900 Mobile 30.55 16.81 16.81 9.01 (All prices in pennies and inclusive of 17.5% tax. As you can see, the cost difference between a long-distance call, and a mobile call is quite significant -- of the order of 40c. It seems that they're not passing all of this cost onto you, lucky you. It's still quite possible that you can call a UK mobile from the US for less than it is to call the same mobile from the UK. ------------------------------ From: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au (David Clayton) Subject: Re: International Calls to Cellular = Big $$$ Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 08:25:48 GMT Organization: Customer of Connect.com.au Pty. Ltd. Reply-To: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au Admin contributed the following: > Perhaps list members in those countries (or US carrier "insiders") can > comment on what the price difference per minute **really** is with > their country and/or whether this is the latest carrier > "inflate-the-bill" technique. > Countries that appear on the rate sheet which have "cellular" as well > as "regular" rates are: Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, > Columbia, Ecuador, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Israel, Italy, Japan, > Netherlands, New Zealand, Singapore, Sweden, Switzerland and the U.K. > (I have no doubt that this list will grow. Programming for resellers > will be a nightmare for sure.) In Australia I know the interconnect costs the mobile network providers charge is pretty high, (BTW the mobile phone owner does not pay for incoming calls, all the charges are paid by the caller). Calls to a mobile phone next to you can cost more in Australia than a call overseas!. I can only imagine that the US networks have stopped "hiding" the difference in the costs of calls to the different networks and are now reflecting the relative costs in their pricing structures. 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: Andrew Green Subject: Re: Satellite GPS Can Locate Wireless Phones Within 15 Feet Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 09:59:16 -0500 Bill Newkirk writes: > Bud Couch wrote in message: >> By the simple fact of carrying a cell phone, your personal >> location can be determined. >> But from a political policy point of view it is negligent, >> at best, and criminal at worst. > Probably could track 'em by noticing the discontinuity in location > between the time it "disappeared" and the time it appeared again. On one of the several occasions (sigh) when an Ameritech cellphone of mine was cloned, the service rep was able to determine from calling logs exactly when that occurred by the huge discrepancy in distance between two calls made seven minutes apart, supposedly from the same phone but from opposite ends of Chicago. Unfortunately this was _not_ detected automatically by the system, only when I called in two or three weeks later to complain about the bill. Had it been flagged at the time it first occurred, a simple phone call from them to me (at my home number, perhaps, which they have in the records) could have shut down the scam long before all the calls were racked up, or at least it would have enabled them to do their own investigation while the calls were occurring, something they obviously did not do. What makes it doubly annoying is that my nicely-itemized multi-page bill listed every phone number called by those con artists (some many times, some obviously a pager number), yet I seriously doubt there was any followup on these losers. I've often wondered about some creative revenge to exact on them myself. > Leonard Erickson wrote in message: >> And in both his scenario and yours, I can just stick the phone inside >> my lunchbox, which *just happens* to be all metal and form a nice >> Faraday cage when closed. Heck, just wrapping it in alumium foil may >> work. Some years ago there was a very pleasant older man who worked at the commuter parking lot on Kingsbury Street at Erie Street. He was very articulate and sounded well-educated. After greeting him every morning and evening for some time, I finally noticed that he always wore a hat, under which a sturdy layer of tin foil was visible. Obviously he was ahead of his time. :-) Andrew C. Green (312) 853-8331 Datalogics, Inc. email: acg@datalogics.com 101 N. Wacker, Ste. 1800 http://www.datalogics.com Chicago, IL 60606-7301 Fax: (312) 853-8282 ------------------------------ From: msimpson@uky.edu (Matt Simpson) Subject: Re: SLC and Power Failure Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 11:52:39 -0400 Organization: University of Kentucky Computing Center In article , johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) wrote: > My local rural telco still uses only > SLC-24, because they can be powered from the CO, but customers don't > like them because the voltage on the line is only about 24V which > makes a lot of marginal phones and answering machines fail. The > engineer tells me that he's not eager to go to a plan that might > require driving around on icy, snowy roads, moving generators from one > SLC to another. I'm a BellSouth customer, and they use some kind of SLC units out here in the boonies. I'm not sure exactly what model they are, but they do rely on external power. A few years ago, we had a major ice storm that took out power lines all over the county. My phone kept working for a couple of days after the power failed, but then it quit. I never talked to any phone company folks to find out exactly what happened, but I assumed the batteries on the SLC died. After another couple of days, phone service returned, but my power wasn't restored for another couple of days after that. I never knew for sure whether the electric co-op got power back to the SLC box (about a mile away) before they got it to me, or whether BellSouth hauled a generator out there and recharged it. Matt Simpson - Paris, KY ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #212 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Jul 12 15:19:09 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id PAA15029; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 15:19:09 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 15:19:09 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199907121919.PAA15029@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #213 TELECOM Digest Mon, 12 Jul 99 15:19:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 213 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Bills Would Fence Off the Facts (Fred Goodwin) Re: Bills Would Fence Off the Facts (Ed Ellers) Re: Bills Would Fence Off the Facts (John R. Levine) Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce (David Clayton) Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce (Jack Perdue) Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce (Jack Hamilton) Re: FCC Extra Line Charge (Harris) Re: FCC Extra Line Charge (Randy Hayes) Re: Jurassic Telecommunications Part I (Donald E. Kimberlin) Re: *67 and *71 (Joseph Singer) Re: Hazards of the Young and Mobile (Jack Dominey) Re: Lower-Priced Always-on DSL (Jonathon C. McLendon) 1-800-COLLECT Diverted by Payphones? (Causey Rare Coins) Star Trek (was Re: Satellites...Locate... Within 15 Feet) (Danny Burstein) Let Your Phone Collectors Know About This Gem (John Cropper) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of 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: Fred Goodwin Subject: Re: Bills Would Fence Off the Facts Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 08:42:40 -0500 johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) wrote in : > The last time I checked, there was no minimum threshold. Using one > fact from someone else's database would set you afoul of this > ill-considered and probably unconstitutional bill. That's not how I read the clear language of the bill: Nothing in this chapter shall prevent the extraction or use of an individual item of information, or other insubstantial part of a collection of information, in itself. An individual item of information, shall not itself be considered a substantial part of a collection of information ... I don't see how it can be any clearer. tls@rek.tjls.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) wrote in : > If they get any of the information from anyone else's site -- any of > it -- as I read the bill they infringe. That's a crock. If that were true, you'd be right: ... no person shall be restricted from extracting or using information for nonprofit educational, scientific, or research purposes in a manner that does not harm directly the actual market for the product or service ... ... an individual act of use or extraction of information done for the purpose of illustration, explanation, example, comment, criticism, teaching, research, or analysis, in an amount appro- priate and customary for that purpose, is not a violation of this chapter ... Nothing in this chapter shall prevent the extraction or use of an individual item of information, or other insubstantial part of a collection of information, in itself. An individual item of information, shall not itself be considered a substantial part of a collection of information ... Fred Goodwin, CMA Associate Director -- Technology Program Management SBC Technology Resources, Inc. 9505 Arboretum, 9th Floor, Austin, TX 78759 fgoodwin@tri.sbc.com (512) 372-5921 (512) 372-5991 fax ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: Bills Would Fence Off the Facts Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 04:13:27 -0400 John R. Levine (johnl@iecc.com) wrote: > In Amazon's case, they and every other on-line bookstore create > their catalog using data from Books in Print and other collections of > books and publishers." As best I can tell Amazon.com is using the Library of Congress Card Catalog, since they also accept requests for out-of-print books (which they will attempt to fill through a network of dealers in rare books). I know of at least one book in their database (from an author I know personally) that has never been *in* print -- the publisher canceled it before publication -- and Amazon.com apparently has gotten a few requests for that nonexistent book! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 10:16:30 EDT From: John R Levine Subject: Re: Bills Would Fence Off the Facts > attempt to fill through a network of dealers in rare books). I know > of at least one book in their database (from an author I know > personally) that has never been *in* print -- the publisher canceled > it before publication -- and Amazon.com apparently has gotten a few > requests for that nonexistent book! They surely use multiple sources. Books in Print has lots of books that were never published, since the BIP entries are sent in by publishers about six months before anticipated publication and if the book doesn't happen, it's never removed. I believe the L of C only catalogs books they physically receive for copyright registration, so they're far less likely to have books that don't exist. For a ghost book of mine, visit: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/020135456X Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Sewer Commissioner Finger for PGP key, f'print = 3A 5B D0 3F D9 A0 6A A4 2D AC 1E 9E A6 36 A3 47 ------------------------------ From: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au (David Clayton) Subject: Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 08:25:47 GMT Organization: Customer of Connect.com.au Pty. Ltd. Reply-To: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au Johnnie Leung contributed the following: > Linc Madison wrote in message: >> Visa, MasterCard, and Discover all now use this system. I don't know >> about American Express, as I no longer have an AmEx card, but I would >> be surprised if they're not doing the same sort of thing. > American Express cards have the account number embossed on the reverse > side, but not on the signature strip and without any additional > 'security code'. However, AmEx cards have a four-digit number, whose > purpose I have never been able to determine, printed close to the Last year I paid for two laptop PC's with my Amex card on the 'net and I got a phone call from the vendor saying Amex (in Australia) wouldn't process such a large transaction (>$10K) without the four digit number. 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: j-perdue@tamu.edu (Jack Perdue) Subject: Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 14:08:25 GMT Organization: Silicon Slick's Software, Supplies and Support Services Derek Balling wrote: >> Returning to the original definitions would be good: >> .ORG - owned by organizations/not for profit >> .NET - owned by network operators >> .COM - owned by commercial entities/for profit/misc > Can you show me where this was "originally defined"? .ORG has always been > the "misc" category, and nowhere that I can find (in a true "definition" > has it ever been reserved for not-for-profit. (Many have made that claim, > thinking ORG=Non-Profit-Organization, but I've yet to find anything > resembling an official document to that effect). Hmmm ... RFC 1591 comes close, but you have a point. To quote the two pertinent sections: COM - This domain is intended for commercial entities, that is companies. This domain has grown very large and there is concern about the administrative load and system performance if the current growth pattern is continued. Consideration is being taken to subdivide the COM domain and only allow future commercial registrations in the subdomains. ORG - This domain is intended as the miscellaneous TLD for organizations that didn't fit anywhere else. Some non- government organizations may fit here. It might be argued that if an organization is out to make money, it should be labeled as a company and as such placed in the .COM TLD. As such, only those that are non-profit would fall into .ORG. I can't think of a way an organization being profitable without the IRS considering them a company. Perhaps, some churches, but I think some would argue whether churches actually accrue "profits". Perhaps readers of the digest can suggest a profitable organization that isn't a company. Network Solutions has the following to say: ORG The top level domain designated for miscellaneous entities that do not fit under any of the other top level domains. Typically used for non-profit organizations. One of the worldwide top level domains. They seem to hedge by saying "Typically", so I would guess that there might be some for-profits in the .ORG TLD. Anyone know who they might be? jack j-perdue@tamu.edu ------------------------------ From: jfh@acm.org (Jack Hamilton) Subject: Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 05:48:28 GMT Organization: Copyright (c) 1999 by Jack Hamilton Reply-To: jfh@acm.org Derek Balling wrote: > All this talk of "imprinting" confuses me ... when was the last time > your card actually got imprinted? The last time it happened to me was > when the local gas station's modem line was done, so the very-confused > clerk had to manually validate each charge using the old imprinter > most of us know and love. Earlier today, at a national discount chain store. They did the approval electronically, but made an imprint of the card on the back of their copy of the receipt. Last week, I wanted to buy groceries at a locally-owned store with my ATM card, but their line was down. The clerk swiped the card and captured the information in their computer, but the charge wasn't run through until later. Mr. Balling's gas store must be particularly old-fashioned. Jack Hamilton Broderick, CA jfh@acm.org ------------------------------ From: Harris Reply-To: Subject: Re: FCC Extra Line Charge Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 10:10:08 -0500 Dan Lanciani wrote: > These little fee increases are appearing at an alarming rate, and the > spins the LECs put on them are a bit disturbing. My mother recently > received the following notice from Bell Atlantic: > "Beginning January 1, 1999, the Federal Communications Commission > required Bell Atlantic to define all additional telephone lines at a > residence as non-primary and subject to a higher FCC Line Charge of > $6.07 per month, instead of the rate for a primary line of $3.50 a > month. (The FCC Line Charge on the first or only line at a location > remains $3.50 per month.)" These new fees represent the result of access charge restructure which was ordered by the FCC. The LECs are charging the customers more of the cost of the local loop. At the same time, an equal amount of access charges charged to carriers are being reduced. If the IXC's passed on the results of their reduced costs the total charged to end users would not change. However, what has happened is that IXCs have failed to reduce their toll rates and in fact have even passed through directly to the customers other rebalancing items. This is why the stock of AT&T, MCI/WorldCom, and Sprint have done so well lately. John Voice 918.496.1444 Fax 918.496.7733 Wireless 918.693.5798 Email harris@hsatel.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 10:12:57 -0500 From: Randy Hayes Subject: Re: FCC Extra Line Charge Don Lanciani asked if the FCC really had required a new definition of non-primary lines ... The FCC's access charge rules set higher price caps for the SLC and PICC charges on non-primary residential and multi-line business lines, but originally did not set clear rules on how these lines are determined. Thus, the FCC issued a "clarification" early this year defining primary and non-primary lines to promote uniformity in assessing the charges. This clarification has stirred-up the issue, as the FCC now determines primary and non-primary by address/location (to keep people from avoiding the higher access charges by putting additional lines in someone else's name, etc.) which can cause problems as well. Universities using Centrex service in dormatories with more than one telephone per room (two students in the room ... two telephones) are finding they will be paying $$$ more in access fees due to the clarification. A number of groups have challenged the FCC's clarification of primary and non-primary lines, but the success of such a challenge is questionable. Unfortunately, when Congress enacted the Telecom Act of 1996 and the FCC began implementing it, the intention with Access Charge Reform was to make the changes revenue-neutral for the LECS and carriers, which got misinterpreted to mean revenue-neutral or even lower-costs for the consumers. All too often Congress and the FCC point to lower long distance rates and claim costs are going down, without adding-in the additional fees and surcharges we are now paying, which often result in bottom-line costs equal-to or higher-than pre-Telecom Act costs. While it is true price caps do not mean the LECs and carriers must charge these fees, they are simply playing the shell-game set-up by the FCC. With the predatory nature of telcos as evidenced by their historical record, they're following their natural instincts. It's just too bad Congress and the FCC either didn't know about the tendancy for these companies to act this way or they didn't care (as long as the PAC money and other favors flowed ...) Randy Hayes randal.hayes@uni.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 01:21:10 -0400 From: Donald E. Kimberlin Subject: Re: Jurassic Telecommunications Part I Mark Brader wrote: > Donald Kimberlin writes: >> ... Messages from Sayville became readable. One of them was a copy of >> the infamous 'Zimmerman letter', in which the German Foreign Minister >> encouraged Mexico to attack the United States, to divert attention >> from the European war. The final straw was the message on May 7, 1915 >> telling German submarine U-39 to 'get Lucy', ordering the sinking of >> the passenger ship Lusitania. > Considering that the Zimmerman telegram was sent in January 1917 and > the US entered the war in April 1917, it seems fair to state that > nothing to do with the Lusitania could have been "the final straw". Absolutely correct, and I stand thoroughly chastised for getting the history reversed in my rush to tell the technology story. Too bad it seems to have caused the reaction of tossing the baby out with the bath water. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 04:37:59 -0700 From: Joseph Singer Subject: Re: *67 and *71 levinjb@gte.net (Joel B Levin) wrote: >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Actually, no Casey, you do not have >> to pause; you can plow straight through it in my experience ... > This is switch dependent. Most places I have tried this, the switch > echoes a stutter dial tone to acknowledge the *70 and doesn't listen > till after that. These switches drop the first two or three digits of > the number if you don't pause. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If the switch is not listening when it > is sending stutter dialtone, how do people who have voicemail with > stutter dialtone as the message-waiting indicator ever get to make > any calls? The stutter dialtone never goes away for them if there is > a message in their box does it? When I have had telco voicemail in > the past, the stutter dialtone did not just stay there a couple > seconds and go away, it just kept on stuttering as long as I sat there > listening to it. Once I no longer had 'new messages' I no longer got > stutter dial tone. As was mentioned this appears to be switch dependant and how the switch is programmed. On Lucent/WECO 1A and 5E switches you can dial straight through the stutter dial tone. On Nortel DMS-100 switches you must wait for the stutter dial tone to end before you dial. This is true not just with message waiting alert, but also with other "CLASS" services such as call forwarding, etc. I've been told that the default on the DMS-100 switch is to make you wait for steady dial tone before you can dial, but that the software can be programmed so that you do not have to wait. Also, in regards to dialing with the stutter dial tone for messages waiting you get about 10 beeps or so and then get steady dial tone. This presents a problem if you are trying to dial out with a modem using standard settings as the modem doesn't like to see the stutter tone. I believe waiting or not is all dependent on which switch your CO has. Joseph Singer Seattle, Washington USA [ICQ pgr] +1 206 405 2052 [msg] +1 707 516 0561 [FAX] Seattle, Washington USA ------------------------------ From: look@my.sig (Jack Dominey) Subject: Re: Hazards of the Young and Mobile Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 12:51:56 GMT Organization: The Maynard G. Krebs Memorial Work(!?)station Reply-To: look@my.sig In , pete-weiss@psu.edu (Pete Weiss) wrote: > On Fri, 9 Jul 1999 01:20:23 -0400, Monty Solomon > wrote: >> Their results [33] suggest >> a correlation between cell-phone emissions and brain tumors and DNA >> breakage in rats. > I was unaware that they had cell-phones small enough for rats to use ;-) Carefully note the wording. The actual testing was done, for well known reasons, on lawyers. Jack Dominey "Apparently I'm insane. domineys(at)mindspring.com But I'm one of the happy kinds!" ------------------------------ From: Jonathon C McLendon Subject: Re: Lower-Priced Always-on DSL Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 13:49:06 EDT Reply To: mclejc@aur.alcatel.com Organization: Alcatel Network Systems - ADSL Engineering Although Alcatel (my employer) does not sell DSL equipment to US West, I must write to correct some mis-impressions left by a previous posting by Paul Robinson, to wit: US West's DSL MegaBit Deluxe offering ($29.95 + ISP charges) is always on. There is no dialup. US West's DSL offering allows one to use the telephone for voice calls concurrently with the DSL connection; Flashcom's DSL requires a separate line to carry DSL (this is due to regulatory restrictions, not technical issues). More information on US West's offering is at: http://www.uswest.com/products/data/dsl/fast_facts.html John McLendon - V:919.850.5367 F:919.850.6670 Alcatel USA - DSL Engineering - mclejc@ 2912 Wake Forest Rd. Raleigh, NC 27609 aur.alcatel.com "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler." Albert Einstein ------------------------------ From: Causey Rare Coins Subject: 1-800-COLLECT Diverted by Payphones? Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 12:33:26 -0500 Organization: Netcom I used 1-800-COLLECT from two privately owned pay phones in the Fort Worth, TX area. One time the number answered "Telecom USA" and the other one answered "Pilgrim Telephone" What's going on? How can these guys divert their phone number somewhere else? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That definitly should be reported. PAT] ------------------------------ From: dannyb@panix.com (Danny Burstein) Subject: Star Trek (was Re: Satellites ... locate ... Within 15 Feet) Date: 12 Jul 1999 07:24:04 -0400 Organization: "mostly unorganized" In Bill Newkirk writes: > Isn't this what the crew in Star Trek has with their "badges"? if they > have their comm-badge with 'em, they can be located OR selectively > called by the ship or others in the away team? > The folks in the Federation don't seem to mind having a universal > locator/pager/telephone they wear just about 100% of the time. Except that the crew aboard the Enterprise, as well as most of the other folk we see, are members of Starfleet, and are part of the military. This is a big difference from being regular civilians, and it's well established, even today, that a member of the armed forces gives up many civil liberties. I'm more concerned over the cavalier way they seem to have access to everyone's, whether military or civilian, personal and medical records. Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Cropper From: John Cropper Subject: Let Your Phone Collectors Know About This Gem Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 06:18:57 -0400 Organization: Areacode-info.com Pat: Was on eBay early this AM and discovered this little gem: Old Western Electric Oval Base Telephone - Item #129128458 I'm not a buff, but I do know that some of your readers collect equipment and might be interested in this. Auction is up very late in the day 7/15/99, but the seller has a reserve price on the item (so any interested parties might want to contact the seller prior to bidding to see what kind of price he is expecting). If nothing else, at least you have another neat picture for the archives. John ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #213 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Jul 12 20:11:10 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id UAA28249; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 20:11:10 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 20:11:10 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199907130011.UAA28249@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #214 TELECOM Digest Mon, 12 Jul 99 20:11:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 214 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson So You Thought There Was Enough Fraud Already? (TELECOM Digest Editor) Re: *67 and *71 (Al Varney) Re: 1-800-COLLECT Diverted by Payphones? (Joel B. Levin) Re: SLC and Power Failure (Dale Farmer) Re: Satellite GPS Can Locate Wireless Phones Within 15 Feet (Dale Farmer) Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce (James Bellaire) Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce (John B. Hines) 555 Reclamation (Judith Oppenheimer) Re: Rotary Dial Telephone (Tony Pelliccio) 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, 12 Jul 1999 17:05:12 EDT From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: So You Thought There Was Enough Fraud Already? Check out this report I found the other day while surfing the World Wide Shopping Mall -- err -- Web. Just imagine! Someone visits a sex site in the Netherlands, and pays for it charging the call to your phone bill through a company in Hong Kong. They say this will eliminate 'security concerns about sending your credit card over the internet' ... I wonder if new concerns may arise as a result. PAT ======================= Internet Firm Tackles Credit Card Fears By Donny Kwok HONG KONG (Reuters) - On-line shoppers worried about sending their credit card details over the Internet will be able to charge web purchases to their telephone bill instead if software from a Hong Kong company takes off. New Media Corp said Friday, (July 2) it aims to launch its NetCharger product in 40 countries over the next three months, aiming to eliminate the security concerns associated with sending credit card numbers over the Internet. The product is aimed mainly at the emerging market for buying ``content'' from web sites, specifically small charges for such items as downloads of software, music, games or financial information. ``If you look at the speed of growth of the Internet outside the United States, we feel that we have got a really good global billing product,'' New Media Director Andrew Wilson told Reuters in a telephone interview. ``Our intention is to be worldwide, to be actually in at least 40 countries within the next three months.'' Hong Kong-listed Essential Enterprises Co Ltd, a business club and investment company, is believed to be in talks to buy a stake in New Media, according to market sources. Trading in Essential shares was suspended Friday pending a statement regarding the possible acquisition of a controlling stake in a telecommunications and Internet firm. Wilson declined to comment on the market speculation. On the billing product, he said it was launched last December in Italy, parts of the United States and a handful of other countries, and is ready for a broader launch. New Media has invested about US$500,000 in developing the NetCharger software, and is already turning a profit, Wilson said. The company would have to invest more to support the product as traffic grows, he added. Revenue per month has grown from zero to US$800,000 this year, he said. ``It is growing very rapidly every month. We haven't hit all the major markets yet. So we believe that our earnings have just begun.'' NetCharger currently generates about 10 percent of the company's overall revenue, but will quickly become the company's growth engine. Japan is expected to be the company's biggest market in Asia, while the United States and Germany are also viewed as major markets for NetCharger. ``What we focused on particularly was the market for pay content and the synergy between billing for pay content on the Internet and our existing network,'' he added. ``We have not launched it in Hong Kong yet but we are planning to do so. We will want to make the service available in China where the credit card penetration is not that high,'' he said. ------------------------------ From: varney@ihgp2.ih.lucent.com (Al Varney) Subject: Re: *67 and *71 Date: 12 Jul 1999 19:52:15 GMT Organization: Lucent Technologies, Naperville, IL Reply-To: varney@lucent.com In article , Joseph Singer wrote: > levinjb@gte.net (Joel B Levin) wrote: >>> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Actually, no Casey, you do not have >>> to pause; you can plow straight through it in my experience ... >> This is switch dependent. Most places I have tried this, the switch >> echoes a stutter dial tone to acknowledge the *70 and doesn't listen >> till after that. These switches drop the first two or three digits of >> the number if you don't pause. > As was mentioned this appears to be switch dependant and how the > switch is programmed. On Lucent/WECO 1A and 5E switches you can dial > straight through the stutter dial tone. On Nortel DMS-100 switches > you must wait for the stutter dial tone to end before you dial. This > is true not just with message waiting alert, but also with other > "CLASS" services such as call forwarding, etc. I've been told that > the default on the DMS-100 switch is to make you wait for steady dial > tone before you can dial, but that the software can be programmed so > that you do not have to wait. I noted this option in a TELECOM Digest article on 9 Dec 1997 with subject "Re: Help with a DMS switch, stutter dialtone". Brief recap: Linc Madison wrote (in the 1997 article): > I'm sorry if I sound annoyed -- I am, but mostly at the Northern Telecom > engineers for designing this as an option instead of simply designing the > thing to always allow dialing through, and even moreso at the techs at > Pacific Bell for deciding to use as the default a setting that should > never be used under any circumstances. > There simply is no reason to discard digits dialed through the stutter. > No reason whatsoever. Much as I might enjoy "roasting" Nortel engineers when I run into them, I feel "No reason whatsoever" is too harsh. They are doing just what Bellcore says in TR-391 and other CLASS requirements -- offering "confirmation tone" or not is an option of the TELCo. And, unfortunately, Bellcore specifies only THREE tones (in GR-506 LSSGR) that receive digits and stop the tone. These are Dial Tone, Recall Dial Tone and Message Waiting Tone. Confirmation Tone does not. Definitions: Recall Dial Tone is 3 bursts of 350/440 Hz followed by steady dial tone. Confirmation Tone is 3 bursts of 350/440 Hz (end of tone) Now Bellcore says (in TR-NWT-000391) Issue 3, September 1992: "3.1.1.2 Per-Call CIDB Features Per-call CIDB features allow callers to dial a feature access code before dialing a complete telephone number to change the value of a presentation status for that call. (R)-03 The originating SPCS shall recognize when a caller enters a valid per-call CIDB feature access code and shall return recall dial tone. It shall be a BCC option to return a confirmation tone followed by recall dial tone. Upon receipt of the recall dial tone, the caller enters the telephone number of the party that is being called." So, it's obvious that one option must be to offer Confirmation Tone (which DOESN'T accept digits). Whether the default (or lowest cost) option should be NO CONFIRMATION TONE is something you could debate. But there IS A REASON for the behavior. Mostly it's Bellcore not knowing what "Recall Dial Tone" does. Al Varney - just my opinion ------------------------------ From: levinjb@gte.net (Joel B Levin) Subject: Re: 1-800-COLLECT Diverted by Payphones? Organization: On the desert Reply-To: levinjb@gte.net Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 21:02:32 GMT In , Causey Rare Coins wrote: > I used 1-800-COLLECT from two privately owned pay phones in the Fort > Worth, TX area. One time the number answered "Telecom USA" and the > other one answered "Pilgrim Telephone" What's going on? How can these > guys divert their phone number somewhere else? I've never tried that services, but isn't Telecom USA (who run 1010321 and 10110220) also MCI, which runs 1-800-COLLECT? JBL [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But how did Pilgrim get mixed up in it? They're a bunch of cheats offering overpriced service on COCOTS. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Dale Farmer Subject: Re: SLC and Power Failure Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 15:10:42 -0400 Organization: Cable slingers and toy users Reply-To: dale@cybercom.net Matt Simpson wrote: > In article , johnl@iecc.com (John R. > Levine) wrote: >> My local rural telco still uses only >> SLC-24, because they can be powered from the CO, but customers don't >> like them because the voltage on the line is only about 24V which >> makes a lot of marginal phones and answering machines fail. The >> engineer tells me that he's not eager to go to a plan that might >> require driving around on icy, snowy roads, moving generators from one >> SLC to another. > I'm a BellSouth customer, and they use some kind of SLC units out here > in the boonies. I'm not sure exactly what model they are, but they do > rely on external power. A few years ago, we had a major ice storm that > took out power lines all over the county. My phone kept working for a > couple of days after the power failed, but then it quit. I never > talked to any phone company folks to find out exactly what happened, > but I assumed the batteries on the SLC died. After another couple of > days, phone service returned, but my power wasn't restored for another > couple of days after that. I never knew for sure whether the electric > co-op got power back to the SLC box (about a mile away) before they > got it to me, or whether BellSouth hauled a generator out there and > recharged it. If you look at the cabinet the SLC is located, there will be a plug on the outside that a generator can be plugged into. A couple years ago, here in Massachusetts, we had a bad ice storm that took out much of Eastern Mass power-wise for many days. NETel had hundreds of portable generators that they ran around from SLC to SLC to charge the batteries back up. (Generally about one tank of gas was good for a full charge.) The generators got stolen by local homeowners at a tremendous rate, once the local stores ran out. I heard that they also had a problem with some of the CO's where the emergency generators were not quite big enough anymore, but that was just a rumor. --Dale ------------------------------ From: Dale Farmer Subject: Re: Satellite GPS Can Locate Wireless Phones Within 15 Feet Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 15:15:59 -0400 Organization: Cable slingers and toy users Reply-To: dale@cybercom.net Bill Newkirk wrote: > Isn't this what the crew in Star Trek has with their "badges"? if they > have their comm-badge with 'em, they can be located OR selectively > called by the ship or others in the away team? > The folks in the Federation don't seem to mind having a universal > locator/pager/telephone they wear just about 100% of the time. > So it must certainly be just fine in the future ... and the future > must be like star trek, right? To be a bit pedantic, the Star Trek communicators are worn by the members of starfleet, a military organization. The military person works under a very different set of constraints and functions than a civilian. So even avoiding your tongue in cheek bit, the analogy does not hold up. --Dale ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 17:08:00 -0500 From: James Bellaire Subject: Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce At 06:33 PM 7/11/99 -0400, TELECOM Digest Editor noted: > I would not, as you suggest I claimed, require anyone to move from > one place to another. I would just advise everyone that as of some > date in the future, allowing time for everyone as needed, that > certain rules would begin to be enforced on sites in .com, and > that those same rules were in effect now regarding new applicants > for .com names. The key phrase from your prior post that 'suggested' that to me was: > Existing users with a domain name > in .com who were NOT defined as above i.e. they do not solicit, they > do not require money or an exchange of cookies in order to visit > the site, would be invited at their convenience and at their option > to relocate using whenever possible the same identical domain name > but in .org or .net or something else. > If you wish to stay in .com you are welcome to do so, Ahhh -- the same courtesy I extended to you! :) > You said in your letter that 'telecom-digest.org can stay', and I > guess my question to you is, where should it be? You are fine where you are. I didn't want you to think that I was attacking your placement. TD does not really fit well under .COM, and .NET might work but only under the lax rules now in place. .EDU is restricted to 4 year colleges and universities or higher -- you couldn't have it if you wanted it (except for the fact that your host fits that category). As far as charging more for second and third domains, I don't believe that would be a deterrent. Just my opinion. James Bellaire [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Responding only to your comment, > TD does not really fit well under .COM and .NET might work but > only under the lax rules now in place. It is not a matter of 'really fit very well' -- I do not think I come close to being a .com site. And .com has a sufficiently bad reputation in so many quarters (so many people simply look at .com as being the world-wide web and vice-versa) that I would not find it at all suitable for myself. Yes, some people are stupid in the way they make associations, but that's not my fault. Yes, the web is more than a bunch of porno sites and outfits that rip off your privacy or send viruses out in email. But isn't it too bad that when someone writing a history report for school on Christopher Columbus finds a reference to 'christophercolumbus' on a search engine index and goes there that he gets a porno site instead? I don't personally care what sites anyone visits; I could care less where you go to visit, but stuff like this as was noted here by someone yesterday is just downright misleading and dishonest. (Was it you, Jim, who mentioned the 'history' web site that was actually a porno site?) Isn't it a bit much when I open a chat room on AOL at night with the theme 'telecommunications topics' and someone asks me a question and I send them a hyperlink to some file in the archives to have them respond to me saying, "My parents have told me I should not click on links that are sent to me because the ones I gotten before always opened some sex picture in my browser ..." and could I please send the file some other way? ... I mean, am I dense and missing something here? Maybe I should move http://internet-history.org over to the .com domain; people could click on it thinking they are going to read transcripts from famous hot-chats on the net over the past thirty years. It does me absolutely no good at all when someone screws around with 'Christopher Columbus' in the search engines, and the .com domain is full of that kind of stuff. Another thing I find totally useless is the use of 'www' on the front of every one of their names. If anyone cares to know, the use of 'www' goes back to in the early nineties when file transfers were still mostly all done by FTP. Those relatively few sites at the time which were equipped to handle http (or HyperText Transfer Protocol) generally had it on one machine at their site, and they gave that particular machine an alias name 'www' in addition to whatever its name was otherwise as an easy way for people to know which machine at each site was equipped for the new procedures. Using 'www' as part of your site name these days is about as stupid as giving someone your home phone number and then adding the comment, 'by the way, you can now dial all over the country automatically you know' ... but still you see millions of them out there giving out their URL as 'www.mypornosite.com' . I just get too annoyed continuing this discussion. PAT] ------------------------------ From: jhines@enteract.com (John B. Hines) Subject: Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 21:57:55 GMT Organization: US Citizen, disabled with MS, speaking solely for myself. j-perdue@tamu.edu (Jack Perdue) wrote: > It might be argued that if an organization is out to make money, it > should be labeled as a company and as such placed in the .COM TLD. As > such, only those that are non-profit would fall into .ORG. > I can't think of a way an organization being profitable without the > IRS considering them a company. Perhaps, some churches, but I think > some would argue whether churches actually accrue "profits". > Perhaps readers of the digest can suggest a profitable organization > that isn't a company. Industry trade groups? For example, http://www.wwpa.org/ the Western Wood Products Association, that determines standards for lumber milled on the west coast. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 18:23:43 -0400 From: Judith Oppenheimer Organization: ICB Toll Free News / WhoSells800.com Subject: 555 Reclamation July 13, 1999 ICB Toll Free News Behind the Scenes The NANPA has informed INC that it intends to start reclamation procedures for 555 numbers. "We believe that ILECs are unlawfully delaying activation of 555 to prevent 555 access by local competitors and potential interexchange carriers who wish to compete with ILEC Information services or Directory Assistance, a traditional 555 purpose, until such time as ILECs themselves are allowed into the interchange (long distance) and information services businesses (Feb. 8, 2000)." So states the letter from an independent 555 consultant (also a North American Numbering Council [NANC] member), to the North American Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA) and the INC secretary, Steve Engelman of MCIWorldcom, in reaction to the NANPA's intention to reclaim 555 numbers. Among the complaints, "Not only are [interconnection arrangements] not available, but the ILECs will not yet even hand off 555 dialed calls to carriers (CLECs or IXCs) with established Interconnection Agreements." ... "any few 555 public consumer tariffs which have been filed have been unreasonably priced and structured to block not only competitors to the ILEC's own 555 services, but structured to obstruct portability, interconnection with competitive carriers (CLECs) and/or IXCs, and competitive services (i.e. DA)" ... " any ILEC implementation has been designed to obstruct the business arrangements to carry our numbers' traffic over an interexchange and/or CLEC carrier of our choice, even a hand-off of calls within a LATA " The letter concludes, "... we remain adamant that 555 interconnection arrangements are not "available" for the purposes of any reclamation trigger in the 555 Assignment Guidelines." The immediate outcome is the introduction of a new INC issue, "555 RECLAMATION", 'championed' by MCIWorldcom's Steve Engelman, which states in part, "The NANPA has informed INC that it intends to start reclamation procedures for 555 numbers. The INC at INC 43 told NANPA to hold off on reclamation until it had time to address the issue. The INC should determine the status of 555 access availability and based its availability direct NANPA on whether it should proceed with reclamation of 555 numbers." The issue will be raised at this week's INC 44 in Toronto. Judith Oppenheimer ICB Toll Free News http://whosells800.com ICB Consulting http://800consulting.com Moderator, TOLLFREE-L http://www.egroups.com/list/tollfree-l/ joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com ------------------------------ From: nospam.tonypo1@nospam.home.com (Tony Pelliccio) Subject: Re: Rotary Dial Telephone Organization: Providence Network Partners Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 23:14:26 GMT In article , rsanders@gate.net says: > True, COs are generally prepared to run for a week or more with no > mains power. But those of us in rural America have another > problem. Our service is provided from the CO to the residence via a > SLC box. The SLC box has batteries which are good for 24-48 > hours. After that, the SLC goes dead. And along with it, all the > phones serviced by the SLC. The local techs tell me they have portable > generators at the CO to be distributed to the SLCs if such a situation > happens. Might get interesting, a couple dozen generators sitting at > lonely rural intersections hummin away in the midst of a small > population with no electricity. I've noticed that in some of the more rural SLC's in Rhode Island there seem to be exhaust stacks coming out of the little concrete bunker. I'd bet they do put generators in sometimes. == Tony Pelliccio, KD1S formerly KD1NR == Trustee WE1RD ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #214 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Jul 13 11:54:19 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id LAA26405; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 11:54:19 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 11:54:19 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199907131554.LAA26405@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #215 TELECOM Digest Tue, 13 Jul 99 11:54:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 215 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Split For 760 Area Code in California (Linc Madison) Calling Party Pays - FCC's Real Motivation? (Fred Goldstein) Re: 1-800-COLLECT Diverted by Payphones? (John R. Levine) Re: 1-800-COLLECT Diverted by Payphones? (Steven J. Sobol) Re: 1-800-COLLECT Diverted by Payphones? (Stanley Cline) Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce (Matt Ackeret) Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce (Steven J. Sobol) Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce (J.F. Mezei) Re: Does Anyone on the West Coast Use Caller ID? (Linc Madison) Re: Snooping OK on Pager Numbers? (Linc Madison) Re: Bills Would Fence Off the Facts (Steven J. Sobol) Re: Lower-Priced Always-on DSL (Paul Robinson) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of 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, 12 Jul 1999 18:12:32 -0700 From: LincMad001@telecom-digest.zzn.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Split For 760 Area Code in California Organization: LincMad Consulting The 760 area code, which covers an incredibly diverse swath of California, stretching from the suburbs north of San Diego (Oceanside, Escondido), up the eastern Sierras, almost to Lake Tahoe, will be splitting in October of next year. Effective 10/21/2000, the northern San Diego County area will change to a new code, to be announced, with mandatory date of 04/14/2001. The rest of 760 (the vast majority of the land area, but well under half of the telephone lines) will remain unchanged. 760 is expected to last 14 years, and the new code 6 years, before further relief is required. I'm rather surprised at the decision to give the new code to the more urban part of 760. In particular, if the region continues its opposition to overlays, in six years you'll have people who changed from 213 to 714 to 619 to 760 to (new), and who will be facing yet another change. Details are in a press release on the CPUC web site at . There is not yet a map available, nor a list of specific rate centers or prefixes affected. ** 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 will be read sooner! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 21:50:30 -0400 From: Fred Goldstein Subject: Calling Party Pays - FCC's Real Motivation? abuse@verrine.demon.co.uk (Peter Corlett) writes, > It is quite expensive to call a mobile phone in the UK, as compared to call > to landlines. Here's a sample of the retail prices for calls that Cable and > Wireless offer on their UK Call tariff, dated 2/1/99: > Daytime Evening Night Weekend ... > National > (>~20mi) 6.58 2.40 1.66 1.66 > GSM1800 > Mobile 27.21 15.20 15.20 7.51 > GSM900 > Mobile 30.55 16.81 16.81 9.01 > (All prices in pennies and inclusive of 17.5% tax. The FCC has a proceeding to institute a standard means of calling party pays cellular in the USA. Ostensibly, it's because mobile-party-pays discourages use. To justify that, they note much lower cellular use in the USA than in some other countries. I don't believe it. Cellular pricing has gotten rather competitive. The plan I'm on (BAM's Digital Choice; available with various usage prepays) provides for free incoming first minutes. Local call to the caller, no charge to the mobile. Try that in the UK! More likely, it's being pushed by the cellcos in order to create new revenues. CPP allows the non-subscriber to pay outrageous rates, as shown above in the UK example, while the mobile subscriber pays a much lower rate (8p?) for outgoing calls. It's like collect calls and the like, where the billed party doesn't even know how much they'll get socked for somebody else's choice of carrier. There's an open docket at the FCC on this one, so if anybody wants to file comments, go to www.fcc.gov, then into the electronic comment filing system. (The docket number is FCC 99-137.) CPP is potentially useful, IF the rates are held to some reasonable level AND the numbers are clearly segregated by "NPA" (SAC) or prefix, so that PBXs can block them. The FCC's proposed in-band audio warning is of no use to PBX system operators, who can get dinged for VERY expensive calls to "local" prefices. CPP in the rest of the world always has separate number blocks. ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jul 1999 23:08:23 -0400 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: 1-800-COLLECT Diverted by Payphones? Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA >> I used 1-800-COLLECT from two privately owned pay phones in the Fort >> Worth, TX area. One time the number answered "Telecom USA" and the >> other one answered "Pilgrim Telephone" [ Telecom USA is MCI ] > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But how did Pilgrim get mixed up in it? > They're a bunch of cheats offering overpriced service on COCOTS. PAT] Yeah, that's my old pal Stan Kugell. I suspect that someone misdialed COLLECT. Remember 1-800-OPERATER ? 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: sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net (Steven J Sobol) Subject: Re: 1-800-COLLECT Diverted by Payphones? Date: 13 Jul 1999 03:18:05 GMT Organization: North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.4NET On Mon, 12 Jul 1999 21:02:32 GMT, levinjb@gte.net allegedly said: > In , Causey Rare Coins > wrote: >> I used 1-800-COLLECT from two privately owned pay phones in the Fort >> Worth, TX area. One time the number answered "Telecom USA" and the >> other one answered "Pilgrim Telephone" What's going on? How can these >> guys divert their phone number somewhere else? > I've never tried that services, but isn't Telecom USA (who run 1010321 > and 10110220) also MCI, which runs 1-800-COLLECT? 10-10-220 is DEFINITELY MCI. I'm rather surprised to hear someone asserting that 10-10-220 is Telecom USA. I don't think that's correct. 10-10-321 is operated by Telecom USA. I don't know what their affiliation is, if there is in fact an affiliation with MCI. North Shore Technologies Corporation http://www.NorthShoreTechnologies.net We don't just build websites; we build relationships! 815 Superior Ave. #610, Cleveland, OH 44114-2702 216.619.2NET 888.480.4NET Host of the Forum for Responsible & Ethical E-mail http://www.spamfree.org ------------------------------ From: sc1@roamer1.org (Stanley Cline) Subject: Re: 1-800-COLLECT Diverted by Payphones? Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 00:11:06 GMT Organization: by area code and prefix (NPA-NXX) Reply-To: sc1@roamer1.org On Mon, 12 Jul 1999 12:33:26 -0500, Causey Rare Coins : > I used 1-800-COLLECT from two privately owned pay phones in the Fort > Worth, TX area. One time the number answered "Telecom USA" and the MCI owns Telecom*USA (the 10-10-321/10-10-220 folks), as well as 1-800-COLLECT. For some reason MCI *still* occasionally routes 1010222+0+ and 1-800-COLLECT calls to the Telecom*USA "division", which charges higher rates than MCI itself for 0+ calls, even after their doing so was exposed on some news show or another a year or two ago. > other one answered "Pilgrim Telephone" What's going on? How can these aka 1-800-DUCK-MCI. They have NO connection to MCI. > guys divert their phone number somewhere else? With MCI/Telecom*USA, it's probably MCI being screwed up. With Pilgrim, my guess is that the *COCOT* did it. and PAT wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That definitly should be reported. PAT] Yes, most definitely. SC ------------------------------ From: mattack@area.com (Matt Ackeret) Subject: Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce Date: 12 Jul 1999 17:31:14 -0700 Organization: Area Systems in Mountain View, CA - http://www.area.com In article , the Moderator wrote: > Amex's main concern and worry was the papers finding out about it > with a resulting headline saying 'drug addict employed in sensitive > position at credit card office' and the resulting bad public relations > or loss of customer confidence. Well, there have been many newsmagazine stories, from Michael Moore's show (with his typical "stealing jobs" slant) to Dateline or one of the ABC shows, about the prisoners answering phones for mail order companies. That should be just as bad as the above, yet it isn't scaring people away from calling up mail order companies. mattack@area.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is no where near as 'bad' if you stop and think about it. 'Prisoner' does not automatically equal 'bad' in many cases, nor does it equal 'good'. 'Prisoner' is another name for someone who got caught and is being punished with incarceration. Quite a few of them committed some minor crime -- I don't excuse it! -- and were dealt a hand of cards in the system which gave them a judge who responded more harshly with the matter than other judges might have under similar circumstances. Really, prisoners handling telemarketing calls are about the last thing thing you need to worry about. If *you* had a job like that, there is always the possibility, if you were so inclined, that you would carry away with you little scraps of paper with credit card numbers, home addresses and similar tidbits of information which should have remained in the computer at work. When you got home, you'd sit down at your own computer and start playing games with all that data you had taken away from work. You would get caught eventually, because no matter how smart you are, there is always someone smarter than you. When you got caught by your employer's internal auditing staff; walked out the front door with a little paper bag full of your personal possessions by a nice man who, on reaching the sidewalk handed you an envelope with your final paycheck, and told you to never return to the premises again for any reason, you'd consider yourself to have gotten off quite lucky; quite lucky indeed. Because your ex-employer does not wish to have this become a topic of discussion either among your former co-workers, or god forbid, the media, should you and he get into a spitting contest, there will be a sort of mutual unspoken understanding: you go quietly, here is a couple of extra day's severance pay to tide you over, and if you need a good recommendation for your next job, we will give it to you. ("Ah yes, mattack, he was one of our best; how sorry we were to lose him."). Now get your things out of your desk during the lunch hour when others are away and please leave quietly. As you contemplate the alternatives involving police, perhaps time in jail and certainly a humiliating write up in the paper the next day that all your neighbors, family and former co-workers would read, you readily accept that escort to the front door. At the next meeting of senior management and/or board of directors, there will be a mention that 'we had an incident', or 'there was an employee who had a problem' or some similar euphemism, and everyone present will understand the meaning of what was said, and the importance of saying nothing more about it. Now let us consider instead of mattack the outstanding citizen who left his position at the telemarketing firm 'because he wanted a better job', the prisoner mattack who got arrested for something and has a couple years in prison. Because his behavior has been good, he gets a chance to work as a telemarketer. He gets watched and monitored almost constantly. He has no opportunity to carry away little scraps of paper with credit card numbers written on them, because he gets searched upon arriving at his job assignment and upon returning to his cell. If he is caught doing the slightest thing wrong, he gets 'fired' from that job, and without a job to go to, prisoners stay in their cells all day. Prisoners who get those jobs generally are --*thisclose*-- to release, or transfer to a halfway-house and the last thing they are going to do is screw up. The telemarketing firm knows that also; they wish all their employees could be supervised so closely 24 hours per day. Prisoners don't worry them; the prisoners are for the most part as honest as anyone else; they just got caught is all and they have a very good motive to behave at this point. Not only do they lose their job and source of income but they may very well find themselves back in front of the sentencing judge a couple weeks later, where their periodic incarceration (the legal term for a work release program for inmates) gets revoked and they wind up staying in prison 24 hours a day instead of just ten or twelve. Everyone knows how it works, telemarketing firm, prison staff, and prisoners alike, so no one has any trouble with it except for people on television shows who like producing sensationalist and out-of- context stories for general public consumption. Its mattack the outstanding citizen who worries me. We have no idea what he is doing all night long at his computer with the information he stole from work that day. Do you understand my message? When a financial institution, credit card or telco back office, or other similar operation which is trusted by the public with personal infor- mation has an 'incident' or an employee who 'has a problem', they resolve it quietly and very quickly, much the way if your doctor discovers you have a very small cancerous growth, you go under the knife posthaste before it spreads everywhere. But let an outsider get into the same computer that an employee was tampering with, and of course it becomes a case of 'computer hacker steals millions of dollars in data and software' with the US Attorney involved, cheer leaders from the {New York Times} and the company itself proudly announcing how they cracked open a fraud ring that 'got started in one of those Usenet newsgroups where they talk about that stuff.' PAT] ------------------------------ From: sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net (Steven J Sobol) Subject: Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce Date: 13 Jul 1999 03:27:15 GMT Organization: North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.4NET On Mon, 12 Jul 1999 05:48:28 GMT, jfh@acm.org allegedly said: > Derek Balling wrote: >> All this talk of "imprinting" confuses me ... when was the last time >> your card actually got imprinted? The last time it happened to me was >> when the local gas station's modem line was done, so the very-confused >> clerk had to manually validate each charge using the old imprinter >> most of us know and love. > Earlier today, at a national discount chain store. They did the > approval electronically, but made an imprint of the card on the back of > their copy of the receipt. This proves that they actually handled the card, that someone gave the card to them. If you dispute a charge on the basis that you allegedly didn't authorize it, and the merchant has an imprint and a signature, that is a huge, huge point in the merchant's favor. > Last week, I wanted to buy groceries at a locally-owned store with my > ATM card, but their line was down. The clerk swiped the card and > captured the information in their computer, but the charge wasn't run > through until later. Mr. Balling's gas store must be particularly > old-fashioned. Um ... If they didn't get an approval, they could have been asking for trouble. If the charge didn't go through later, what were they planning on doing? Did they have some way to contact you just in case? And as a matter of fact, I used to work at a gas station, and on the infrequent occasion when the power went out, I'd just call for authorization or, if the situation warranted, explain that I couldn't accept the cards due to technical difficulties (customers don't generally have a problem with that if you explain it ahead of time and have a good reason for doing so). On Mon, 12 Jul 1999 14:08:25 GMT, j-perdue@tamu.edu allegedly said: > They seem to hedge by saying "Typically", so I would guess that there > might be some for-profits in the .ORG TLD. > Anyone know who they might be? Wariat.org used to exist (it's now apk.net) -- used by Cleveland's first commercial Internet service provider... but the domain was registered back when it was just a public-access Unix site. On Mon, 12 Jul 1999 17:08:00 -0500, TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to bellaire@tk.com: > can now dial all over the country automatically you know' ... but > still you see millions of them out there giving out their URL as > 'www.mypornosite.com' . I just get too annoyed continuing this > discussion. PAT] But some ISP's only set up www.xyz.com to resolve to an IP address, and not xyz.com. Personally, I usually set up both so it isn't necessary to type the "www". North Shore Technologies Corporation http://www.NorthShoreTechnologies.net We don't just build websites; we build relationships! 815 Superior Ave. #610, Cleveland, OH 44114-2702 216.619.2NET 888.480.4NET Host of the Forum for Responsible & Ethical E-mail http://www.spamfree.org [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Good for you. Better still, fix it so the 'www' causes it to bounce if someone does try to use it. I do not know what you would get by entering http://www.telecom-digest.org since I have never tried it. Personally, if you do try it, I hope it makes your browser crash. :) Did I ever mention I hate 'www' ?? Regards the guy who got his groceries without an approval code, it depends in large part who was at fault. Saying 'the line was down' is sort of a generic excuse. If the sales authorization center link was down at the moment, then to avoid a humongous flood of calls to the manual authorizers generally a 'floor limit' is established, and grocery stores tend to have rather high limits; they are not prone to fraud as say an electronics store would be. If his sale was within the floor limit *and* the store otherwise met the rules by making him present an actual card, etc then the credit card issuer will approve the sale once the link to them becomes operational. The credit approval will be 'forced'. They have to do this as a matter of merchant goodwill; no merchant will wait on hold five or ten minutes to get an approval for twenty dollars. The 'approval code' given to the merchant will be a number that at some later point the collectors trying to clear their books will see was a 'forced approval due to overload or technical problems with the authorizers'. The authorizers frequently find out the communications links have gone bad when all of a sudden every phone in the place starts ringing at once, each with an angry merchant on the line, 'we have tried for ten minutes and can't reach you through the terminals in our store'. Once established that there is a problem, the floor limits go into affect. Depending on the merchant, some are allowed to 'approve their own sales' up to the floor limit; others are required to none the less telephone the authorization center manually, but because the queue of calls waiting at the center at that point will have usually reached an extremely high level, the authorizers will rattle off an approval code with no examination of the account if it is within the floor limit. In rare instances when the comm links are down and the host computer itself which the authorizers use is 'sluggish' the backlog in the queue of holding calls will become so severe the supervisor at the authorization center may tell the authorizers to 'informally' raise the floor limit another $25, just in order to keep things moving. That action remains confidential among the staff however, and in most cases within a few minutes the original floor limits will be restored once the phones are under control again or the comm links are back in service, etc. The credit card issuer has to reach some sort of balance between preventing every single fraud or delinquency versus keeping the merchants happy and not inconvenienced. PAT ------------------------------ From: J.F. Mezei Subject: Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 21:57:04 -0400 Nobody mentioned .INT for international organisations, and more importantly ... Why won't the USA use the .US domain ? If US specific companies/groups/individuals had .US, that would leave .COM and ORG to global organisations. It would also make it quite specific that one is about to "deal" with a web site "based" in the United States and as such, one then expect to see prices in US currency. Browsing a site that ends in .CA makes you expect to see prices in canadian currency etc etc. Note that some countries such as Australia have further subdivided their name space. for instance: WWW.QANTAS.COM.AU (or is it www.qantas.co.au ?) > Another thing I find totally useless is the use of 'www' on the front > of every one of their names. If anyone cares to know, the use of 'www' > goes back to in the early nineties when file transfers were still > mostly all done by FTP. A lot more than just FTP. There is also telnet, and all sorts of proprietary applications that use various ports. There is also IRC etc etc. Remember that web browsers handle multiple protocols. So getting a name such as "ftp.netscape.com" makes it obvious to the user that he should precede it with "ftp:/ftp.netscape.com" etc etc. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I believe that '.us' is used by local and state governments in the USA, while '.gov' is used only by the federal government. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 17:57:57 -0700 From: LincMad001@telecom-digest.zzn.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Does Anyone on the West Coast Use Caller ID? Organization: LincMad Consulting In article , anthony@alphageo.com wrote: > Rickman wrote: >> But how do you call people if 60% or 80% (I forget which) of the people >> in CA have you blocked? > Is that _really_ the percentage of Californians who use automatic call > rejection? With 50%+ of all numbers not giving out Caller-ID, I see no > need for a caller-id box or service, and I can't imagine that many > people would automatically reject "private/unavailable" calls. I've > _never_ gotten a message saying my call was rejected, and I have > automatic no-id. I don't believe that Anonymous Call Rejection has been tariffed for offer in California at all, although SBC/Pac Bell certainly wants to have it yesterday-if-not-sooner. The 60% to 80% are estimates of the lines that by default show up as "private." (If a line defaults to "private," you can override by dialing *82 in order to send Caller ID data. If a line defaults to sending the Caller ID, you can override by dialing *67 to send the call as "private," subject to various caveats PAT has recently mentioned. *82 means "send the Caller ID data"; *67 means "mark as private.") An estimated 60% of residential lines are unlisted, and the vast majority of unlisted lines have elected default blocking. About half of listed lines have also elected default blocking. As a result, it would be rather foolish to have ACR in California. You might as well just cancel your phone service, because about the only calls that will get through to you are telemarketers. ** 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 will be read sooner! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 18:23:23 -0700 From: LincMad001@telecom-digest.zzn.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Snooping OK on Pager Numbers? Organization: LincMad Consulting In article , Adam H. Kerman wrote: > Linc Madison wrote: >> Adam H. Kerman wrote: >>> I'm not aware that there is an existing privacy right. Wireless >>> communications take place in the shared public spectrum. Use of a >>> pager does not convey an exclusive license to a portion of the >>> spectrum while telemetry is sent. >>> We have the right to be secure in our person, papers, and >>> possessions. But we have another right, a natural right to use the >>> public way. That includes the airwaves. The more rights we grant >>> individuals to use the public way and exclude everyone else, the more >>> we infringe upon our own rights. >> By that logic, law enforcement should be permitted to do a wiretap >> of any regular telephone line, without a court order, with only the >> consent of the telco, since it is not necessary to enter the >> subscriber's premises to do so. Indeed, if the wiretap could be >> effected at the point where the telephone wires are crossing the >> "public way," then your logic would allow for unregulated wiretaps >> by anyone for any purpose, so long as they did not damage anyone's >> property. > You ignore my chief concern, as usual, which is assigning exclusive > rights to a portion of the radio spectrum. A telephone cable, even > when in the public way, is still private property. Allowing utilities > to use the public way does not exclude all other users. You make an > apples and oranges argument. No, as usual, you completely misunderstand and misstate my argument. You said, "But we have another right, a natural right to use the public way. That INCLUDES the airwaves." It also includes the air space above a public street. By your logic, it should be perfectly legal for me to make a wiretap of a telephone line crossing over a public street, so long as I did it by inductive coupling without any physical damage to the telephone wire and without interference to the operation of the telephone circuit. After all, my doing so is absolutely nothing more than unfettered use of "the public way." It is not an "apples and oranges" argument, it is an "apples and apples" argument. Quite the contrary -- your argument that we should be given absolute right to listen to any radio transmission simply because it is "in the public way," but that it should not be legal to inductively couple a telephone circuit as it crosses over the same "public way," is inconsistent. > Otherwise cell phone users, cordless phone users, and pager users > should assume someone could be listening and take appropriate steps. It happens that I agree with you on that point, but I strongly disagree with the reasoning by which you reach it. ** 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 will be read sooner! ------------------------------ From: sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net (Steven J Sobol) Subject: Re: Bills Would Fence Off the Facts Date: 13 Jul 1999 03:20:09 GMT Organization: North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.4NET On Sun, 11 Jul 1999 18:52:40 -0700, dredd@megacity.org allegedly said: >>> Could someone please explain to me how HR354 makes criminals out of >>> Amazon and Yahoo? >> In Yahoo's case, web spidering is enough like trolling through someone >> else's database to sound alarms. > That's all well and good except that Yahoo doesn't spider. My experience is that Yahoo doesn't even look at submissions anymore unless you pay them lots 'o' dough. :P ***SJS (who doesn't use Yahoo to search anymore, for that reason) North Shore Technologies Corporation http://www.NorthShoreTechnologies.net We don't just build websites; we build relationships! 815 Superior Ave. #610, Cleveland, OH 44114-2702 216.619.2NET 888.480.4NET Host of the Forum for Responsible & Ethical E-mail http://www.spamfree.org [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I do not find that to be true at all. I have never given Yahoo any money but they list web sites of mine. Of course it may be now that they have gotten mixed with Geocities things may change. Geocities never allows you to read anything at all without an advertisement stuck in front of it. I hope Yahoo does not turn that way. PAT] ------------------------------ From: rfc1394a@aol.com (Paul Robinson) Date: 13 Jul 1999 03:47:21 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Lower-Priced Always-on DSL > I must write to correct some mis-impressions left by a previous > posting by Paul Robinson, to wit: > US West's DSL MegaBit Deluxe offering ($29.95 + ISP charges) is always > on. There is no dialup. US West's DSL offering allows one to use the > telephone for voice calls concurrently with the DSL connection; There was no misunderstanding on my part. This new, dial-up DSL service is in addition to and separate from US West's always-on DSL service. This is a separate offering from standard "always on" service. Paul Robinson (Formerly Paul@TDR.COM, TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM among others) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #215 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Jul 13 12:47:15 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id MAA29192; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 12:47:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 12:47:15 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199907131647.MAA29192@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #216 TELECOM Digest Tue, 13 Jul 99 12:47:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 216 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: US Admits Crypto Export Controls are About Signals Intell (J. Maddaus) Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce (Art Walker) Re: Bills Would Fence Off the Facts (Adam H. Kerman) Re: 1-800-COLLECT Diverted by Payphones? (J. Foote) Re: National 555 Telephone Exchange (Stan Schwartz) Re: *67 and *71 (Linc Madison) FCC Cuts Local Number Portability Surcharges (Monty Solomon) Seeking History of Cellular Phones (Agus Surono) Public Phones Number Listing (peng1234@singnet.com.sg) Re: Cell Phones at Gas Stations (Martin McCormick) Re: Hazards of the Young and Mobile - Handheld Powers (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: jmaddaus@NO_SPAM.usa.net (John S. Maddaus) Subject: Re: US Admits Crypto Export Controls are About Signals Intelligence Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 15:41:44 GMT Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Reply-To: jmaddaus@NO_SPAM.usa.net rfreeman@netaxs.com (Richard Freeman) wrote: > On Fri, 09 Jul 1999 18:08:22 -0400, J.F. Mezei > wrote: >> Monty Solomon wrote: >>>> The SIGINT capabilities of the United States can be signifi- >>>> cantly compromised by the use of encryption. >> Does the United States of America *really* believe that it is the only >> one of the world capable of building encryption systems that cannot be >> defeated? Does it really believe that other developped countries >> don't have good enough education systems to produce scientists capable >> of generating very strong algorythms? > This seems like a moot argument to me. International versions of PGP > (with full 128bit session keys and 2048 bit RSA keys) are easily > downloadable over the net. These can be downloaded from any country > that does not censor them in some manner. I can see how making it > more difficult to obtain advanced crypto (ie the downloaded version of > Netscape is 56bit) might make it easy for the common citizen deciding > to engage in a little fraud to make the mistake of not realizing that > his SSL connection is insecure. On the other hand, any organization > like a terrorist one would have the specific goal of having > clandestine communication, and would download free of charge (and more > difficult to trace) something like PGP or PGPfone, which is not > feasible to decrypt with modern technology and which doesn't even cost > them a cent besides. This is truly an interesting subject. When AT&T introduced the TSD (Telephone Security Device) 3600 in the early '90s, the feds went nuts, especially when they found out that the early production models were DES. The issue was strictly voice, data was a different story and one which took a back seat, in other words they didn't care. Now, AT&T Federal Systems went into overtime building these things at the same time that much pressure was being placed at the CEO (Allen) level directly by Reno to adopt Clipper. Orders from the top, so Clipper would go in those not already installed with DES or one of three other proprietary algorithms available. The organization that built the STU-IIIs was now going commercial and adopted Clipper. The agreement called for AT&T to cease production of DES based 3600s immediately and that the government would buy any existing 3600s with DES. They were more than a bit surprised to find out that well over 1,000 had been built (retail cost was over a $1K initially I believe). In addition, they would pay AT&T to convert the existing DES units (up front if my memory serves me) to Clipper, again not a cheap proposition. The feds came out to the factory in NC to physically count the number that existed and what stage of completion they were in (thinking they had agreed to purchase a handful) and went back with wallets empty and shaking heads. Not happy campers. Meanwhile, some enterprising marketing types embarked upon a try one for 30 days free trial. Guess who took them up on that (and what do you do with just one?). Guess how many of the nearly 1,000 units ever came back? Mad scramble to get them all back and convert them to Clipper. Remember, we are still talking voice. To get over the export issues for data encryption, AT&T Federal Systems purchased a Swiss company called Gretag, developer of DES and triple-DES based bulk encryptors used by the European banking community. They merely imported them into the U.S. since they already were embedded in and built overseas. Niche market at the most. Gretag also had an algorithm that AT&T was going to use in the TSDs. Veto, too strong. However, the algorithm in the TSDs sold to corporations varied depending upon whether the company was a U.S. owned or foreign owned multi-national company. U.S companies got stronger proprietary algorithms. Now enter VOIP and the web, PGP, etc. No one that I know of back then had a clue that voice might propagate over anything other than the telephone on the desk, nor that "data" would be such a widely used means of "communications" within several years. Hence, back burner encrypted data reality has made a moot point of much of the export issue. Makes for good politics though to continue the export debate:) Confusion over export policy also makes for putting off decisions by users, at least certain kinds of users, again cutting speed of proliferation of any encryption. Both ends must be compatible and if you can delay one end from anything by confusing the issue what is the default means of communication? Still, software encryption solutions are slow and require some user commitment to know what they are doing in order to work. What percentage of people truly download the stuff, religiously use it and then require everyone else that they converse with to do the same and strictly adhere to that requirement? There is still a need for bulk encryption devices that are standardized (read I can buy compatible units from more than one vendor or at the very least from a vendor that I trust - I know contradiction in words), supportable (read I don't want to take the company hit if my encryption solution is cracked), cost nothing, do not introduce delay, do not impact voice quality, and are totally invisible to the end user (heard the last four over and over and over again from every major account). And are you absolutely, positively, 100% sure that the encryption software you just downloaded doesn't have a back door? How many versions of PGP have been introduced with slicker install, more features, etc.? How did they get to the ftp site? Read the book "The Next World War" by Adams, (James?) to see how long this type of mindset has been around. John S. Maddaus jmaddaus@usa.net Merlin Communication Systems Telecom fraud and security consulting ------------------------------ From: Art.Walker@onesourcetech.com (Art Walker) Subject: Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce Date: 13 Jul 1999 15:04:51 GMT Organization: Recovering Nebraskans Clinic - Denver, CO Reply-To: Art.Walker@onesourcetech.com On Sun, 11 Jul 1999 10:07:01 -0500, James Bellaire wrote: > Returning to the original definitions would be good: > .ORG - owned by organizations/not for profit > .NET - owned by network operators > .COM - owned by commercial entities/for profit/misc Better yet, fold all of those domains into a single ".us" entity, and use a directory service (say, LDAP-based) for mapping company names and information to a specific domain entry. As part of the directory schema, detailed information about ownership, location, contacts and type of business could be easily included. Of course, the question about exactly who will run these directory servers would still need to be figured out. - Art [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But I believe the domain called '.us' is already in use by state and local governments and some public schools; things like that. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Adam H. Kerman Subject: Re: Bills Would Fence Off the Facts Organization: Chinet - Public Access since 1982 Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 15:11:46 GMT Thor Lancelot Simon wrote: > Furthermore, it bears notice that these bills are being heavily > pushed by the West Publishing wanna-be-monopoly as a cure to their > recent series of court defeats -- they want to "own" all legal > opinions by collecting them and adding their own page numbers, so you > can't cite them correctly without paying for a set of WestLaw books or > their online service (or Lexis/Nexis, who license the data from them). > The courts said there's no copyright in page numbers, so now they're > pushing these bills trying to create one. Page numbers are an issue because courts require them in citations to Reporters. In many state appellate and state supreme courts and federal circuit courts, West publishes the official record of the opinions. Lower courts require that citations include page numbers in the official publication. This is all public information. The solution would be for the courts to hire professional editors and codify their own opinions. Till a few years ago, Illinois Revised Statutes was the only codification of state law; it used the Smith-Hurd classification system owned by West. The legislature finally got smart and codified its own statutes. There's no more Chapter 111 2/3; oh, well. John R Levine wrote: > I believe the L of C only catalogs books they physically receive for > copyright registration, so they're far less likely to have books that > don't exist. No. The Library of Congress has had a Cataloging-in-Publication program since 1971. Publishers submit galleys or manuscripts to LC technical services librarians ahead of publication. LC provides preassigned catalogue card numbers, Subject Heading Classifications according to its self-designed schedule, LC and Dewey decimal classification numbers, as well as standardized data entry of author, title, publisher, edition, etc. called a MARC record. The ISBN is still assigned by the publisher of Books In Print, R.R. Bowker. Of course, there are a great many publishers who don't bother to obtain preassigned card numbers or participate in Cataloguing in Publication. This isn't too bright, since these two programs make it much less costly for libraries to obtain their books as all cataloging has been performed. ------------------------------ From: eljefe@payphone-directory.org (J. Foote) Subject: Re: 1-800-COLLECT Diverted by Payphones? Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 06:18:36 GMT Organization: Wolfe Internet Access, L.L.C On Mon, 12 Jul 1999 12:33:26 -0500, Causey Rare Coins wrote: > I used 1-800-COLLECT from two privately owned pay phones in the Fort > Worth, TX area. One time the number answered "Telecom USA" and the > other one answered "Pilgrim Telephone" What's going on? How can these > guys divert their phone number somewhere else? The pay phones are programmed by the phone company to divert that number. I've encountered it on an awful lot of pay phones in my area (State of Washington) and have been diverted to Telecom USA, MCI Worldcom, AT&T, and sometimes had the number totally blocked by the pay phone. ------------------------------ Reply-To: From: Stan Schwartz Subject: Re: National 555 Telephone Exchange Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 02:45:40 -0400 The report makes me wonder about the enforcement of 555 usage in entertainment created before 1992, but used today. One case I spotted recently was on a Nick at Nite re-run of the 'WKRP' television show. Back in the late '70's, the number 555-WKRP was perfectly fake, but someone took the time to go back and re-phrase/re-loop the soundtrack so that you only saw Dr. Johnny Fever say the number without the sound. It's not as awkward, but will now live in television phone number infamy with 'The Honeymooners'' "BEnsonhurst 0-7740/1" (where the sound had to be re-looped because Jackie Gleason kept mixing up the 'correct' and 'incorrect' phone numbers that were a plot device in an episode). - Stan (going back to the TV now...) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 01:14:26 -0700 From: LincMad001@telecom-digest.zzn.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: *67 and *71 Organization: LincMad Consulting In article , varney@lucent.com wrote: > I noted this option in a TELECOM Digest article on 9 Dec 1997 with > subject "Re: Help with a DMS switch, stutter dialtone". Brief recap: > Linc Madison wrote (in the 1997 article): >> I'm sorry if I sound annoyed -- I am, but mostly at the Northern Telecom >> engineers for designing this as an option instead of simply designing the >> thing to always allow dialing through, and even moreso at the techs at >> Pacific Bell for deciding to use as the default a setting that should >> never be used under any circumstances. >> There simply is no reason to discard digits dialed through the stutter. >> No reason whatsoever. > Much as I might enjoy "roasting" Nortel engineers when I run into > them, I feel "No reason whatsoever" is too harsh. They are doing just > what Bellcore says in TR-391 and other CLASS requirements -- offering > "confirmation tone" or not is an option of the TELCo. And, unfortunately, > Bellcore specifies only THREE tones (in GR-506 LSSGR) that receive > digits and stop the tone. These are Dial Tone, Recall Dial Tone and > Message Waiting Tone. Confirmation Tone does not. You are correct. I was roasting the wrong party in that comment. I am still angry at the Northern Telecom engineers for following a Bellcore (Telcordia) standard which has no reason for it whatsoever. I am still VERY angry at Pacific Bell for selecting hardware which follows a stupid standard. There is a reason for the behavior of the switch -- a committee decided that we should always do the stupid thing instead of the obviously right thing. However, the fact remains that there is no reason whatsoever to ever discard digits dialed through the "stutter" (confirmation tone). The behavior is absolutely inexcusable, and the applicable Telcordia standard must be revised. Unfortunately, no one sees this issue as being important enough to bother with, but quite seriously, if I'm ever in a hiring situation and find out that an applicant was involved with that committee, his or her application will hit the trash bin faster than you can blink. Let me dial through the confirmation tone!! There is ABSOLUTELY NEVER ANY BENEFIT WHATSOEVER to the customer in having digits discarded. It's in the same league with forbidding 1+ on local calls, and in fact I'd have to say that it's even more brain-dead and even more indefensible. It's very important to protect the consumer from accidentally having the telephone behave in an intelligent and convenient fashion. Also, I discovered that in some cases, dialing, for example, *70#nxx-xxxx would allow me to dial through, but sometimes, if the switch hadn't finished processing the *70 fully by the time it got the first digit of the actual number, it would return fast busy. I finally had to give up and program in *70W on the modem, or, for instance, *82 on the speed dial. I don't have CO-based speed dial, so I don't know what it would do with *82.1.NPA.NXX.XXXX. Would I have to program in just the number and then dial *82, pause, and then dial the appropriate speed dial number? (Note that *70W555-0121 is better than *70,,555-0121, because the "W" tells the modem specifically to wait for steady dial tone, as opposed to waiting a fixed length of time.) ** 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 will be read sooner! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 00:24:44 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: FCC Cuts Local Number Portability Surcharges By Sandra Guy, tele.com Jul 12, 1999 (6:53 AM) Foregoing millions of dollars in potential surcharges, incumbent local carriers (ILECs) appear to be going along quietly with huge, federally imposed cuts in the amounts they hoped to recover to provide local number portability for telephone service customers. http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB19990712S0008 ------------------------------ From: Agus Surono Subject: Seeking History of Cellular Phones Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 11:55:14 -0700 Reply-To: agus@majalah.gramedia.com Please help me, where I can find sites of history of cellular phone? Thank you. Agus ------------------------------ From: peng1234@singnet.com.sg Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 20:05:15 +0800 Subject: Public Phones Number Listing Hi, Just wondering, is there any way posiible for one to get the telephone number of public phones without calling the exchange or telecommunications company (telco) ? Regards, Lucas [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There was a web site I found once which had lists of numbers for pay phones all over the USA. That seemed to be its sole purpose, just listing all those pay phone numbers for whoever found it of interest. I forget where I found that site. Maybe a reader knows. PAT] ------------------------------ From: wb5agz@dc.cis.okstate.edu (Martin McCormick) Subject: Re: Cell Phones at Gas Stations Date: 13 Jul 1999 12:11:40 GMT Organization: Oklahoma State University in Stillwater, Oklahoma In article , John McHarry wrote: > 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. Yes. You made the basic working parts of an automobile ignition system. Inductors such as buzzers and their brethren such as relays and solenoids require some energy to build a magnetic field when a current goes through the coil. When that current is disconnected, the field collapses and the energy which built the field now escapes quickly in the form of a high-voltage low-current pulse. I remember learning this as a kid when I would connect a buzzer or relay to a battery and then get the daylights knocked out of me when I disconnected the wires. The bigger the coil, the bigger the zap. If you read the voltage across the coil with an oscilloscope, the spike will be of the opposite polarity of the voltage that magnetized the coil. It is possible to put a diode right across the coil such that it doesn't conduct when the coil is magnetized, but does short out the big spike when the energizing voltage is removed. This makes the relay or solenoid release a little more slowly, but gets rid of the big spike that can destroy semiconductors and make radio static. Martin McCormick WB5AGZ Stillwater, OK OSU Center for Computing and Information Services Data Communications Group ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 01:30:31 -0700 From: LincMad001@telecom-digest.zzn.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Hazards of the Young and Mobile - Handheld Powers Organization: LincMad Consulting In article , Arthur Ross wrote: > This is yet another of those "prove a negative" risk-to-the-public > kinds of questions. Is electromagnetic radiation hazardous to your > health? Obviously yes ... at SOME power level. It will cook you, as in > microwave ovens (which, by the way, are not greatly different in > frequency from the PCS wireless phones - 2450 MHz versus 1900 MHz, > roughly). But are there risks other than thermal - more subtle > effects? How do those risks scale with exposure? What level of risk is > acceptable? The risk is obviously low for the powers involved in the > portable phones, so the answers can be obtained only in a statistical > sense. For a high degree of statistical certainty, large sample sizes > are require. If there are bad effects that result from lifetimes of > exposure, then lifetimes of experiment and data gathering may be > required. That brings up an interesting question. We've all seen the warning signs advising pacemaker users to avoid places where microwave ovens are in use because the small amount of microwave radiation leakage from the oven could adversely affect the operation of the pacemaker. How does the power level of a cellular/PCS phone operating normally compare with the amount of radiation leakage one might find near a microwave oven? Worse case, what if the phone is in someone's front shirt pocket, or otherwise in very close proximity to the pacemaker? As to the risk of a cellular phone igniting a gas station, I'd say it's sufficiently remote that it should be completely disregarded. It's so much less likely to cause a fire than simply starting the car engine, as has been pointed out, not to mention the risk from having a catalytic converter at 1300 degrees Fahrenheit roaming through the gas station. Cigarette smoking? Yes, by all means, ban it in all gas stations, and vigorously enforce the ban. Keep in mind that your car doesn't burn liquid gasoline, it burns gasoline vapor. But worrying about the spark from a cell phone is silly beyond words, most especially singling out cellular phones among all the other miscellaneous electronic devices. ** 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 will be read sooner! ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #216 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Jul 15 02:07:22 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id CAA12668; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 02:07:22 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 02:07:22 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199907150607.CAA12668@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #217 TELECOM Digest Thu, 15 Jul 99 02:07:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 217 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Daily Electronic Newspaper Started (TELECOM Digest Editor) 8th International Conference on Telecommunication Systems (Armin Eberlein) Callers Can't Reach 231 Area Code (Jack Decker) The .US Domain (James Ford) 1800SKYTEL2 Blocked in Las Vegas (Flor Riklef) Busiest Public Telephone (Bram Dov Abramson) DSL vs. Cable Modems (Lauren Weinstein) FTC: Hands Off Net 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 00:36:30 EDT From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Daily Electronic Newspaper Started After all the complaining I do here about newspapers and my dislike of the bias openly displayed by many or most of them regards the Internet, I decided to quit complaining and do something about it. I got tired of the fact that when you go to the {New York Times} you have to be registered with them to view their pages. I got tired of the {Boston Globe} always complaining about their copyright and selling the stuff they have in their archives, rather than following the net tradition of making their archives available to everyone. So, I started an online newspaper called the Telecom Digest Daily E-News. That sounds a little corny, I know; I have not thought of a better name for it as of yet. You will find it at http://telecom-digest.org/news Here is what you will find in this continuously updated journal: Reuters News and Photos Time Magazine Online Time Digital Salon Magazine CMPNet TechWeb News CMPNet TechWeb Communication News PC World Wired News Politics Wired News Technology Court TV Online News.com Perspectives News.com Communications News.com Rumor Mill Business Wire: Telecommunications About.com Computers and Technology Upside (several features) Wacky Times In each case, I have selected several items of interest from each publication. By clicking on the headlines, you can read the full text of each story, without having to surf around to several different locations each day. For example, on a Reuter's picture of President Clinton, simply click the picture. For this week's report in Wacky Times about the surgeon who successfully operated on his own brain, you'd go to that place on the page and click on the headline. I then link to that location, fetch the story and present it. At most of the sites where I select items, I usually select the five most important news stories of the day. The above list of sites is sort of small right now; I only visit about twenty places as you see in the list. But this will be expanding soon to include a lot more web-based publications and I expect to have several more on line soon. This whole thing is entirely automated; as new articles become avail- able from the different sources mentioned above they are automatically installed with links via this site. At any given time you go there to scan the files available, it will be slightly different than it was a few minutes earlier since the various web sites I visit update their stories at different times. In doing this, I tried to emulate the model Lila Atcheson put together in 1920 when she and DeWitt Wallace began the {Reader's Digest}: Many of you are far too busy to spend a lot of time surfing the net looking for important articles at dozens of different web sites, many of which require registration, passwords, etc. By having it all in one place, then you need only bookmark that one location and visit it for a few minutes each day picking and choosing through the hundred-plus articles available, many of which are replaced daily, and almost all of which are gone after a couple days. Of course no password, registration or privacy-invading personal questions are asked. I officially call this the TELECOM Digest Daily E-News, but a sub-title is 'Best of the Net'. I hope it saves you time and effort in locating the news you want to read each day. I do not anticipate including any of the traditional print media; only web-based publications with maybe an occassional exception. Please get aquainted with http://telecom-digest/news and begin scanning it regularly. Don't forget also that you may link up to three of your POP-style email addresses through our email service also, which will enable you to read email conveniently at http://telecom-digest/postoffice while scanning the daily news here at the same site. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: Armin Eberlein Subject: 8th International Conference on Telecommunication Systems - CfP Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 10:32:23 -0600 Organization: U of C Reply-To: eberlein@enel.ucalgary.ca Dear colleagues, Enclosed is a copy of the Call for Papers for the 8th International Conference on Telecommunication Systems which will be held March 9-12, 2000 in Nashville, TN, USA. I am going to organize two sessions on * Telecommunication Service Design, and * Telecommunication System Design I would very much appreciate if you considered submitting a paper (preferable), or titles and extended abstracts for potential presentation on this conference by September 15, 1999. Papers submitted to the two sessions listed above should be send to me directly by e-mail in Word format or Postscript. Please feel free to forward the CfP to anybody interested in submitting papers. Looking forward to receiving your submission. Kind regards, Dr. Armin Eberlein Assistant Professor Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering University of Calgary Tel: +1 (403) 220-5002 2500 University Drive NW Fax: +1 (403) 282-6855 Calgary, AB, Canada T2N 1N4 e-mail: eberlein@enel.ucalgary.ca http://www.enel.ucalgary.ca/People/eberlein C A L L for P A P E R S 8th International Conference on Telecommunication Systems, Modeling and Analysis March 9-12, 2000 Nashville, Tennessee, USA Sponsors: American Telecommunication Systems Management Association BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. IFIP WG 7.3 "Computer system modeling and performance evaluation" INFORMS Technical Section on Telecommunications INFORMS College of Information Systems Owen Graduate School of Management, Vanderbilt University Vanderbilt Institute of Public Policy Studies http://munin.utdallas.edu/atsma/icts/icts2000.html The 8th International Conference on Telecommunication Systems - Modeling and Analysis will be held in Nashville on March 9-12, 2000. The conference will build on the tradition of the earlier conferences. The general idea is to encourage informal interaction and exchanges of ideas by limiting the number of participants, concentrating on a few topics, and by presenting new problems and problem areas. The objective is to advance the state of the modeling and analysis in telecommunications by stimulating research activity on new and important problems. The conference will be divided into segments with each segment devoted to a specific topic. This will allow for little conflict between segments. Papers will be screened by the Program Committee to ensure the quality of presentations. A decentralized paper handling process will be used. Abstracts and papers should be submitted directly to a Program Committee member who will handle its review. It is expected that this will expedite the paper review process. Social and cultural activities will be included in the 2000 agenda. The conference will be held at two sites, Thursday and Friday meetings will take place at the Tennessee Economic Development Center at the BellSouth Tower in downtown Nashville. The Saturday and Sunday meeting will be held at the ClubHouse Inn & Conference Center. (See description at the end of the message). Listed below are some of the potential segments: -- Configuration of ATM Networks -- DSL and Cable Based Systems -- Internet and its Impact on Commerce -- Internet and Intranet -- Mobility and Nomadicity -- Multimedia modeling and analysis -- Pricing and Economic Analysis of Internet and E-commerce -- Topological Design and Network Configuration Problems -- Design and Analysis of Local Access Networks and Outside Plant Problems -- Low and Medium Earth Orbit Satellite Communication Systems -- Cellular Systems and PCS Modeling and Configuration -- Time Dependent Expansion of Telecommunication Systems -- Network Reliability, Availability and Survivability -- Network Design Problems in Gigabit and Terabit Networks -- LAN, WAN Global Network Interconnection -- Artificial Intelligence/Heuristics in Telecommunication Systems -- Quantitative Methods in Network Management -- Pricing and Economic Analysis of Telecommunications -- Impact of Telecommunications on Industrial Organization -- Performance Evaluation of Telecommunication Systems -- Distributed Computing and Distributed Data Bases -- Security and Privacy Issues in Telecommunications -- Virtual Reality, Multimedia and their Impact -- Standards The Program Committee is open to any ideas you might have regarding additional topics or format of the conference. The intention is, whenever possible, to limit the number of parallel sessions to three. The conference is scheduled over a weekend so as to reduce teaching conflicts for academic participants, and to enable participants to take advantage of weekend hotel and airfare rates and of the many events that take place in the downtown area. Members of the Program Committee include: Abdullah Al-Dhelaan, King Saud University, Saudi Arabia Kemal Altinkemer, Purdue University, USA Mario Baldi, Politecnico di Torino, Italy Suk-Gwon Chang, Hanyang University, Republic of Korea Imrich Chlamtac, University of Texas at Dallas, USA Laurie G. Cuthbert, Queen Mary & Westfield College, UK Lou Dellaverson, Motorola, Radio Research Lab, USA Piet Demeester, University of Ghent - IMEC, Belgium Bezalel Gavish(Chairman), Vanderbilt University, USA Luis Gouveia, Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal Horst W. Hamacher, Universitaet Kaiserslautern, Germany Richard J. Harris, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Australia Frank Huebner, AT&T Labs, USA Joakim Kalvenes, The University of Texas at Dallas, USA Johan M. Karlsson, Lund Institute of Technology, Sweden Konosuke Kawashima, NTT Advanced Technology Corp., JAPAN Hans Kruse, Ohio University, USA Nikos E. Mastorakis, Hellenic Naval Academy, Greece Armin R. Mikler, University of North Texas, USA Sverrir Olafsson, BT Laboratories, UK June S. Park, The University of Iowa, USA Hasan Pirkul, University of Texas at Dallas, USA Guy Pujolle, University of Versailles, France Dimitrios N. Serpanos, Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas, Greece Yutaka Takahashi, Kyoto University, Japan J. L. van den Berg, KPN Research, The Netherlands Lipo Wang, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore Lars C. Wolf, Darmstadt University of Technology, Germany Due to the limit on the number of participants, early conference and hotel registration is recommended. The ClubHouse Inn & Conference Center is the official hotel of the conference. To ensure your participation, please use the following steps: 1. Send to a Program Committee member, by September 15, 1999, a paper (preferable), or titles and extended abstracts for potential presentations to be considered for the conference. Sending more than one extended abstract is encouraged, enabling the Program Committee to have a wider choice in terms of assigning talks to segments. Use E-mail to expedite the submission of titles and abstracts and papers. If you would like to organize a panel on a specific subject, please send the proposal to Bezalel Gavish. 2. Use the forms at the end of this message to pre-register for the conference and the hotel. Let us also know if you would like to have a formal duty during the conference such as: Session Chair, or Discussant. 3. You will be notified by December 1, 1999, which abstract(s)/paper(s) have been selected for the conference. Detailed instructions on how to prepare camera-ready copies will be sent to authors of accepted presentations.February 1, 2000, is the deadline for sending a final version of the paper. Participants will receive copies of the collection of papers to be presented. 4. All papers submitted to the conference will be considered for publication in the "Telecommunication Systems" journal. If you do not wish for your paper to be submitted for publication consideration in the "Telecommunication Systems" journal, please specify it in the cover letter of your submission. The Program Committee looks forward to receiving your feedback/ideas. Feel free to volunteer any help you can offer. If you have suggestions for Segment Leaders (i.e., individuals who will have a longer time to give an overview/state of the art talk on their segment subject) please E-mail them to Professor Gavish. Also, if there are individuals whose participation you view as important, please send their names and E-mail addresses to a Program Committee Chairman, or forward to them a copy of this message. I look forward to a very successful conference. Sincerely yours, Bezalel Gavish The 5th Informs Telecommunications Conference, BOCA 2000 sponsored by the Informs section on telecommunications will be held March 5-8, 2000 in Boca Raton, Florida. The conference announcement can be found at, http://www.crt.umontreal.ca/GERAD/boca2000/. The dates were selected so that you will be able to participate in both conferences. ---------------------------------------------------------- Cut Here ---------------------------------------------------------- Eighth International Conference on Telecommunication Systems Modeling and Analysis REGISTRATION FORM Dates: March 9, 2000 (afternoon) to March 12, 2000 Date: ______________ Name: ________________________________________ Title: ________________ Affiliation: ____________________________________________________________ Address: ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Phone: ____________________________ FAX: ____________________ E-mail: ____________________________________________________________________ Potential Title of Paper(s): _______________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ I would like to Volunteer as Comments A Session Chair: Yes No _________________________________________ A Discussant: Yes No _________________________________________ Organize a Session: Yes No _________________________________________ _________________________________________ REGISTRATION RATES and DEADLINES: (Included in the registration fee are: Conference proceedings, a reception, two dinners, two lunches, coffee breaks, and cultural events.) Last Applicable Academic Industry Corporate Date Rate Rate Rate --------------- -------- -------- -------- 1. Pre-registration Until Dec. 15, 1999 $ 430 $ 550 $1,500 2. Registration Until Feb. 1, 2000 $ 530 $ 650 $1,500 3. On Site Registration After Feb. 1, 2000 $ 630 $ 800 $1,500 As part of the conference registration dues you can become a member of the "American Telecommunication Systems Management Association". Please mark an "X" in the following entry if you wish to become an ATSMA member. ____ Yes, I wish to become an ATSMA member. ____ No, I do not wish to become an ATSMA member. Mail your registration form and check to: Ms. Dru Lundeng ATSMA, Inc. Owen Graduate School of Management Vanderbilt University 401 21st Avenue, South Nashville, TN 37203, USA Checks should be made payable to: ATSMA, Inc., Eighth Telecommunication Conference Refund Policy: Half refund, for requests received by January 15, 2000. No refund after January 15, 2000. --------------------------------------------------------------- HOTEL RESERVATIONS A block of rooms has been reserved at the ClubHouse Inn & Conference Center for the Conference participants. Please make your hotel arrangements early, to insure getting a room at the special conference rate. You will need to mention that you are a participant of the "TELECOMMUNICATION SYSTEMS CONFERENCE," to receive the best price. Our advice is to make your reservations as soon as possible. Hotel rooms will be released from the Telecommunication Systems Conference block on February 7, 2000, so PLEASE BE SURE AND RESERVE YOUR ROOMS BEFORE FEBRUARY 7, 2000. ClubHouse Inn & Conference Center 920 Broadway at Tenth Avenue Nashville, TN 37203 USA Phone: 615-244-0150 or 1-800-258-2466 (Ask to be connected with the Nashville-Downtown ClubHouse.) Fax:615-244-0445 http://www.clubhouseinn.com RATES: $110.00 Single Occupancy Room $136.00 Double Occupancy Room $15.00 For Each Additional Person in the Room Rates are subject to state and local taxes, which currently total 12.25 percent. All rates include a complimentary full breakfast buffet each morning, also, each evening, ClubHouse offers a Managers' Reception serving complimentary beverages. Guests also receive free local phone calls. ACCESS INFORMATION: Recommended Airport: Nashville International Airport, 7 miles to the East. Transportation: Gray Line's "Downtown Airport Express" - A shuttle from Nashville International Airport to downtown hotels. Hours: 6:00 a.m. - 11:00 p.m. daily. Cost: $9.00 one way, $15.00 round trip. The shuttle can be caught at the lower level of the airport near baggage claim. Phone: 615-275-1180; 800-669- 9463 CLUBHOUSE INN & CONFERENCE CENTER Reservation Request Form NAME OF CONFERENCE: 8th Int'l. Conference on Telecommunication Systems ("TELECOMMUNICATION SYSTEMS CONFERENCE") Reservations can be made at the following URL: http://www.clubhouseinn.com/5.reservations.shtml or Phone: 615-244-0150 Fax: 615-244-0445 You can also use the following form to mail or fax your reservation. MAIL/FAX TO: Reservations Manager ClubHouse Inn and Conference Center 920 Broadway Nashville, TN 37203 GUEST INFORMATION: Arrival Date: _______________________________________________________ Departure Date: _______________________________________________________ Time of Arrival: _______________________________________________________ No. of Rooms: _______________________________________________________ No. of People: _______________________________________________________ Guest Name: _______________________________________________________ Address: _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ Phone: _______________________________________________________ PAYMENT METHOD: [ ] Check or Money Order No:_______________ Amount:_______________ [ ] Credit Card Type:_____________ No:___________________ Expiration date:____________ Amount:_______ TYPE OF ROOM: [ ] Kingsize Bed [ ] Double Beds [ ] Smoking [ ] Nonsmoking Please note the ClubHouse Inn and Conference Center requires a deposit of one (1) night's room revenue or credit card to confirm all reservations. Any cancellations or no shows without forty-eight (48) hour advance notification will result in forfeiture of deposit. Travel Arrangements The official travel agent for the Conference is Betsie Wilkerson with Horizon Travel. Her e-mail address is: HORIZON4U and her phone numbers are: 615-383-7882 and 1-800-828-5529 Fax: 615-383-9181 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 22:52:44 -0400 From: Jack Decker Subject: Callers Can't Reach 231 Area Code These excerpts are from the Muskegon (Michigan) Chronicle web site at http://mu.mlive.com:80/news/index.ssf?/news/stories/19990713areacode.frm Can't dial new area code? Phone provider may be culprit Tuesday, July 13, 1999 FROM AP AND LOCAL REPORTS Out-of-state telephone callers might be experiencing difficulty reaching someone located in the state's newest area code, 231. But the problem probably isn't with local providers, such as Ameritech and GTE, says Ron Conners, the director of North American Numbering Plan Administration for Lockheed Martin I.M.S., which was hired by the Federal Communications Commission to coordinate the new area codes on a national level. Conners said the problem really lies with the caller's local provider, which needs to reprogram its system every time an area code changes anywhere in the country. "Callers with problems should call their local provider," said Conners. "Let's just say you won't find any reluctance on the part of the phone companies to do anything about (the new area code programming)." [..... snip .....] John VanWyck, public affairs manager for GTE Michigan, echoed Connors. "I've had complaints from people calling from outside the area," he said. VanWyck said consumers experiencing problems calling the 231 area code from outside the area need to check with their own local and long-distance telephone service providers to make sure they have upgraded their technology to handle the new area code number. "Tell the people (from outside the area) who are experiencing the problems to contact their telephone company or long-distance company," VanWyck said. "We're pretty sure the major long-distance suppliers are all up to date, but there are literally hundreds of smaller providers that may not be." Jeff Zuk of Fruitport Township, a writer for a computer video magazine in California, said a number of his vendors from outside the state have let him know they have been unable to use the 231 exchange. "Before you give out the area code, make sure people know they may not yet get through," he said. [.....snip.....] Copyright 1999 Michigan Live Inc. [End of excerpts] If you want to read the full article, it should be up for at least a couple of weeks at the Muskegon Chronicle web site: http://mu.mlive.com:80/news/index.ssf?/news/stories/19990713areacode.frm My comment: I can understand this kind of problem occurring the first, second, or third time that a new long distance carrier has to deal with an area code split. But with new area codes appearing several times yearly, it's just pure negligence for any long distance carrier or local phone company that has been in business for more than six months to not have some mechanism to get these changes programmed into their switch in a timely manner. Maybe there needs to be some kind of financial penalty for carriers or phone companies that don't get new area codes programmed into their switches by the start of the permissive dialing period. According to information I received a few months ago (not sure where offhand, it may have been NANP Planning Letter PL-NANP-167), if anyone needs to test whether you can reach numbers in area code 231, you may place a test call to 231-922-2572. A recorded announcement will indicate that the test call has been successfully completed. The test number will be disconnected at the end of permissive dialing on October 2, 1999. I do not know if this number supervises or not, so just keep in mind that you may get billed for the call. Jack (To send private e-mail, make the obvious modification to my e-mail address) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 18:45:07 -0500 (CDT) From: James Ford Subject: The .US Domain > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But I believe the domain called '.us' > is already in use by state and local governments and some public > schools; things like that. PAT] One might wander over to http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/usdnr/ for information or get details from RFC1480 (The US Domain), RFC1591 (Domain Name System Structure and Delegation) and RFC 2146 (U.S. Government Internet Domain Names). From RFC1480: 1.3 The US Domain The US Domain is an official top-level domain in the DNS of the Internet community. The domain administrators are Jon Postel and Ann Westine Cooper at the Information Sciences Institute of the University of Southern California (USC-ISI). US is the ISO-3166 2-letter country code for the United States and thus the US Domain is established as a top-level domain and registered with the InterNIC the same way other country domains are. Because organizations in the United States have registered primarily in the EDU and COM domains, little use was initially made of the US domain. In the past, the computers registered in the US Domain were primarily owned by small companies or individuals with computers at home. However, the US Domain has grown and currently registers hosts in federal government agencies, state government agencies, K12 schools, community colleges, technical/vocational schools, private schools, libraries, city and county government agencies, to name a few. Initially, the administration of the US Domain was managed solely by the Domain Registrar. However, due to the increase in registrations, administration of subdomains is being delegated to others. Any computer in the United States may be registered in the US Domain. ------------------------------ From: Flor Riklef Subject: 1800SKYTEL2 Blocked in Las Vegas Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 18:40:36 -0500 I just got back from the Black Hat Briefings/DefCon in Las Vegas and noticed an interesting problem. I stayed at the Venetian, which has Sprint payphones. The phones apparently block 1-800-SKYTEL2, which is used with my SkyTel two-way pager. Several times my fiancee attempted to page me from a Venetian payphone, only to get a "This call cannot be connected at this time". Anyone else face a similiar problem? Is it very common to block 800 numbers like this? Thanks, Rik ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 19:42:43 -0400 From: Bram Dov Abramson Subject: Busiest Public Telephone Someone has asked me what the world's busiest phone booth or public phone is ... which would be an intriguing bit of trivia, but I don't know the answer. I guess it would have to be in an area with high population density and low telephone penetration. Has anyone ever run across this statistic? Cheers, Bram Dov Abramson Telecommunication Research Analyst TeleGeography, Inc. babramson@telegeography.com tel +1 202 467 4043 http://www.telegeography.com fax +1 202 467 0851 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jul 99 23:17 PDT From: lauren@vortex.com (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: DSL vs. Cable Modems Greetings. A recent message in this Digest quoted a DSL advocate as suggesting that the service wouldn't "degrade" as more subscribers in a neighborhood joined up, "unlike cable modems." Well, yah, the DSL circuit *itself* won't degrade -- it's simply a point-to- point local loop transmission technology. However, most inexpensive DSL circuits are intensively concentrated at the circuit backhauls, and that's where the real bottlenecks typically exist. For example, if you dig around on Pacific Bell's DSL web pages, you'll ultimately find a little notice mentioning that their inexpensive DSL traffic is all carried on their ATM network, and that there is no guaranteed throughput for those DSL users on that network. In other words, just because you have 256K or 1M, or whatever capability, on that low monthly cost DSL wire running between your location and a rack down at the local telco, doesn't mean you'll be getting that rate to or from your ISP, at any given time. You'll almost certainly be sharing those backhaul circuits with lots of other users. Unlike conventional DS1/T1 circuits (which are often now delivered using HDSL loops) that are generally provisioned as dedicated channel bandwidth all the way to the ISP POP, the cheap DSL services will typically put many more users on a given subnetwork backhaul, so the impact of other users on throughput can be very real. This should not come as a surprise, however -- what did you expect for $20 or $50/month? --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: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 02:17:04 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: FTC: Hands Off Net Privacy FTC: Hands Off Net Privacy by Declan McCullagh 4:45 p.m. 12.Jul.99.PDT WASHINGTON -- In a blow to liberal groups, the Federal Trade Commission on Tuesday will urge Congress not to regulate Web sites' privacy practices. The FTC report on Internet privacy, requested by Congress last year, states that few commercial sites have published data collection and use policies, but it's still too early to start regulating the Internet. http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/20687.html ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #217 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Jul 16 02:32:04 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id CAA01031; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 02:32:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 02:32:04 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199907160632.CAA01031@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #218 TELECOM Digest Fri, 16 Jul 99 02:32:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 218 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Toronto(416)'s New Area Code? (Kevina_toronto1@my-deja.com) Looking For Industry Report (Robert Watson) Cell Phones and Astronomers (Mike Pollock) Re: Does Anyone on the West Coast Use Caller ID? (Arthur Shapiro) Re: Does Anyone on the West Coast Use Caller ID? (Mike Van Pelt) Re: Does Anyone on the West Coast Use Caller ID? (Jonathan) Re: www. prefixes (Derek J. Balling) Re: Proving Negatives/Cell Phones & Gas Stations (Orin Eman) Re: 1-800-COLLECT Diverted by Payphones? (Bob Goudreau) Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce (Art Walker) Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce (Derek J. Balling) Re: Bills Would Fence Off the Facts (Thor Lancelot Simon) Re: Lower-Priced Always-on DSL (Mike Van Pelt) 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: kevina_toronto1@my-deja.com Subject: Toronto(416)'s New Area Code? Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 20:01:34 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. Does anyone have any information on Toronto's new area code? I noticed that http://www.647.com/ has been reserved, could it be Bell Canada??? for advertising the new area code??? I have also noticed I can dial all local numbers as 10-digit numbers does that mean 10-digit dialing is going to be forced on us before year end??? I which the code could have been 649 ( 6/49 is a popular lottery here!!!) With such a code people would be less likely to resist the area code. I have read somewhere on the net that 942 is also reserved for Toronto as a future area code in a few years? If so why not just have a three way split now instead of a overlay??? ie. Toronto, East York, and York to keep "416" and wireless, Etobicoke to move to 942, and North York to 647, and Scarborough to 437(which I read is also reserved for Toronto)?? Why wait a few years for the pain of a split, why not just split now enough to last a dozen years based on projections??? why not just split the reserved area codes right now!! Hey I wouldn't mind a new area code? Also as per info from Bell. 1+ numbers except for 1-800, 1-888, 1-877, 1-866, etc are toll numbers. As such any overlay would be 10-digit not 11 digit. In Toronto(416) if we want to dial Markham we dial 905-xxx-xxxx, however if we want to dial Hamilton we dial 1-905-xxx-xxxx. if we dial a local 905 number as 1+ we get a message do not dial 1+ before the number you are dialing!! ------------------------------ From: Robert Watson Subject: Looking For Industry Report Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 11:17:46 -0700 Organization: Inference Hi Telecom Digest, I am looking to purchasing some information on the telecom/communi- cations industry. A description of what I am looking for is as follows: An examination of the Communication industry in detail. This would involve looking at the subsegments like ISPs, Cellular, Pager, Small Business Systems/PBX, Local Telecom (consumer and small business), Broadband (cable, DSL, etc.), etc. and examining the market size, potential early targets, competitive landscape, and integration needs. If you know of a group that publishes a report that might help me with the above, I would appreciate the lead. Robert.Watson@Inference.com 415 893 7239 ------------------------------ From: Mike Pollock Subject: Cellular Phones and Astronomers Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 13:30:43 -0400 Organization: It's A Mike! It appears that cellular phones are interfering with the work of astronomers by blocking the signals from high tech telescopes. http://wire.ap.org/APpackages/video/0712astronomy.html ------------------------------ From: art.shapiro@unisys.com (Arthur Shapiro) Subject: Re: Does Anyone on the West Coast Use Caller ID? Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 18:30:49 GMT Organization: Unisys Corporation In article , LincMad001@ telecom-digest.zzn.com (Linc Madison) wrote: > I don't believe that Anonymous Call Rejection has been tariffed for > offer in California at all, although SBC/Pac Bell certainly wants to > have it yesterday-if-not-sooner. The 60% to 80% are estimates of the > lines that by default show up as "private." Incorrect. I had ACR until this month in 949-472-xxxx (Orange County - Pacific Bell territory) and recently dropped it after it no longer was offered for free. Without notice, it had been increased to $2/month. My recollection is that it had become available toward the end of last year. Art Shapiro ------------------------------ From: mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt) Subject: Re: Does Anyone on the West Coast Use Caller ID? Date: 15 Jul 1999 23:15:32 GMT Organization: Netcom Online Services, Inc. In article , Linc Madison wrote: > I don't believe that Anonymous Call Rejection has been tariffed for > offer in California at all, although SBC/Pac Bell certainly wants to > have it yesterday-if-not-sooner. The 60% to 80% are estimates of the > lines that by default show up as "private." It's offered in San Jose. I have had it for a couple of months. It gives CNID-blocked callers a nice, polite, informative message about how to get through - either *82, or operator-assisted. It's a much nicer message than the extremely snotty "Does not accept blocked calls" message programmed into the CallerID box. Much to my wife's irritation, I insisted on leaving that off. Now, with PacBell ACR, we're both happy. Most people I know who have tried to call me who have gotten this message have had no trouble. One neighbor says he gets some other number when he tries to use *82; I need to go see what brand of cheap phone he's using. I bet it doesn't send * or something silly like that. ACR seems to have drastically cut down on the amount of phone-spam we get. We only get the phone-spam from places that do not send CNID, which is (I hope) a shrinking and soon to be vanishing subset of the phone network. Have you noticed that, when we were young, we were told | Mike Van Pelt that "everybody else is doing it" was a really stupid | mvp@netcom.com reason to do something, but now it's the standard reason | KE6BVH for picking a particular software package? -- Barry Gehm ------------------------------ From: Jonathan Subject: Re: Does Anyone on the West Coast Use Caller ID? Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 13:02:42 -0700 Organization: Posted via RemarQ, http://www.remarQ.com > I don't believe that Anonymous Call Rejection has been tariffed for > offer in California at all, although SBC/Pac Bell certainly wants to > have it yesterday-if-not-sooner. The 60% to 80% are estimates of the > lines that by default show up as "private." ACR is included with Caller ID ($6.50 per month). If you don't have Caller ID, you can get ACR for $2/month. If you do have Caller ID, your phone bill includes a separate line item for ACR with an offsetting credit. You disable ACR with *87 (default), enable with *77. Given the high number of Californians who block their ID, using ACR is pretty rude, and usually surprises people who encounter it. But relatively few people who call me (as it happens) block their ID. The California Caller ID policy is really a tragic abuse of privacy. It seems to me that my right to know who is ringing a bell in my home, disturbing whatever reverie I happen to be enjoying, is more important that the accidental, historical right to make anonymous telephone calls. But we have already talked about this too much ... ACR does not block "Out of Area" calls, and as has been discussed here, that is the designation for a very large proportion of telemarketing calls. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 14:19:37 -0700 From: Derek J. Balling Subject: Re: www. Prefixes > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Good for you. Better still, fix it so > the 'www' causes it to bounce if someone does try to use it. I do not > know what you would get by entering http://www.telecom-digest.org > since I have never tried it. Personally, if you do try it, I hope it > makes your browser crash. :) Did I ever mention I hate 'www' ?? Repeat after me: The Internet is not just the web. Come on, say it a few more times ... The Internet is not just the web. This is a surprising statement coming from you, Pat, since you've been around a while. If you're a popular site, and you've got a huge file archive available via FTP (perhaps let's say something like ftp.cdrom.com with multi-TB of transfers), as well as a booming web presence (say something along the lines of Yahoo or other popular web sites), would you imply that both the web farm and FTP farm should be on the boxes so that: $ ftp patsdomain.com would work, just as $ lynx http://patsdomain.com/ and of course, the mail server wouldn't be "mail.patsdomain.com" it would just be "patsdomain.com", just as ... $ gopher patsdomain.com [or whatever the syntax for gopher is ... haven't used it in ages] would also work? Of course not. The www exists, and is in predominant use, because by and large people don't WANT to tie down their "main domain name" to a single box or service (or using A record rotation a limited series of boxes in semi-random order). Nor should they have to. That's WHY DNS is hierarchical in nature. The net has progressed to the point where "one box" cannot handle all the services that are required of it. We don't want that single-point-of-failure anyway. D ------------------------------ From: orin@wolfenet.COM (Orin Eman) Subject: Re: Proving Negatives/Cell Phones & Gas Stations Date: 15 Jul 1999 19:13:56 GMT Organization: Wolfe Internet Access, L.L.C sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net (Steven J Sobol) writes: >> different parts of the world. But he says the only way a cell phone >> could possibly spark a fire at a gas station would be if the caller >> were to drop it, causing the battery to dislodge and hit the ground in >> a certain way. > (With the battery's metal contacts scraping the ground and causing a > spark.) Think about metal studded snow tires. Think about metal keys dropped or used to unlock filler caps. The fuel trucks drag metal chains to stop static buildup. No, I don't think metal scraping the ground at a gas station could be a problem. Orin ------------------------------ From: Bob Goudreau Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 15:09:00 EDT Subject: Re: 1-800-COLLECT Diverted by Payphones? sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net (Steven J Sobol) wrote: >> I've never tried that services, but isn't Telecom USA (who run 1010321 >> and 10110220) also MCI, which runs 1-800-COLLECT? > 10-10-220 is DEFINITELY MCI. I'm rather surprised to hear someone > asserting that 10-10-220 is Telecom USA. I don't think that's correct. > 10-10-321 is operated by Telecom USA. I don't know what their > affiliation is, if there is in fact an affiliation with MCI. From the horse's mouth (MCI Worldcom's "Corporate Overview" web page at http://www.wcom.com/about_the_company/corporate_overview/US_fact_sheet/index.shtml): CONSUMER SERVICES ... 1-800-COLLECT offers consumers significant savings over AT&T collect calling rates and can be used to call collect from any telephone, anywhere in the U.S. and to more than 130 international locations. 10-10-321 and 10-10-220 are both dial-around products marketed by Telecom*USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of the company since 1990. Both products provide consumers with savings over AT&T's basic calling rates. 10-10-9000 is a national long distance directory that provides consumers with one number for all their directory assistance needs no matter what long distance carrier they use. Bob Goudreau Data General Corporation goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive +1 919 248 6231 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA ------------------------------ From: Art.Walker@onesourcetech.com (Art Walker) Subject: Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce Date: 15 Jul 1999 19:44:33 GMT Organization: Recovering Nebraskans Clinic - Denver, CO Reply-To: Art.Walker@onesourcetech.com On Mon, 12 Jul 1999 21:57:04 -0400, J.F. Mezei wrote: > Nobody mentioned .INT for international organisations, and more > importantly ... > Why won't the USA use the .US domain ? > If US specific companies/groups/individuals had .US, that would leave > .COM and ORG to global organisations. It would also make it quite > specific that one is about to "deal" with a web site "based" in the > United States and as such, one then expect to see prices in US > currency. Browsing a site that ends in .CA makes you expect to see > prices in canadian currency etc etc. > Note that some countries such as Australia have further subdivided > their name space. > for instance: WWW.QANTAS.COM.AU (or is it www.qantas.co.au ?) This whole discussion points out the primary shortcoming of the Domain Name System in the first place -- it was designed for computers to use, not humans. End users shouldn't have to differentiate between company-name.com, company-name.org, company-name.net or company-name.whatever (especially in cases where different companies hold entries that differ only by the domain suffix). The current proposals to add additional top-level domains will only make the situation worse. We need to flatten the name space that *users* see and move any additional hierarchy levels or TLDs to a mechanism (i.e. directory service) that would hide the details from the user. The other reason I suggested using a directory service for this kind of information is that it can be added on top of existing services such as DNS, which would avoid breaking existing Internet applications. >> Another thing I find totally useless is the use of 'www' on the front >> of every one of their names. If anyone cares to know, the use of 'www' >> goes back to in the early nineties when file transfers were still >> mostly all done by FTP. At the very least, rename it from "www" to something pronouncable, such as "web" (see http://web.Yost.com/Misc/webdot.html). Art ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 14:28:37 -0700 From: Derek J. Balling Subject: Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce > Why won't the USA use the .US domain ? Because the US, unlike every other country, seemed to subdivide the .US domain in an utterly useless fashion. In the UK, for example, an ISP can be like demon.co.uk (DEMON = the company, CO = the UK equivalent of COM and UK obviously is the ISO code for the UK). [ Note: I won't touch the fact that I can't actually seem to find an ISO document listing UK, they all seem to list GB, but there seems to be an exception going on there]. In the US, you HAVE to get your .US domain registered geographically. For example, my employer would end up something like: YAHOO.SANTACLARA.CA.US How dumb is THAT? Especially considering we have offices in about 15 different cities? Should we then have to register YAHOO.NEWYORK.NY.US, YAHOO.CHICAGO.IL.US, etc.? There is no way to get something like: YAHOO.US, or YAHOO.COM.US or anything like that. Canada has both options which is great, you can either have a "limited" presence (where you have something like, IIRC, COMPANY.TORONTO.ON.CA, or you can get COMPANY.CA if you've got a "national presence"). If ISI would reorg the way the US domain was laid out it would have been infinitely more useful. Now, inertia has set in, and they've lost the opportunity to make it useful. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I believe that '.us' is used by local > and state governments in the USA, while '.gov' is used only by the > federal government. PAT] .gov can be used by "any government agency" ... An example of this is www.bart.gov (Bay Area Rapid Transit here in the San Francisco area). One thing that really annoys me is something like: www.fremontpolice.org They could have had a .gov address for free, but didn't do so. Instead, they decided to spend tax-payer dollars sending money to NSI. D ------------------------------ From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) Subject: Re: Bills Would Fence Off the Facts Date: 15 Jul 1999 16:53:43 -0400 Organization: PANIX -- Public Access Networks Corp. Reply-To: tls@rek.tjls.com In article , Adam H. Kerman wrote: > Thor Lancelot Simon wrote: >> Furthermore, it bears notice that these bills are being heavily >> pushed by the West Publishing wanna-be-monopoly as a cure to their >> recent series of court defeats -- they want to "own" all legal >> opinions by collecting them and adding their own page numbers, so you >> can't cite them correctly without paying for a set of WestLaw books or >> their online service (or Lexis/Nexis, who license the data from them). >> The courts said there's no copyright in page numbers, so now they're >> pushing these bills trying to create one. > Page numbers are an issue because courts require them in citations to > Reporters. In many state appellate and state supreme courts and > federal circuit courts, West publishes the official record of the > opinions. Lower courts require that citations include page numbers in > the official publication. Where the "official" publication is the West publication, and West wants to use this new bill to create an intellectual property right to the page numbers. So you couldn't prepare a correct legal brief without paying West money - that is, you couldn't exercise your right to due process without paying West a tax. I think that demonstrates the sheer madness of this legislation rather well, frankly. Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com "And where do all these highways go, now that we are free?" ------------------------------ From: mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt) Subject: Re: Lower-Priced Always-on DSL Date: 15 Jul 1999 23:28:07 GMT Organization: Netcom Online Services, Inc. In article , Paul Robinson wrote: > http://www.flashcom.com also at 1-877-Flashcom says they have DSL for > as low as $49.95 a month (this is for one to three users.) Map shows > them available in the Washington, DC area (it's a national map on > their website so the specific area is hard to tell). Watch the terms of service, though ... For one thing, they absolutely forbid you to run any sort of server process on your home machine. That means, you can not run telnetd or ftpd or httpd and access your home machine from the Internet. They say if they catch you running a server process, they'll charge you their "business service" rate. I ordered Flashcom service (much slower but twice as expensive SDSL, because, alas, I am too far away from the CO for ADSL) and they never (over a period of a month of repeatedly asking) gave me anything in writing. I postponed installation once hoping to get something in writing from them. Finally, I got someone on the phone who confirmed the rumor about their ban on server processes, and I cancelled the install. I never did get anything in writing from them. I was expected to sign up for a one-year commitment for $80/month based on merely phone conversations. I don't think so ... Have you noticed that, when we were young, we were told | Mike Van Pelt that "everybody else is doing it" was a really stupid | mvp@netcom.com reason to do something, but now it's the standard reason | KE6BVH for picking a particular software package? -- Barry Gehm ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #218 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Jul 16 03:12:04 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id DAA02208; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 03:12:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 03:12:04 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199907160712.DAA02208@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #219 TELECOM Digest Fri, 16 Jul 99 03:12:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 219 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson BellSouth MemoryCall Fails For Some Forwarded Calls (David A. Burton) Communications System Parametric Modeling Software? (Luis Vazquez) Yet another "Backhoe" Telecom Outage (Ronald B. Oakes) Domain-Name Tales: Beer.com Pays; Excite.com Moves (Monty Solomon) MCI Eliminates Minimum Usage Charge, National Access Fee! (Eli Mantel) Re: US Admits Crypto Export Controls are About Signals Intell (C Macbride) Re: US Admits Crypto Export Controls are About Signals Intell (L Erickson) Re: Busiest Public Telephone (John R. Levine) Re: Busiest Public Telephone (Andrew Green) Re: Public Phones Number Listing (Koos van den Hout) Bible Sales Beyond Grave Spark UK Police Probe (David A. Jensen) 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: David A. Burton Subject: BellSouth MemoryCall Fails For Some Forwarded Calls Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 06:58:48 -0500 Organization: Burton Systems Software About three or four weeks ago, BellSouth made a change of some sort, and now my MemoryCall service does not work properly for some incoming calls. It still works for calls directly dialed to my residential phone number, and also when my BellSouth DCS phone is forwarded to my residential phone number (either to the primary or to one of my RingMaster distinctive ring numbers). But when my business line is forwarded to that same number, and I don't answer the call, MemoryCall picks up with a generic "Welcome to BellSouth MemoryCall service ... please enter a mailbox number" message, instead of my personal greeting. It used to work. It worked fine for about six months. I've been unsuccessful trying to get them to fix it. Sometimes the BellSouth repair people tell me that it is supposed to work this way, and that it was working incorrectly during the previous six months (when the forwarded calls got my correct greeting). I've also been told that MemoryCall is a different company, and that it is not a different company, and that there's no way it could ever have worked, and (many times) that someone "from MemoryCall" would call me back (which they never do). Two or three times I've been informed that it isn't really broken, because a caller can still leave me a message, by entering my "mailbox number" (which is the seven-digit phone number). But, of course, this is not true, since the caller called a different number (which was forwarded to this phone) and therefore the caller does not know what number to enter. A couple of times I've been told that "when you forward a number, the number that gets sent to MemoryCall is the number you originally dialed, not the number it was forwarded to," so that MemoryCall can't tell whose greeting to play and mailbox to use. But as a test, I forwarded that same business line to a friend's home phone, when I knew she wasn't home, because she also has MemoryCall service. It was a local call, but she's on a different CO. Then I called my business line. I got her proper personalized MemoryCall greeting, not the generic greeting. In other words, it worked properly, just as mine used to work. So, I conclude that the problem doesn't have anything to do with the business line that is being forwarded. So it must be a problem with my residential line that has the MemoryCall service. Yet it still DOES still work for the calls forwarded from my Bellsouth DCS phone. In fact, if I call-forward the business line to my DCS phone, and call-forward the DCS phone to my residential line (or to either of the RingMaster numbers), i.e., two hops, and then I call my business line from another phone (yes, I have a lot of phones!), the residential phone rings properly, and if I don't answer then MemoryCall picks up with my proper, personalized greeting. In other words, everything works (except caller ID). Could it be that MemoryCall only fails when the call is forwarded from one number to another within the same CO? I have "Complete Choice" on both lines, and I usually forward the business line to a RingMaster number on the residential line, but as an experiment I've also tried forwarding to the primary number, and it works no better. So it is not because of my RingMaster service. The big selling feature of MemoryCall is that it is supposed to catch ALL calls that you miss, even if you are dialing when the call comes in, and even if you have a phone service outage. But now my MemoryCall only works for some calls, not for others. There is nothing anywhere in the BellSouth sales literature (on their Web site or anywhere else I've seen) indicating that MemoryCall might not work for some forwarded calls. If they can't fix this, I'd be better off with an answering machine. Does anyone know how they broke it, and whether/how I can get them to fix it? Thanks, Dave Burton dave48@burtonsys.com.nospam (remove the ".nospam" to send me email) ------------------------------ From: Luis Vazquez Subject: Communications System Parametric Modeling Software? Date: 15 Jul 1999 14:34:13 GMT Organization: NASA/JSC Is anyone aware of commercially-available software that can be used to model an end-to-end communications system? Such a model would allow a system-level analysis of a proposed system in terms of bit rates, loss mechanisms, antenna gains and efficiencies, effective power, etc. The only one I've seen is from Visual Solutions, which it's a little too design driven for my needs (too constrained to specific design solutions). I was looking for something intended more for system-level analysis, rather than detailed component design. Obviosly, would prefer something that would run on a Windows-PC platform, but would also like info on anything else available out there. Any system engineers out there who can give me a hint on this? Thanks, Luis Vazquez NASA/JSC ------------------------------ From: Ronald B. Oakes Subject: Yet Another "Backhoe" Telecom Outage Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 08:47:27 -0500 Organization: Motorola CIG Reply-To: oakes@cig.mot.com The {Albuquerque Journal}, on July 15, 1999, reports that a fiber line severed by a construction crew disrupted 911 service for a large chunk of New Mexico -- including much of Sandavol and San Juan counties. The URL for the online story is: http://www.abqjournal.com/news/2news07-15.htm (The {Albuquerque Journal} usually keeps the stories for a few days, but removes the main page links daily). I have often stated that the biggest threat to telecommunications today is the back hoe. Ron Oakes ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 00:11:49 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Domain-Name Tales: Beer.com Pays; Excite.com Moves http://www.thestandard.com/articles/mediagrok_display/0,1185,5531,00.html Just how screwed up is the system of domains run largely by Network Solutions? Yesterday, a guy in a Chicago suburb woke up as the administrator of the Excite.com domain due to a prank, he told Wired News' Chris Oakes. The lucky recipient, Jim Reardon, said that "the domain Excite.com is listed in my name and address [and] I have full control over it ... I could [have directed] their traffic wherever I want and had control of millions of eyes." Oakes reported that Network Solutions and Excite headed off the domain transfer before any damage was done, but Reardon said the lapse pointed out "the remarkable vulnerability of Network Solutions' domain-name registration and transfer process." And while there's always a good story in administrative snafus, there's also the evergreen tales of domain-name prospectors and squatters. The Washington Post fronted a David Streitfeld report on the colorful characters who have cashed in by registering the most generic domain names years ago. The new angle is that sellers are now getting chunks of stock options along with cash, making them potential paper millionaires in the future. One guy got $500,000 plus stock for Computer.com, and a farmer in Iowa demanded stock from Tioga Systems for Support.com. But the topper is beer connoisseur Bill Fisher, who sold Beer.com to an entrepreneur (though he retained a 33 percent stake), and told Streitfeld he used the proceeds to "spend several months in London living with Australians, and you know their appreciation for the finer stuff. Now I can buy all of Australia a round." Excite.com Goes to Illinois http://www.wired.com/news/news/technology/story/20734.html $$$.com: On the Web, Simplest Names Can Become Priciest Addresses http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPcap/1999-07/15/029r-071599-idx.html Domain Registrar Cleans Up Names http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,39153,00.html What Your Name's Worth in Cyberspace http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/ctf596.htm [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I believe some other changes are going on as of this weekend also. I understand the official change in domain naming is getting started, with the ability now to expand the whole thing by a billion squared (?) ... did anyone else see that article on the news site? I am referring to http://telecom-digest.org/news PAT] ------------------------------ From: Eli Mantel Subject: MCI Eliminates Minimum Usage Charge, National Access Fee! Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 05:37:11 GMT In past months, my MCI account has been subject to a national access fee (MCI's term for the PIC-C charges imposed on long distance carriers), as well as a minimum usage charge when my phone charges were under $5.00. This month, with charges for phone calls totalling only $2.75, neither of these charges appeared. I've contacted MCI customer service about this, and they insist that the national access fee and minimum usage charges are still being imposed. Have any other MCI customers noticed whether they have been subjected to these charges on their July bills? ------------------------------ Subject: Re: US Admits Crypto Export Controls are About Signals Intelligence From: craig@glasswings.com.au (Craig Macbride) Organization: Nyx Public Access Internet Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 05:15:51 GMT brettf@netcom.com (Brett Frankenberger) writes: > Export restrictions won't prevent all international use of > high-security encrpytion, just as the police can't prevent all crime. > But restrictions to reduce the usage of such encrpytion However, in this instance, the prevention is mainly trivial to get around, unenforced and useless. I visited a web site a couple of years ago which had a weak crypto and strong crypto version of some software which one could download, with a statement saying something to the effect that the user who clicks the button for "strong" attests that he/she is a resident of the USA! That sure is going to stop anyone outside the USA downloading it, isn't it?! > No. However, the United States of America *really* believes that it is > a major source of such technology, and that, by restricting the export > thereof, it will make it more difficult for organizations outside the > US to obtain encryption that the US Government cannot break More difficult, yes, but only marginally so. How hard is it to find someone in the USA who's prepared to send you a copy of the US-only version of various encryption software? Has an individual _ever_ been prosecuted in the USA for emailing such a thing outside the USA? [Aside: I'm currently logged into a machine in the USA to post this news article. I can run encryption software on this machine and send the output anywhere in the world, despite the fact that I am sitting in Australia. No exporting of the encryption software from the USA is even necessary in order for me to do strong encryption. Of course, the characters that I am now typing over a telnet connection might be able to be intercepted, but could they work out what data I'd actually encrypted on that remote machine? And, what if I were logging in using ssh instead of telnet? ] > and that > such an increase in difficulty will lead to a higher percentage of > intercepted traffic being broken by the US Government. However, most of it will be uninteresting. Sure, the lower security versions of Netscape will be more common and easier to get hold of. I don't care too much which version I use, since nothing I do over the web is _that_ important that it not be breakable to someone who can intercept the packets. _If_ I cared about it, _then_ I would get something more secure. The government officials who think that being able to intercept more encrypted data is, in itself, worthwhile are probably kidding themselves or trying to kid others. Let's take a criminal, Fred X. Scenario 1: Strong crypto is available. Fred X uses it for all web, email, etc. Scenario 2: Strong crypto isn't as readily available, so Fred X only uses plain text for email, weak crypto for web and only uses strong crypto for criminal discussions. The government might claim that they can read 99% of Fred X's data currectly, whereas they'd be able to read 0% of it if strong crypto was in every comms tool he uses. In reality, they've gained almost nothing, but they can claim, as governments love to, to be "doing something" about the "problem" while completely neglecting to mention how totally ineffectual it is. Of course, the one thing they have gained is that the probability is higher that a strongly encrypted message is something they really wish they could read. :-) > Encryption technology is much more complex that "educating a scientist, > then having him write code". If all these other countries can develop > rock solid algorithms, how come everyone in the USoA, where it's legal > for private entities to get their encryption from *anywhere*, get their > encryption using algorithms developed in the good ole USoA? This is a totally spurious argument. Most of us use Word Processors developed in the USA too, but it doesn't mean that they couldn't be written anywhere else. The USA tends to be central to the computing world, and crypto is no exception. > But, yes, most foreign governments/organizations are capable of getting > code written for themselves; however, the facts are that some of them > will elect not to avail themselves of the opportunity. I note that you didn't say individuals. Governments and companies might feel compelled to comply with US trade restrictions, but individual users will simply download the software that they wish to use across the net, whether it is theoretically legal or not for the sender in the USA to transmit it. However, what governments _will_ do overseas is mandate strong security for various applications where privacy is involved. So, when a company in Australia wants to provide certain sorts of communications involving data which must, by law, be kept private, they will simply use any available software which meets the requirements. If no software from the USA meets the requirements, then the only effect is to reduce the profits of any US companies which might have liked to provide a solution. Craig Macbride --------------------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: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) Subject: Re: US Admits Crypto Export Controls are About Signals Intelligence Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 14:17:43 PST Organization: Shadownet brettf@netcom.com (Brett Frankenberger) writes: > In article , J.F. Mezei > wrote: >> Does the United States of America *really* believe that it is the only >> one of the world capable of building encryption systems that cannot be >> defeated? > No. However, the United States of America *really* believes that it is > a major source of such technology, and that, by restricting the export > thereof, it will make it more difficult for organizations outside the > US to obtain encryption that the US Government cannot break, and that > such an increase in difficulty will lead to a higher percentage of > intercepted traffic being broken by the US Government. Regardless of > the export laws, there will always be some intercepted traffic that the > US Government can break, and some intercepted traffic that they cannot. > The export law is all about favorably adjusting the balance between > those two categories of traffic. Alas, this is starting to blow up in the government's face. A couple years back one of the bigger software companies assigned all work on encryption to a branch *outside* the US (in Japan, as I recall). That branch came up with a much better encryption algorithm and since it was developed *outside* the US, the company isn't subject to export restrictions on it. That sort of thing is why the export restrictions are so *stupid*. They result in market forces *pushing* the development out of the US, thus losing us our lead. > Encryption technology is much more complex that "educating a scientist, > then having him write code". If all these other countries can develop > rock solid algorithms, how come everyone in the USoA, where it's legal > for private entities to get their encryption from *anywhere*, get their > encryption using algorithms developed in the good ole USoA? (For > example: a 128-bit key isn't very good if the random number generator > that picks the key isn't very random. Code developed overseas is > unlikely to be as robust as the constantly hacked-at and checked-out > code written in the USoA.) Even so, my example above shows that the ends result *will* be to move encryption work offshore, so the companies can sell to the *much* larger market. > restricted to targets that would (a) like to use lots-o-bits encryption > and (b) aren't smart enough, or willing to spend the time, to write > their own code or find a non-US company to sell them an executable. Or just smuggle a copy of the US software out of the country. Say, by emailing it from a throwaway account in the US. Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow) shadow@krypton.rain.com <--preferred leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com <--last resort ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jul 1999 22:55:49 -0400 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Busiest Public Telephone Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > Someone has asked me what the world's busiest phone booth or public > phone is ... which would be an intriguing bit of trivia, but I don't > know the answer. I guess it would have to be in an area with high > population density and low telephone penetration. Has anyone ever run > across this statistic? I've heard claims that it's one of the phones in the LIRR (commuter train) concourse at Penn Station in New York City. It makes sense, there's an enormous amount of passenger traffic there and a lot of people calling home to say what train they'll be on or ask if they should get groceries on the way back from the station. 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: Andrew Green Subject: Re: Busiest Public Telephone Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 10:13:53 -0500 Bram Dov Abramson babramson@telegeography.com writes: > Someone has asked me what the world's busiest phone booth > or public phone is ... [...] I guess it would have to be in an area > with high population density and low telephone penetration. I seem to recall reading somewhere that one of the busiest payphone locations was one located at the top of a particular tall building, such as the Empire State Building in New York or Sears Tower or Hancock building in Chicago, on the observation deck. Seems that all the tourists would line up to call friends and relatives for a "Guess where I'm calling from" phone call. Apparently the coin boxes had to be emptied several times a day (at least in the days before calling cards). Andrew C. Green (312) 853-8331 Datalogics, Inc. email: acg@datalogics.com 101 N. Wacker, Ste. 1800 http://www.datalogics.com Chicago, IL 60606-7301 Fax: (312) 853-8282 ------------------------------ From: Koos van den Hout Subject: Re: Public Phones Number Listing Date: 15 Jul 1999 19:28:33 GMT Organization: Koos van den Hout peng1234@singnet.com.sg wrote: > Just wondering, is there any way posiible for one to get the telephone > number of public phones without calling the exchange or > telecommunications company (telco) ? Depending on the country looking on the phone helps. And there are some web sites on this subject: http://www.sorabji.com/livewire/payphones/faq/ The Payphone Project http://www.irational.org/cybercafe/pubtel/pubtel.html Cybercafe Net Art Koos van den Hout, PGP key via keyservers koos@kzdoos.xs4all.nl (Home) koos@pizza.hvu.nl (Work) http://web.cetis.hvu.nl/~koos/ ------------------------------ From: David A. Jensen Subject: Bible Sales Beyond Grave Spark UK Police Probe Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 15:45:42 -0500 The more things change ... LONDON, July 14 - British police are investigating a "Christian Bookshop" that is sending bills to dead people for bibles, trading standards officers said on Wednesday. Chris Tinley, a trading standards manager in southern England, said the company had sent invoices to people who had recently died, demanding payment for bibles and a book called "Jesus of the Holy Land". "It's a scam. There is no evidence of an order being placed. There is no evidence of books being delivered," Tinley told Reuters. The outstanding debt was put at 24.98 pounds ($38.93), accompanied by a demand to the estates of the dead for prompt payment. David Jensen [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If you want to run a scam, a religion is always a good place to start. Mr. L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of the Church of Scientology made that quite clear. For years a writer of science fiction books, Mr. Hubbard gave a speech in 1949 at a convention and he noted there was not much money to be made in writing book. "If you really want to make money," he noted, "what you do is start a religion ..." and shortly thereafter he took his own advice, and you know the rest of the story. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #219 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Jul 16 03:49:07 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id DAA03695; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 03:49:07 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 03:49:07 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199907160749.DAA03695@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #220 TELECOM Digest Fri, 16 Jul 99 03:49:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 220 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson SNET Cellular/Linx Overcharging For Roaming Calls on BAMS (Douglas Reuben) Re: DSL vs. Cable Modems (Kevin DeMartino) Re: DSL vs. Cable Modems (LARB0) Re: DSL vs. Cable Modems (Joshua M.K. Masur) Re: DSL vs. Cable Modems (Anthony Argyriou) Re: Does Anyone on the West Coast Use Caller ID? (John David Galt) Re: Does Anyone on the West Coast Use Caller ID? (lpovirk@my-deja.com) Re: Public Phones Number Listing (David Leibold) Re: Public Phones Number Listing (Eli Mantel) Re: 1800SKYTEL2 Blocked in Las Vegas (Terry Kennedy) Re: 1800SKYTEL2 Blocked in Las Vegas (Danny Burstein) Re: 1800SKYTEL2 Blocked in Las Vegas (Linc Madison) Re: Split For 760 Area Code in California (Matthew Black) Re: Seeking History of Cellular Phones (Marcus Akesson) 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: dreuben@tiac.net (Douglas Reuben) Subject: SNET Cellular/Linx Overcharging fFr Roaming Calls on BAMS Date: 16 Jul 1999 03:53:11 GMT Organization: Interpage Network Svcs. / www.interpage.net/+1 (617) 696-8000 For about the past five months, after reviewing our Southern New England Telephone "Lynx" Cellular bill (system 00008), I noticed a series of 1 minute calls in the roaming section, all incoming, and all lacking any toll delivery charge (eg, the toll charge which SNET adds on to your bill to "cover" their costs of transporting the call to the roaming market). For the first few months I just ignored it and figured they were answered and that the toll charges will appear on the next statement. However, they never did, yet this kept on happening, ie, one-minute incoming roam calls which were never answered were still being billed roaming airtime. I even did some tests by taking the SNET phone into the Bell Atlantic Boston (00028) market and made some calls which rang two or three times to see how they would be billed the next month, and indeed, they all showed up as one-minute roaming calls but with no toll delivery charge. So on May 22, 1999, after talking to a few reps the week before and getting nowhere, I finally escalated this to a manager, Patricia Hamilton, who said she would "thoroughly" look into it and in the meantime issue credits for the roam calls in BAMS markets which were not answered. In June, we get the bill, and there are still roam charges for unanswered calls in BAMS markets. Once again, I get on the phone, wait 30 minutes to talk to a manager, and finally speak to Lynn who (supposedly after all the research that Patricia had done) says "Well, this isn't our problem, it's Bell Atlantic's, and there really is nothing we can do about it". After I explained to her that SNET is acting as an agent for BAMS and as SNET represented to us that there would be no such charges when we renewed our contract a few months before (and indeed, this never happened until a few months ago), it was incumbent upon them to remedy the problem with BAMS and/or however else is necessary. She said she would look into it ... of course she never got back to us. Then, this past Monday, 7/12/99, our office manager calls them up to get some resolution to the problem, and is told they can't find Lynn, but that some other un-named would call us back, which they did not. Finally, today, 7/15/99, I called SNET myself and told them "Either you give me the name of the person who is working on this case now or I will cancel the account and expect a credit for our annual payment in advance." After 35 minutes on hold, Patty, the customer service rep I was speaking with, told me she had JUST given the issue to Kerrie in Technical Support, and I could call her to follow up on these issues. We'll see how it goes now that I have the name of the person actually trying to resolve the matter, but if you are a SNET Lynx customer who roams into Bell Atlantic's B-side properties (basically any area adjacent to CT and Western Mass), check you bills to see if there are any 1-minute incoming calls with no toll delivery charge. If so, these may very well be . I'll post updates as (if?) progress is made on this issue. (This post and updated SID list are also available at www.wirelessnotes.org) Regards, Doug Reuben / Interpage(TM) Network Services Inc. / www.interpage.net dsr1@interpage.net +1 (617) 696-8000 ------------------------------ From: Kevin DeMartino Subject: RE: DSL vs Cable Modems Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 16:23:23 -0400 Lauren Weinstein wrote in V19 #217: > A recent message in this Digest quoted a DSL advocate > as suggesting that the service wouldn't "degrade" as more > subscribers in a neighborhood joined up, "unlike cable modems." > Well, yah, the DSL circuit *itself* won't degrade -- it's simply a > point-to- point local loop transmission technology. However, most > inexpensive DSL circuits are intensively concentrated at the circuit > backhauls, and that's where the real bottlenecks typically exist ... > Just because you have 256K or 1M, or whatever > capability, on that low monthly cost DSL wire running between your > location and a rack down at the local telco, doesn't mean you'll be > getting that rate to or from your ISP, at any given time. You'll > almost certainly be sharing those backhaul circuits with lots of other > users. It is clear that in the next few years cable modems will provide subscribers with much higher data rates than digital subscriber line (DSL) techniques. But what about the future? A single fiber between a telephone central office and an ISP point of presence (POP) (e.g., at a toll office) can carry all the traffic on thousands of DSL lines, with capacity to spare. This makes it feasible to upgrade interoffice trunks to handle DSL traffic without sharing backhaul channels. With this upgrade, the total downstream capacity provided by asymmetric DSL (ADSL) will exceed the capacity that can be provided via cable modems. However, until the utilization of the cable system starts to approach the system capacity, this theoretical advantage won't mean very much. I expect that ADSL will become much more economically viable several years down the road when video-on-demand and full motion video on the WWW become more available. At this point ADSL may overtake cable modems. In a typical cable TV system (see IEEE Spectrum May 1999), a fiber feeder cable is connected to multiple coax distribution cables, each of which is connected to several hundred subscribers. A data communications capacity of typically 10-30 Mb/s is shared among these subscribers. ADSL can support downstream data rates greater than 1.5 Mb/s over most twisted pair subscriber lines, and the total downstream capacity provided to several hundred subscribers could be in excess of 1 Gb/s. ADSL could support video-on-demand to a large percentage of these subscribers, whereas this cable system could not. The ADSL capacity will be greatly increased when the telcos replace feeder cables containing hundreds of twisted pairs with fiber. The cable companies could trump this move by replacing coax distribution cables with fiber. Who is going to win, the telcos or the cable companies? Probably a combination of the two, as the networks converge. Kevin DeMartino Dynamics Research Corporation ------------------------------ From: larb0@aol.com (LARB0) Date: 15 Jul 1999 12:24:12 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: DSL vs. Cable Modems > doesn't mean you'll be getting that rate to or from your ISP, at any > given time. You'll almost certainly be sharing those backhaul > circuits with lots of other users. I'm far from expert, but won't cable modems encounter the same backhaul/ISP congestion once outside of the loop? Isn't this sort of a double whammy for cable modems? Degradation in the loop side as well as congestion on network? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 09:52:14 -0700 Subject: Re: DSL vs. Cable Modems From: Joshua M.K. Masur As far as "degradation" -- i.e., demand effects on shared IP bandwidth -- not all cable modem systems work the same way. Here in Palo Alto, cable modem service via ISP Channel allocates dedicated bandwidth (starting at 500kbps downstream/100kbps up) back to the head end, rather than shared bandwidth at some theoretical higher speed. Given the local cable operation's pending sale to AT&T, of course, this is likely to change. As a former network administrator, though, it seems to me that the problem is not shared vs. dedicated bandwidth, each of which has its benefits and disadvantages. In any case, any theoretical maximum is limited by any number of factors external to the network topology -- including the speed of the connection from the head end to backbone, how many such connections there are, and with which backbones they connect. With dedicated bandwidth, you're guaranteed a certain throughput from head end to local node, but that comes in exchange for a comparatively low cap on throughput. With shared bandwidth, the real-world limiting factor is not the theoretical maximum network speed, but how many other users are working with it at the same instant. In either case, the problem comes when the operator skimps or the demand increases faster than capacity, not because the bandwidth is shared or dedicated. And unfortunately, that tends to be a constant. jmkm@ispchannel.com e-mail JOSHUA M.K. MASUR http://www.columbia.edu/~jmm93/ Julia Columbia Law School '99 http://www.echonyc.com/~jmkm/ homepage 10 Roosevelt Cir Palo Alto CA 94306 USA mail 650.493.3499 phone ------------------------------ From: anthony@alphageo.com (Anthony Argyriou) Subject: Re: DSL vs. Cable Modems Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 00:53:41 GMT Organization: Alpha Geotechnical Reply-To: anthony@alphageo.com lauren@vortex.com (Lauren Weinstein) wrote: > In other words, just because you have 256K or 1M, or whatever > capability, on that low monthly cost DSL wire running between your > location and a rack down at the local telco, doesn't mean you'll be > getting that rate to or from your ISP, at any given time. You'll > almost certainly be sharing those backhaul circuits with lots of other > users. Unlike conventional DS1/T1 circuits (which are often now > delivered using HDSL loops) that are generally provisioned as > dedicated channel bandwidth all the way to the ISP POP, the cheap DSL > services will typically put many more users on a given subnetwork > backhaul, so the impact of other users on throughput can be very real. > This should not come as a surprise, however -- what did you expect for > $20 or $50/month? My ISP, DNAI (www.dnai.com) makes this relatively clear, and sells "residential" and "business" DSL. The web page for their residential service states that it is not subject to the performance guarantees of the (more expensive) business service, and that certain other services (IDSL for people too far away for regular DSL) are not available. Anthony Argyriou ------------------------------ From: John David Galt Organization: Diogenes the Cynic Hot-Tubbing Society Subject: Re: Does Anyone on the West Coast Use Caller ID? Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 07:22:42 GMT > I don't believe that Anonymous Call Rejection has been tariffed for > offer in California at all, although SBC/Pac Bell certainly wants to > have it yesterday-if-not-sooner. The 60% to 80% are estimates of the > lines that by default show up as "private." This was true until about March. ACR is now being aggressively marketed here (Sacramento). > An estimated 60% of residential lines are unlisted, and the vast > majority of unlisted lines have elected default blocking. About > half of listed lines have also elected default blocking. > As a result, it would be rather foolish to have ACR in California. > You might as well just cancel your phone service, because about the > only calls that will get through to you are telemarketers. I have caller ID, and I receive ID on most calls, both from businesses and individuals. (When I get one labeled Anonymous I have taken to answering with "Hi [name]!" because I know only one person who has line blocking.) However, most of the marketing calls are "Out of area", along with maybe 25% of the business calls I do want; so Linc is right, ACR would not be that useful, at least to me. John David Galt ------------------------------ From: lpovirk@my-deja.com Subject: Re: Does Anyone on the West Coast Use Caller ID? Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 23:22:59 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. I can't imagine why anyone would ACCEPT calls from anyone who expressly refuses to reveal their identity. Larry Richmond, VA [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I would agree with you in residential calls. If I -- a private party -- call you, also a private party and expressly conceal myself, you have every right to be annoyed and to refuse the call. If a private party calls into a business, I am not so sure it is the same situation. Then we have scenarios as described here in the past where someone like a doctor wishes to return a call to a patient, but the doctor is not in his usual office location and the host at the place where the call is being placed does not wish to have their telephone number on record. I do think businesses should be expressly forbidden to conceal their phone number; in fact I think *67 should be disabled on their telephones so they had no choice in the matter. But there are a lot of grey areas where I suppose with- holding the phone number could be considered proper. And what do you do in cases of people who wish to speak in confidence with telephone counseling services, etc? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 00:06:37 EDT From: David Leibold Subject: Re: Public Phones Number Listing peng1234@singnet.com.sg writes: > Just wondering, is there any way posiible for one to get the telephone > number of public phones without calling the exchange or > telecommunications company (telco) ? > TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There was a web site I found once > which had lists of numbers for pay phones all over the USA. That Try http://www.payphone-directory.org It's not complete (yet) but it's still useful to have. ------------------------------ From: Eli Mantel Subject: Re: Public Phones Number Listing Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 06:49:49 GMT Lucas wrote: > ... is there any way posiible for one to get > the telephone number of public phones ... There are a couple of web sites that provide listings of pay phones. These sites list a tiny fraction of the total pay phones in the U.S., but you're invited to add your own. Here are the sites I know about: Payphone Project: http://www.sorabji.com/livewire/payphones/ Pay Phone Directory: http://www.payphone-directory.org/ ------------------------------ From: Terry Kennedy Subject: Re: 1800SKYTEL2 Blocked in Las Vegas Organization: St. Peter's College, US Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 07:01:06 GMT Flor Riklef writes: > I just got back from the Black Hat Briefings/DefCon in Las Vegas and > noticed an interesting problem. > I stayed at the Venetian, which has Sprint payphones. The phones > apparently block 1-800-SKYTEL2, which is used with my SkyTel two-way > pager. > Several times my fiancee attempted to page me from a Venetian > payphone, only to get a "This call cannot be connected at this time". Skytel's general-access numbers haven't been dialable from payphones since November, 1997. This is due to the 1996's Telecom Act requiring payphone owners to be compensated for these calls. Skytel's info on this can be found at: http://www.skytel.com/skytel.nsf/customer/fcc.html 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: dannyb@panix.com (Danny Burstein) Subject: Re: 1800SKYTEL2 Blocked in Las Vegas Date: 16 Jul 1999 03:00:22 -0400 In Flor Riklef writes: > I stayed at the Venetian, which has Sprint payphones. The phones > apparently block 1-800-SKYTEL2, which is used with my SkyTel two-way > pager. > Several times my fiancee attempted to page me from a Venetian > payphone, only to get a "This call cannot be connected at this time". About a year ago, after the FCC decision that added a $0.28 nominal fee to "1-800/888/877" calls from payphones, Skytell announced that they would *block* such calls to their general purpose toll-free number. They offered two alternatives, which were clearly listed on their bill inserts. Oh, and on their webpage as well: a) you could call their "regular" number, which, being in St. Louis, would usually be long distance (but not too outrageous if you used a good prepaid calling card or other alternative) or b) you could pay skytell the extra monthly fee for a "personal" 1-800/888/877 number. This way, they could determine who was calling and pass on the additional cost to you. (as a reminder: the FCC decided that coin phone operators "deserved" compensation when making these toll-free calls. The usual way this is done [when things work correctly ...] is that the carrier kicks back a nominal $0.28 to the owner of the payphone whenever such a call is made from it. Let's please NOT get into the repeated flamefest about this ... Suffice to say that many -- although certainly not all -- 1-800/888/877 services proceeded to block calls from payphones since they didn't want to get socked with these charges). Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 14:51:02 -0700 From: LincMad001@telecom-digest.zzn.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: 1800SKYTEL2 Blocked in Las Vegas Organization: LincMad Consulting In article , Flor Riklef wrote: > I just got back from the Black Hat Briefings/DefCon in Las Vegas and > noticed an interesting problem. > I stayed at the Venetian, which has Sprint payphones. The phones > apparently block 1-800-SKYTEL2, which is used with my SkyTel two-way > pager. > Several times my fiancee attempted to page me from a Venetian > payphone, only to get a "This call cannot be connected at this time". > Anyone else face a similiar problem? Is it very common to block 800 > numbers like this? You should find that particular number blocked from ALL payphones in the United States, at the request of SkyTel. SkyTel, as the owner of the 800 number, is billed about 25 cents by the payphone owner for completing each call. Unless you have set up your own 800/888/877 number for your specific pager, SkyTel has no effective way to bill you for the surcharge. (They *could* let the call complete and then only complete the page request if you have agreed to pay the surcharge, but then they eat the surcharge on all incomplete paging requests.) If you contact SkyTel, they will give you an ordinary long-distance number (in Mississippi, if memory serves) that you can use to call your pager from a payphone. It is precisely this issue that led me to recommend to the FCC that they use a per-minute charge rather than a fixed per-call charge for payphone compensation, or at least that the per-call charge should be no more than five cents, since that is a reasonable profit "floor" on a call that costs the payphone owner nothing in marginal costs and makes pretty minimal use of the equipment. ** 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 will be read sooner! ------------------------------ From: black@csulb.edu (Matthew Black) Subject: Re: Split For 760 Area Code in California Date: 15 Jul 1999 23:28:56 GMT In article , LincMad001@ telecom-digest.zzn.com says ... [original message edited for brevity --matt 990713] > I'm rather surprised at the decision to give the new code to the more > urban part of 760. In particular, if the region continues its > opposition to overlays, in six years you'll have people who changed > from 213 to 714 to 619 to 760 to (new), and who will be facing yet > another change. Seems only fair to me. Should those communities creating excessive demand for new numbers bear the brunt of area code splits? When 310 was split a few years ago, the CPUC gave each city one vote (out of approximately 20) for who got to keep 310 and who was given 562. The city of Long Beach, with a population of 400,000, had just as much say so as Lomita with just a few thousand. Guess who won out? Malibu, Santa Monica, and Manhattan Beach. It's poetic justice that they now require another split whereas 562 has sufficient numbers until about 2006. I feel those communities with cell phones and pagers should get the new area codes first. IMHO, I feel the 760 plan is most justified. -----------------------------(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 ------------------------------ From: marcus.akesson@no_spam_please.home.se (Marcus Akesson) Subject: Re: Seeking History of Cellular Phones Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 00:57:39 GMT Organization: Chalmers University of Technology On Tue, 13 Jul 1999 11:55:14 -0700, Agus Surono wrote: > Please help me, where I can find sites of history of cellular phone? > Thank you. The Lauhrn system was the first fully automatic mobile telephone system in the world, set up in Stockholm in 1951. It went in to public service in 1956. There is more at: http://www.telemuseum.se/english/english.html and more specifically: http://www.telemuseum.se/historia/mobtel/mobteleng.html More modern information about GSM and its history: http://kbs.cs.tu-berlin.de/~jutta/gsm/js-intro.html Hope this helps! Marcus ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #220 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Jul 16 04:19:24 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id EAA04861; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 04:19:24 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 04:19:24 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199907160819.EAA04861@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #221 TELECOM Digest Fri, 16 Jul 99 04:19:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 221 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Hazards of the Young and Mobile - Handheld Powers (John David Galt) Re: Hazards of the Young and Mobile - Handheld Powers (David Clayton) Re: 1800SKYTEL2 Blocked in Las Vegas (Stanley Cline) Re: 1800SKYTEL2 Blocked in Las Vegas (James H. Cloos Jr.) Significance of Proposed California Area Code Legislation (Steve Riner) Re: Lower-Priced Always-on DSL (David Temkin) Re: Rationale For Class Action Suits (was Re: Death of GSM) (Jack Dominey) CA: Landmark Decision Limiting New Codes; Allows Technology (Eric Morson) Re: CA: Landmark Decision Limiting New Codes; Allows Technology (A Kerman) Re: Bills Would Fence Off the Facts (Leonard Erickson) Re: Bills Would Fence Off the Facts (Adam H. Kerman) Re: Selective Call Screening (danielzr@netzero.net) Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce (David Clayton) Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce (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: John David Galt Organization: Diogenes the Cynic Hot-Tubbing Society Subject: Re: Hazards of the Young and Mobile - Handheld Powers Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 07:37:57 GMT Linc Madison wrote: > That brings up an interesting question. We've all seen the warning > signs advising pacemaker users to avoid places where microwave ovens > are in use because the small amount of microwave radiation leakage > from the oven could adversely affect the operation of the pacemaker. > How does the power level of a cellular/PCS phone operating normally > compare with the amount of radiation leakage one might find near a > microwave oven? Worse case, what if the phone is in someone's front > shirt pocket, or otherwise in very close proximity to the pacemaker? Cell phones are limited by law to (I believe) 5 watts output power. Microwave ovens are typically in the 500 to 1500 watt range. (Most home units are 500 to 1000; the big ones are mostly in stores and vending installations, where long waiting time means fewer sales.) What fraction of that power is likely to actually leak out and reach someone's pacemaker, I don't know. But I'd be surprised if 5 watts were enough to hurt a pacemaker. If you have a large color monitor, you're probably getting more than that from the cathode-ray in the picture tube. (Do they tell pacemaker users to avoid color TVs and computer screens?) John David Galt ------------------------------ From: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au (David Clayton) Subject: Re: Hazards of the Young and Mobile - Handheld Powers Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 00:01:33 GMT Organization: Customer of Connect.com.au Pty. Ltd. Reply-To: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au LincMad001@telecom-digest.zzn.com (Linc Madison) contributed the following: > But worrying about the spark from a cell phone is silly beyond words, > most especially singling out cellular phones among all the other > miscellaneous electronic devices. And how many "other miscellaneous electronic devices" that transmit RF have the potential to be close to the fumes coming out of your tank as you fill it up at the pump? 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: sc1@roamer1.org (Stanley Cline) Subject: Re: 1800SKYTEL2 Blocked in Las Vegas Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 12:12:22 GMT Organization: by area code and prefix (NPA-NXX) Reply-To: sc1@roamer1.org On Tue, 13 Jul 1999 18:40:36 -0500, Flor Riklef wrote: > I just got back from the Black Hat Briefings/DefCon in Las Vegas and > noticed an interesting problem. > I stayed at the Venetian, which has Sprint payphones. The phones > apparently block 1-800-SKYTEL2, which is used with my SkyTel two-way > pager. It's SkyTel, *not* Sprint or the payphones ... http://cocot.home.mindspring.com/#news-sky http://www.skytel.com -> Customer Service Lounge -> Pay Phone Users SC ------------------------------ From: James H. Cloos Jr. Subject: Re: 1800SKYTEL2 Blocked in Las Vegas Date: 15 Jul 1999 11:40:15 -0500 Organization: Illuminati Online Flor Riklef writes: > I stayed at the Venetian, which has Sprint payphones. The > phones apparently block 1-800-SKYTEL2, which is used with my > SkyTel two-way pager. Actually, I beleive it is the other way around. IIRC -- it has been a couple of years since I last had a SkyTel pager -- when the rule took effect forcing toll-free accounts to pay payphone operators for calls originating on the payphones, SkyTel blocked all payphone access to their non-DID pager numbers. Those accounts w/ DID access can still be reached from payphones; the fees are passed on to the client. Or at least that is how I remember it. I'm sure someone from SkyTel will correct me if I am wrong ... James H. Cloos, Jr. 1024D/ED7DAEA6 E9E9 F828 61A4 6EA9 0F2B 63E7 997A 9F17 ED7D AEA6 Save Trees: Get E-Gold! ------------------------------ From: Steve Riner Subject: Significance of Proposed California Area Code Legislation Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 17:52:23 -0500 Organization: Frontier GlobalCenter Inc. As reported on today, the California legislature is attempting to enact legislation that would, 1) require phone numbers to be allocated by 1000 rather than 10,000 number blocks; 2) prohibit additional area code overlays (thus stopping the contentious 310/424 overlay); and 3) require that wireless and fax phone lines be moved to a different area code than other land lines (thus, presumably, freeing up enough exchanges to prevent the need for further area code splits or overlays). It has passed an Assembly committee so far. If enacted by the Legislature, this would put California in direct conflict with the FCC regulation prohibiting area code divisions by service type. Very similar to the Chicagoland revolt against the 847 overlay. Considering that 10-digit dialing will probably be standard nationwide within 5 years, this seems like a last gasp effort for those who think that 7-digit dialing can be preserved forever. (On a side note, probably a topic discussed here before, why are subscribers in some overlay areas required to dial 1+ the phone number, rather than the 10-digit NXX-NXX-XXXX number, for a local call?) -- Steve Riner Columbia Heights MN (In 612, but probably soon to be moved to 952 as Minnesota begins micro-splits a la Chicago) ------------------------------ From: David Temkin Subject: Re: Lower-Priced Always-on DSL Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 08:28:20 -0400 Organization: Cooper Neff I don't mean to flame, but before ANYONE chooses Flashcom as their DSL provider, I suggest you check out comp.dcom.xdsl . Flashcom has grown a bit too large for it's own good too fast -- and the only thing that keeps them afloat is the fact that Covad is willing to cover up their mistakes (the CLEC who provides the physical line in co-op with Bell). Their customer service and tech support is terrible, so if you don't know what you're doing with DSL and IP networking, I'd suggest going with someone else in your local area. Check out http://www.covad.com -- plug in your address, and they'll give you a list of local ISP's who provide DSL service in your area - you'll probably be suprised by what you find. Dave Temkin Paul Robinson wrote: > http://www.flashcom.com also at 1-877-Flashcom says they have DSL for > as low as $49.95 a month (this is for one to three users.) Map shows > them available in the Washington, DC area (it's a national map on > their website so the specific area is hard to tell). ------------------------------ From: look@my.sig (Jack Dominey) Subject: Re: Rationale For Class Action Suits (was Re: Death of GSM) Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 02:49:19 GMT Organization: The Maynard G. Krebs Memorial Work(!?)station Reply-To: look@my.sig In , dannyb@panix.com (Danny Burstein) wrote: > It's kind of like spammers ... [big telco] has almost no expenses in > sending these out, hence no incentive to not do it ... Except, as you have pointed out, the immense cost of being caught. The cost of litigation and fines could well be vastly outweighed by the loss of goodwill and reputation. > 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. It's a nice story, but it doesn't wash, at least not for large organizations. The first and biggest problem, in a conspiracy to commit fraud as described above, is maintaining secrecy. The organization has to ensure that nobody blows the whistle. The people involved wouldn't want their names on any incriminating evidence. And think of the amount and kind of computer system work that would be necessary to enable this fraudulent billing! Feature requests, prototypes, testing, system reviews - an immense volume of records gets generated. And practically no individual gets a really substantial reward. I don't know about you, but I'm not going to risk my job (and possible fines and jail time) against maybe a 10% bonus because the company exceeded revenue targets. Finally, any company that engages in this kind of unethical behavior cannot realistically expect ethical behavior from its employees. The relatively modest potential gains from improper billing would be more than offset by the cost of trying to prevent employee theft and fraud and the losses when the prevention fails. Jack Dominey "Apparently I'm insane. domineys(at)mindspring.com But I'm one of the happy kinds!" ------------------------------ From: Eric@AreaCode-Info.com (Eric Morson) Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 16:26:37 -0400 Subject: CA: Landmark Decision Limiting New Codes; Allows Technology Yes, progressive Californians have done it. They are now in opposition of the FCC's ruling prohibiting service/technology specific area codes. The 424 overlay has been recinded, and 818 is now in question as may be the other overlays prevoiusly announced. See the article at: http://AreaCode-Info.com/headline/1999/ca990715.htm Eric B. Morson Co-Webmaster AreaCode-Info.com EMail: Eric@AreaCode-Info.com ------------------------------ From: Adam H. Kerman Subject: Re: CA: Landmark Decision Limiting New Codes; Allows Technology Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 16:32:49 -0500 Organization: EnterAct L.L.C. Turbo-Elite News Server > Yes, progressive Californians have done it. They are now in opposition > of the FCC's ruling prohibiting service/technology specific area codes. The article refers to proposed legislation that would put certain devices including fax machines and modems into another area code. Now we've had discussions before over the difficulty of preventing such devices from using phone numbers for POTS given that they can be plugged in and used anywhere (except behind certain PBXs). However, another device mentioned was ATMs (I assume machines for using debit cards, not the communications protocol). That brings up a question I've long had: Why should certain telephone lines have numbers at all if they'll never receive incoming voice calls? With the software that runs certain telephone switches today, is it possible to address these lines without a telephone number? Or does this only apply to certain types of switches? If so, are lines in hunt groups and outgoing trunks also candidates to have phone numbers removed? Are there lines that have no associated phone numbers today? ------------------------------ From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) Subject: Re: Bills Would Fence Off the Facts Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 14:04:19 PST Organization: Shadownet Fred Goodwin writes: >> If they get any of the information from anyone else's site -- any of >> it -- as I read the bill they infringe. That's a crock. > If that were true, you'd be right: > ... no person shall be restricted from extracting or using > information for nonprofit educational, scientific, or research > purposes in a manner that does not harm directly the actual ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > market for the product or service ... ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Which means that because I use info from tables in the front of the phone book, and from the utilized/available files at nanpa.com *and* info from the NNAG files from TRA, TRA or the phone company or Lockheed can enjoin me from sharing my lists of which exchanges are "local" because it would hurt their market for a service to *sell* that info. Please note that there is *no* way to collect this info *without* accessing databases. And that it's damned hard to collect *without* spending several hundred dollars a year for the LERG database. Yet, in spite of the fact that this info is *necessary* to keeping modern phone systems operating (and vital to setting up things like PBX systems) they would be able to extort any price they feel like for the data. I just don't see *why* certain types of data *should* get this sort of protection. That fact that it *can* be sold doesn't mean that it *should* be. Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow) shadow@krypton.rain.com <--preferred leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com <--last resort ------------------------------ From: Adam H. Kerman Subject: Re: Bills Would Fence Off the Facts Date: Thu, 14 Jul 1999 17:47:50 -0500 Organization: EnterAct L.L.C. Turbo-Elite News Server > In article was written: > BTW, do you know who assigns ISSN numbers? In the US, National Serials Data Program of the Library of Congress. In Canada, Ms. Susan Pickett Director ISSN Canada National Library of Canada Acquisitions and Bibliographic Services Branch 395 Wellington Street Ottawa, Ontario K1A ON4 TEL : +1-819-994 6895 FAX : +1-819-997 6209 E-MAIL : issn@nlc-bnc.ca WEB PAGE / PAGE SUR LA TOILE : http://www.nlc-bnc.ca/issn Are you a magazine publisher? By the way, ISSNs are meant to be used on anything published as a serial (a publication with a sequential order meant to be continued indefinitely) in any media, paper or electronic. TELECOM Digest could have one. ------------------------------ From: danielzr@netzero.net Subject: Re: Selective Call Screening Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 01:23:15 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. Take a look at: http://www.cpscom.com/gprod/icwm.htm This does alot of what you're asking for (it's also a call waiting box). In article , Peter_Simpson@ ne.3com.com wrote: > 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. ------------------------------ From: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au (David Clayton) Subject: Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 00:01:33 GMT Organization: Customer of Connect.com.au Pty. Ltd. Reply-To: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au J.F. Mezei contributed the following: > Note that some countries such as Australia have further subdivided > their name space. > for instance: WWW.QANTAS.COM.AU (or is it www.qantas.co.au ?) That's just the "standard" TLD's with a country code on the end, which seems the standard around the rest of the world. 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, 16 Jul 1999 01:46:23 -0700 From: LincMad001@telecom-digest.zzn.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce Organization: LincMad Consulting In article , J.F. Mezei wrote: >> Another thing I find totally useless is the use of 'www' on the front >> of every one of their names. If anyone cares to know, the use of 'www' >> goes back to in the early nineties when file transfers were still >> mostly all done by FTP. > A lot more than just FTP. There is also telnet, and all sorts of > proprietary applications that use various ports. There is also IRC etc > etc. No, actually, the use of "www" on the front of the name goes back to the days when most sites on the web were at places like universities, where most of the hosts were NOT configured with web servers. You had to specify www.berkeley.edu, for example, rather than just berkeley.edu, because the latter was a different machine at a different address. The use of "www" is *NOT* useless. It just happens that there are a lot of "virtual domains" where the "www" host is the same as the host for other purposes. Even today, if you type "berkeley.edu" into your web browser and get a meaningful response, it is only because your browser tried the actual host "berkeley.edu" and found no web server and therefore, on its own initiative, tried the alternative "www.berkeley.edu". If you force the browser to go only to "berkeley.edu" (for example, by specifying the address numerically, ) your request will FAIL. The address for www.berkeley.edu is 128.32.25.12. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I believe that '.us' is used by local > and state governments in the USA, while '.gov' is used only by the > federal government. PAT] No, actually, there are quite a lot of non-US-federal entities in the ".gov" domain. For example, texas.gov, ca.gov (California), ohio.gov, hawaii.gov, and even panynj.gov (Port Authority of New York and New Jersey). However, I don't know of anything outside the U.S. Also, just about anyone who wants to can set up a geographic subdomain under ".us"; for instance, there is a ".concord.ca.us" subdomain. Two common conventions in use are that ".state.xx.us" and ".k12.xx.us" (replacing "xx" with the two-letter state abbreviation) are the state government and the schools. If your city has a subdomain, the usual form will be that the city government is in ci...us; for example, ci.concord.ca.us for Concord. ** 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 will be read sooner! ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #221 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Jul 16 14:47:04 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id OAA27905; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 14:47:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 14:47:04 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199907161847.OAA27905@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #222 TELECOM Digest Fri, 16 Jul 99 14:47:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 222 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: National 555 Telephone Exchange (Linc Madison) Re: VoiceNet Calling Card Experiences Wanted (Adam C. Finnefrock) Bell Atlantic Brings DSL Services to the Big Apple (Monty Solomon) Nokia Incompatibility With Car Stereo (Celeste Tyree) Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce (Robert A. Rosenberg) Kill Advertising Windows (Jeff Colbert) Answering Machines / Call Screening (Larry Povirk) Telecom Humor (Jim Allen) Re: Does Anyone on the West Coast Use Caller ID? (Al Iverson) California Commentary From AreaCode-Info.com (Eric Morson) Re: www. Prefixes (James Bellaire) Re: Lower-Priced Always-on DSL (John Stahl) Re: BellSouth MemoryCall Fails For Some Forwarded Calls (David Charles) 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, 15 Jul 1999 01:55:54 -0700 From: LincMad001@telecom-digest.zzn.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: National 555 Telephone Exchange Organization: LincMad Consulting In article , wrote: > The report makes me wonder about the enforcement of 555 usage in > entertainment created before 1992, but used today. One case I spotted > recently was on a Nick at Nite re-run of the 'WKRP' television show. > Back in the late '70's, the number 555-WKRP was perfectly fake, but > someone took the time to go back and re-phrase/re-loop the soundtrack > so that you only saw Dr. Johnny Fever say the number without the > sound. Even today, you will see movies and TV shows that use "fake" 555 numbers that are actually assigned! There is only a small range of 555 numbers that are reserved as fictitious for movies and such, but "Hollywood" doesn't seem to have gotten the message that there are new rules. Only 555-01xx is guaranteed fictitious under the current scheme. ** 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 will be read sooner! ------------------------------ From: adam@bigbro.biophys.cornell.edu (Adam C. Finnefrock) Subject: Re: VoiceNet Calling Card Experiences Wanted Date: 15 Jul 1999 18:34:41 -0400 Organization: Cornell University jt5555@epix.net (Julian Thomas) writes: > Jason got back to me on this - his voicenet calling card has this URL: > http://WWW.voicenetcard.COM/ Following this, has anyone had any experience with Voicenet as their primary service provider at home (or business)? I just got an offer for it: 7.9 cents/min and it lowers the card rate to 13.9 cents/min. I've been using their card occasionally (and liked it) but I didn't know that they had residential service. I don't see anything on their web site; maybe it's new? Any suggestions welcome. Thanks, Adam ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 22:12:06 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Bell Atlantic Brings DSL Services to the Big Apple New Yorkers now have a new option for broadband Internet access to their home or office. Bell Atlantic Corp. introduced their Infospeed digital subscriber line services to parts of Manhattan Thursday. Other parts of the New York metropolitan area are scheduled to receive the server later this year. http://www.internetnews.com/isp-news/article/0,1087,8_162351,00.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 19:08:41 GMT From: Celeste Tyree Subject: Nokia Incompatibility With Car Stereo Pat, I need to know if any one else out there has had the same problems that I have with a Nokia 6160 mobile phone. When I use (or even have the phone in my vehicle) the phone in my vehicle, I receive a loud hum from my car stereo. I have found that it is worse when I'm playing a CD. I don't have to worry about the volume of the ringer on my phone because I receive an alter from my car stereo. It is so bad that I have to turn off the stereo before I answer the phone. When I am not on the phone I find that the rear speaker will "crackle" intermittently. When this problem first occurred I called AT&T Wireless (I have the One Rate plan), and told them what was happening. As usual, no one had an answer. I then noticed that when I was in another vehicle I did not have the problem. I continued to call AT&T Wireless seeking a solution to my noise problem because it can get so bad that it frightened my infant grandson when he was in the car. Finally, I spoke to someone that referred me to Nokia. I called and was referred to a nice lady at Nokia and she told me that they were very aware of this problem and there was no fix for it. I was shocked. I had replaced the originally "stock" stereo in my vehicle thinking that my stereo had gone bad and still had the problem. Now it is about 9 months later and Nokia says "tuff" and finally I went to the Car Stereo store and they explained to me that this problem is "normal" and that the noise I was hearing from my rear speaker is when I pass a cell site. Again, there is "no fix" for this noise problem. I can't understand how the FCC has let these digital carriers and phone manufactures get away with this. I am sure that AT&T Wireless and Nokia have themselves covered but are we so starved for technology that we will put up with poor customer service. There just seem to be more and more unresolved problems with vendors in the last few years. Unfortunately, one of them on a repeat basis is AT&T Wireless. They do not allow you to speak to a supervisor and it took me 10 months to solve a billing problem when I changed my One Rate phone number from a Florida one to a Seattle number! If someone out there has come up with a resolution for this "noise" problem that the FCC says is okay, please let me know. The only other alternate that had come up is to change out my Sony stereo until we find one that does make the noise. That is a little to expensive for my pocketbook and I know that Nokia will not pay for that fix!!! Celeste M Tyree "Grasp the Opportunity to Manage Change, Not Avoid It. Change is the Very Essence of Life." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 12:20:14 -0400 From: Robert A. Rosenberg Subject: Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce Art.Walker@onesourcetech.com (Art Walker) wrote: > On Sun, 11 Jul 1999 10:07:01 -0500, James Bellaire > wrote: >> Returning to the original definitions would be good: >> .ORG - owned by organizations/not for profit >> .NET - owned by network operators >> .COM - owned by commercial entities/for profit/misc > Better yet, fold all of those domains into a single ".us" entity, and > use a directory service (say, LDAP-based) for mapping company names and > information to a specific domain entry. > As part of the directory schema, detailed information about ownership, > location, contacts and type of business could be easily included. > Of course, the question about exactly who will run these directory > servers would still need to be figured out. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But I believe the domain called '.us' > is already in use by state and local governments and some public > schools; things like that. PAT] The .us domain is available to anyone in the US who wants to use it. The major problem with it is that it is strictly a geographic hierarchy. IOW if I register a domain located in New York City, it will be x.nyc.ny.us (or something on that order). There is NO provision for creating a domain name that is not geographic (such as Joe-Blow-Inc.com.us). BTW: The relevant RFC is RFC1480. ------------------------------ From: Jeff Colbert Subject: Kill Advertising Windows Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 10:53:49 GMT Go to the friendly folks at Siemans in Germany for a free utility that will kill pesky advertisements, and also act as a proxy server allowing multiple PC's to share an internet connection. I have been using it for a couple of weeks now and it works quite well and is easy to set up. http://www.siemens.de/servers/wwash/wwash_us.htm Surf geocities sites without hassle now! Jeff ------------------------------ From: lpovirk@my-deja.com (Larry Povirk) Subject: Answering Machines / Call Screening Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 23:44:09 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. We subscribe to Caller ID, but telemarketers are still driving us nuts with their "out-of-area" calls. I'd like to get a programmable phone/answering machine to screen them out, but I'm a little confused about how they work. What I'd really like is a machine that would pick up on any "out-of-area" call on the first ring and play a recorded message, but would let any other calls continue to ring so we could pick up on any phone in the house. Anyone know of any that will do this? (It doesn't seem like so much to ask.) Thanks, Larry Richmond, VA ------------------------------ From: Jim Allen Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 16:04:40 -0400 Subject: Telecom Humor The readers of this Digest might enjoy this look at some new product ideas: http://www.madsc.com/corp/Telecom.htm Bear ------------------------------ From: radparker@radparker.com (Al Iverson) Subject: Re: Does Anyone on the West Coast Use Caller ID? Organization: See sig before replying Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 03:48:10 -0500 In article , lpovirk@my-deja.com wrote: > I can't imagine why anyone would ACCEPT calls from anyone who > expressly refuses to reveal their identity. Well, the hospital my father was rushed to after recently having a seizure and passing out while driving, that hospital blocks caller-ID by default. It comes up "private" or "anonymous," not "unvailable." Now you can imagine at least one scenario where calls from blocked locations are calls you may want to receive. 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. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I can also imagine filing a complaint with the hospital asking why their outgoing phone calls, which would frequently be of an urgent or emergency nature lack any identification on them. I don't know about you, but whether I had someone in the hospital or not -- or I was *assuming* I didn't have anyone there! -- that's the sort of call I would want to take immediatly, wouldn't you? Why is the hospital essentially categorizing their phone calls in the same way as a telemarketer, trying to hide themselves? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Eric@AreaCode-Info.com (Eric Morson) Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 11:04:39 -0400 Subject: California Commentary From AreaCode-Info.com http://AreaCode-Info.com Click on: AC-I Webmasters Respond To California Decision Then see the July, 1999 Headlines page for new articles. COMMENTARY On Thursday, July 15, 1999, California took a controversial step towards solving the area code explosion that has gripped their state over the last decade. This decision would suspend all pending relief activity in favor of a service-specific statewide overlay. In my personal opinion, Mr. Knox's idea is foolish at best and disastrous at worst. His bill flies in the face of the FCC, which is itself struggling to enforce existing policies. If upheld this bill would exacerbate rather than solve problems within the state of California, and encourage other states to disregard FEDERAL mandates with respect to telephony as a whole. After all, if one state can dictate their own standards for numbering, why not also for other policies, such as equal access? Mr. Knox is pandering to the least common denominator while losing sight of the bigger picture. Under his plan, 10-digit dialing would STILL be needed if you were calling a pager, cell phone, or fax machine. In the meantime the biggest consumption of numbering resources, assigning numbers in blocks of 10,000, is left un-addressed, and will necessitate some form of relief at some point somewhere in California. What then Mr. Knox? With splits and overlays outlawed, do we ration numbers or just tell people not to move into a particular geographic area? Better yet, do we deny phone service, branding it a privilege to the first arrivals in a geographic area? What if the party needing numbers happens to be a police station, hospital, or fire station? In a rush to appease the clamoring public, the legislature has advocated a really short-sighted solution that does nothing to address the real issue, but "feels good". As a person fully and intimately familiar with 10-digit local dialing, and still in possession of both my fingers and faculty (and the fingers aren't fatigued from those extra three digits, either), we strongly urge Governor Davis to veto the bill when it reaches his desk. John Cropper, Co-Webmaster Eric B. Morson, Co-Webmaster AreaCode-Info.com Eric B. Morson Co-Webmaster AreaCode-Info.com EMail: Eric@AreaCode-Info.com ------------------------------ From: bellaire@tk.com (James Bellaire) Subject: Re: www. Prefixes Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 14:22:33 GMT It was Thu, 15 Jul 1999 14:19:37 -0700, and Derek J. Balling wrote in comp.dcom.telecom: >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Good for you. Better still, fix it so >> the 'www' causes it to bounce if someone does try to use it. I do not >> know what you would get by entering http://www.telecom-digest.org >> since I have never tried it. Personally, if you do try it, I hope it >> makes your browser crash. :) Did I ever mention I hate 'www' ?? > Repeat after me: > The Internet is not just the web. That is obvious. But it is also obvious that the primary means of connecting over the Internet has moved to HTTP. I believe that the main machine in a domain (any one using the "root" domain as a name) should support http -- if only by forwarding it to the proper server. Load sharing between machines in the domain can easily be handled. Only the user needs to know the name pop.example.com or smtp.example.com or mail.example.com -- others just write to user@example.com and MX records do the rest. It has been many moons since I used gopher, and ftp is acceptable at the beginning of that kind of connection. I made sure that both domains I set up work without the www, and would not accept service from an ISP that refused to do otherwise. Yes the Internet is more than http/www. But the trend now is making http the primary form. Put your mail on mail. and your news on news., and let http reside on the 'root' CNAMEd machine. It makes it a ton easier to say and write. James Bellaire http://tk.com/telecom/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 10:34:24 From: John Stahl Subject: Re: Lower-Priced Always-on DSL There is a local pair transmission system I hear about which is in the field trial stage at GTE called Superline(tm) by Lucent/AG Communication Systems. This system offers to bring the availability of a truly always on IP data connection over a single twisted pair to the home/business/SOHO location. In fact, according to the available literature at the AGCS internet site (URL: http://www.agcs.com), the Superline(tm) "system" offers baseband POTS and up to two additional derived telco lines plus an Ethernet (10BaseT) connection to the subscriber (telco customer) with all of these services over a single twisted pair. The Ethernet connection runs at 640Kbps alone and the derived pairs are capable of 56Kbps modem service. Though Superline(tm) uses DMT (xDSL) technology, according to AGCS this doesn't bring with it the potential for interference with adjacent cable pairs in the bundle as the conventional ADSL transmission does. Signal carrying efficiency also isn't affected by bridge taps and other types of reflections causing interference which adversely affect ADSL transmission. I also hear that several of the CLEC's may be looking at deploying this system over unbundled incumbent service pairs because it offers the CLEC the ability to offer their own 'brand' of bundled multiple line services to their customers over a single copper pair. This system could certainly open up not only the CLEC market but the RBOC and the ILEC market for high-speed IP connection as well as meeting the needs for additional teenage and/or SOHO business lines. Isn't modern technology truly amazing? John Stahl Aljon Enterprises Telecom/Data Consultant email: aljon@worldnet.att.net ------------------------------ From: d_c_h@my-deja.com (David Charles) Subject: Re: BellSouth MemoryCall Fails For Some Forwarded Calls Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 13:02:45 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. In article , David A. Burton wrote: > About three or four weeks ago, BellSouth made a change of some sort, > and now my MemoryCall service does not work properly for some incoming > calls. It still works for calls directly dialed to my residential > phone number, and also when my BellSouth DCS phone is forwarded to my > residential phone number (either to the primary or to one of my > RingMaster distinctive ring numbers). But when my business line is > forwarded to that same number, and I don't answer the call, MemoryCall > picks up with a generic "Welcome to BellSouth MemoryCall > service ... please enter a mailbox number" message, instead of my > personal greeting. > It used to work. It worked fine for about six months. > Two or three times I've been informed that it isn't really broken, > because a caller can still leave me a message, by entering my "mailbox > number" (which is the seven-digit phone number). But, of course, this > is not true, since the caller called a different number (which was > forwarded to this phone) and therefore the caller does not know what > number to enter. A couple of times I've been told that "when you > forward a number, the number that gets sent to MemoryCall is the > number you originally dialed, not the number it was forwarded to," so > that MemoryCall can't tell whose greeting to play and mailbox to use. It seems to me that it is possible that this system may well be working as specified, even if this is not how the user would expect it to. In the call forwarding specifications that I am familiar with (which would differ in details from those used by Bell South) both the original called number and the last diverting number can be sent to the final destination of the call. However both of these are optional (depending on implementation and subscription options) and subject to the signalling used being able to carry them. My guess is that the signalling from the switch serving the residential line (Switch A) to voicemail server only carries the original called number. This may be because of the call forwarding specification implemented, implementation options chosen or limitations of the signalling system. Alternatively there may be an additional diversion (hidden to the user) before the voicemail server and so the last diverting number received is from that diversion and is ignored by the server. Thus when all forwardings are on switch A it correctly passes the original called number to the voicemail server. If there is only one forwarding then it operates as expected, if there are two or more it does not operate as expected because the voicemail does not receive the number of the voicemail customer but that of the first forwarding line. When there is a forwarding on another switch (switch B) followed by a forwarding to the voicemail on switch A it is only possible for switch A to supply the original called number if it is received from switch B. If switch A does not receive any indication that the call is forwarded, it will see the number of the voicemail customer as the original called number and hence pass it on and the behaviour will be as expected. Although it may seem that this behaviour is strange it is necessary to remember that services such as call forwarding are used for several different applications and that when they are specified it is necessary to balance differing requirements. Also specifications are often written assuming that all switches involved and the signalling systems connecting them comply with the same specifications, whereas this is frequently not the case. David Charles ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #222 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Jul 16 17:43:07 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id RAA06019; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 17:43:07 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 17:43:07 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199907162143.RAA06019@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #223 TELECOM Digest Fri, 16 Jul 99 17:43:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 223 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Canada's Namespace (Joey Lindstrom) Re: Canada's Namespace (Jim Willis) Re: DSL vs. Cable Modems (Craig Partridge) Re: BellSouth MemoryCall Fails (John Warne) Re: Busiest Public Telephone (Fred Baube) Re: Bills Would Fence Off the Facts (Fred Goodwin) Interesting News Article on 612/651 split (Charles Gimon) Bill Gates was on A&E Biography (Carl Moore) Re: You Believe *67 Works? (Joseph Wineburgh) Wireless Solution (Jonathan) Re: Audio-Visual, Multimedia Component to Digest (Jerome Yuzyk) Re: Does Anyone on the West Coast Use Caller ID? (John R. Levine) Re: Does Anyone on the West Coast Use Caller ID? (Derek J. Balling) Re: Does Anyone on the West Coast Use Caller ID? (Bill Ranck) 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 Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 04:02:16 -0600 Reply-To: Joey Lindstrom Subject: Canada's Namespace On Fri, 16 Jul 1999 02:32:04 -0400 (EDT), Derek J. Balling wrote: > Canada has both options which is great, you can either have a "limited" > presence (where you have something like, IIRC, COMPANY.TORONTO.ON.CA, or > you can get COMPANY.CA if you've got a "national presence"). Sounds great. In practice, it blows, for two reasons: 1) In order to register company.ca you *MUST* have a national presence. That means you've gotta have mailing addresses in at least two provinces and/or territories. Which means that if Pat tried to set up the Telecom Digest up here using .ca namespace, he could *NOT* use telecom-digest.ca - because he's not a national company. If he lived here in Calgary, he might be able to go with telecom-digest.ab.ca (ab for Alberta). But .... 2) You're limited to one, and only one, domain name per organization. If Pat set up telecom-digest.ab.ca and then also wanted to set up, say, ham-radio-digest.ab.ca, he'd be told to go piss up a rope. Sorry, pal, you've got your one domain and that's all you get. What kind of ham-handed attitude is that? The few companies that do have .ca addresses aren't terribly smart about it either. For example, you can visit Sprint Canada's website by surfing to "www.sprintcanada.ca". Isn't that a little redundant redundant? There are no valid reasons for these restrictions and it's long been something that's stuck rather badly in my craw. The domain names I've registered, therefore, have mostly been via Network Solutions, although I did register one domain in the .nu domain (the island nation of Niue) -- seems they're selling off their namespace wholesale at $25/year per domain name. Same with .to and a handful of others. It's an abuse of what these were intended for, but considering the restrictions that you're put to to register domains in many ISO codes (especially .ca, as well as .uk, .us and .au), is it surprising that it's turned out this way? 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 "To err is human; to really screw things up requires the root password." --someone on alt.sysadmin.recovery ------------------------------ From: Jim Willis Subject: Re: Canada's Namespace Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 13:42:11 -0400 The best way to have the system would be to have the domain reflect the location of the service. The way the Canadian domain works is (I could be corrected): .ca - National Company operating Nation Wide - Federally incorporated .on.ca - Ontario Corporation doing business in Ontario (all over) .bc.ca - British Columbia Corporation .barrie.on.ca - Small Company doing business mostly in Barrie .victoria.bc.ca - Small shop in Victoria Jim Willis ------------------------------ From: craigp@world.std.com (Craig Partridge) Subject: Re: DSL vs. Cable Modems Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 13:48:43 GMT Organization: The World @ Software Tool & Die larb0@aol.com (LARB0) writes: > I'm far from expert, but won't cable modems encounter the same > backhaul/ISP congestion once outside of the loop? Isn't this sort of a > double whammy for cable modems? Degradation in the loop side as well > as congestion on network? That's one reason that some of the cable model suppliers put proxy servers at the head end. For popular web pages, their subscribers see the best possible performance, without any issues of sharing the link out. It also has the advantage of reducing the bandwidth they need to support from each head end. I expect the DSL guys to learn the lesson and do it to. Craig ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 09:58:39 -0400 From: John Warne Subject: Re: BellSouth MemoryCall Fails The following is based on the assumption BellSouth is using an Octal VM platform in your area, and relates information I gleaned from multiple discussions with BellSouth: There's a "switch" setting in the VM box that BS has obviously changed. The Octal box works in one of two ways. You have experienced both of the ways! We have the same situation. The solution proposed by BS was for us to have them install a "transfer mailbox" feature on each and every phone line/number that would be call forwarded to the phone with the MemoryCall mailbox. Oh, by the way, there is a monthly charge for the feature. The "switch" or flag in the VM box is global. All customers on the box get it one way or the other, without individual customization/choice. Why do it one particular way? Could "revenue stream" influence the decision? > About three or four weeks ago, BellSouth made a change of some sort, > and now my MemoryCall service does not work properly for some incoming > calls. It still works for calls directly dialed to my residential > phone number, and also when my BellSouth DCS phone is forwarded to my > residential phone number (either to the primary or to one of my > RingMaster distinctive ring numbers). But when my business line is > forwarded to that same number, and I don't answer the call, MemoryCall > picks up with a generic "Welcome to BellSouth MemoryCall > service ... please enter a mailbox number" message, instead of my > personal greeting. > It used to work. It worked fine for about six months. ------------------------------ From: Fred Baube Subject: Re: Busiest Public Telephone Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 17:07:28 +0300 Reply-To: fred@moremagic.com Andrew Green wrote: > I seem to recall reading somewhere that one of the busiest payphone > locations was one located at the top of a particular tall building, > [..] Apparently the coin boxes had to > be emptied several times a day (at least in the days before calling > cards). This was also the case with some payphones at student dorms at Georgetown University in 1975/1976. They had a large number of students from Middle Eastern countries who had no other way to call home, which they did often and at high cost. IIRC I was told they got big rolls of quarters from the local banks. Fred Baube F.Baube(tm) * "Not enough salt." -- Yeltsin re. the Big Mac G'town U. MSFS '88 * "It doesn't matter what I make, there's never fred@moremagic.com * enough salt for that guy." -- Mrs. Yeltsin +358 (40) 737 6934 * -- http://www.salon.com/people/lunch/ #include * 1999/07/02/cohon/index1.html ------------------------------ From: Fred Goodwin Subject: Re: Bills Would Fence Off the Facts Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 11:01:24 -0500 shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) wrote in : > Which means that because I use info from tables in the front of the > phone book, and from the utilized/available files at nanpa.com *and* > info from the NNAG files from TRA, TRA or the phone company or Lockheed > can enjoin me from sharing my lists of which exchanges are "local" > because it would hurt their market for a service to *sell* that info. > Please note that there is *no* way to collect this info *without* > accessing databases. And that it's damned hard to collect *without* > spending several hundred dollars a year for the LERG database. Yet, in > spite of the fact that this info is *necessary* to keeping modern phone > systems operating (and vital to setting up things like PBX systems) > they would be able to extort any price they feel like for the data. I guess I disagree. Telcos publish tariffs, and the tariffs I'm familiar with include a listing of which exchanges are local. So the information *is* available from sources other than the databases you mention. In my mind, the real question is, how much is a third-party willing to spend or do to collect that information themselves? I think that's the real issue, because as I see it, the purpose of the legislation is to protect the "sweat of the brow" effort that others have expended in compiling that information. I or you or anyone else could expend the same effort to compile that information. Of course, it's inconvenient and expensive to ask every PUC for a copy of every tariff, but the point is it *can* be done and the information *is* available. Fred Goodwin, CMA Associate Director -- Technology Program Management SBC Technology Resources, Inc. 9505 Arboretum, 9th Floor, Austin, TX 78759 fgoodwin@tri.sbc.com (512) 372-5921 (512) 372-5991 fax ------------------------------ From: Charles Gimon Subject: Interesting News Article on 612/651 Split Date: 16 Jul 1999 15:07:55 GMT Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc. http://www.wcco.com/news/stories/news-990715-181951.html Some background: when 651 was split off from 612, it was decided to do the split on geographic boundaries rather than exchanges. Now one of the suburbs along the edge of the split is having problems. 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. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 10:00:17 EDT From: Carl Moore Subject: Bill Gates Was on A&E Biography That was last night, and I happen to be glancing at a Feb. 15 article in the Digest (Subject: Ticketmaster and Microsoft Settle Linking Dispute), with editor's note that Ticketmaster seems greedy! (I heard some comments along that line about Bill Gates in that Biography!) ------------------------------ From: Joseph Wineburgh Reply-To: Subject: Re: You Believe *67 Works? Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 15:02:00 -0400 Here's my query and response to/from Webley (obviously my motives were disguised), with my original submissions attached below. Read it bottom to top. Not sure why they have just come to the realization that the FCC requires *67 to actually block the number ... #JOE ----------Read from bottom to top--------- I can not tell you who the carrier is, but it is FCC who required this to happen, so it will happen. -----Original Message----- From: Joseph Wineburgh To: 'Alex Kurganov' Date: Thursday, July 15, 1999 12:54 PM Subject: RE: question regarding *67 and your local service > Aha! now it makes sense. We are looking at PRI as well. > Who's your local carrier, and what would their motivation be to block with > *67 vs. leaving it as it is? I would think it would be more useful if left > up to the end user. > Thanks again. > #JOE > -----Original Message----- > From: Alex Kurganov [mailto:alex@webley.com] > Sent: Thursday, July 15, 1999 1:54 PM > To: jwineburgh@chubb.com > Subject: Re: question regarding *67 and your local service > -----Original Message----- > From: Joseph Wineburgh > To: 'Alex Kurganov' > Date: Thursday, July 15, 1999 12:22 PM > Subject: RE: question regarding *67 and your local service >> Thanks. >> I guess my question really should be more like: >> How is your device different than my caller ID box? > Our device has a digital PRI ISDN interface, your box is an analog device. >> In other words, if I dial *67 to my house and it shows up as 'private', >> how is it that you are able to see the number? > The local carrier you dial *67 blocks the caller id, the local carrier we > use does not. > They may do it soon, though. > ISDN PRI? SS7 signaling? >> I find all of this very intriguing! >> Thanks. >> #JOE >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Alex Kurganov [mailto:alex@webley.com] >> Sent: Thursday, July 15, 1999 12:05 PM >> To: jwineburgh@chubb.com >> Subject: RE: question regarding *67 and your local service >> Hi, >> This is purely a local carrier business. If they do not block caller id, >> an IVR can have it and block it itself. >> We are actually going to provide caller ID blocking option to callers on >> non-toll free numbers. >> Alex -----Original Message----- From: W. Joseph Wineburgh [mailto:jwineburgh@chubb.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 1999 12:04 PM To: 'editor@telecom-digest.org' Subject: FW: Re: You Believe *67 Works? UPDATE: Just tried the demo on the web site. The test number is a 312-nnn, and here's what I got; On an AT&T SDN T that does not report any CID (unavailable or out-of-area depending on the box), it reported 'no ANI'. On a 2-way CO trunk (973-359-nnnn), it reported the number correctly without the *67, and amazingly, Another member of the same CO trunk group WITH *67 in front of the number, it WAS able to report the correct CID! This is definitely NOT what Bellcore had in mind when they dreamt up 'private'!!! Just goes to show *67 does not guarantee anything! I am planning on firing off an email to them to find out more about the system they use (ISDN PRI?). #JOE -----Original Message----- From: W. Joseph Wineburgh [mailto:jwineburgh@chubb.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 1999 9:13 AM To: 'editor@telecom-digest.org' Subject: Re: You Believe *67 Works? They're not assigning the 'local' numbers any more. I spoke with one of the droids at the toll-free number and they stated they were no longer giving out the 'local' numbers for security reasons (and that they had run out of numbers). They might be considering doing it a few months down the road. This is all VERY intriguing to me as to how they technically get around the *67 issue, and I do intend to do some more digging, maybe follow up with them when/if they offer the local service again to see how exactly they are doing it. I find it very hard to believe they can do it (technically, not morally). We shall see... #JOE From: Joseph Wineburgh Reply-To: Subject: Re: You Believe *67 Works? Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 09:34:10 -0400 It's a toll-free 'personal' number service. Similar to the one on the west coast you pitch from time to time. They use ANI, which we all know is impervious to *67 or the like. #JOE [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But toll-free numbers begin with 800, 888 or 877 don't they? They do not begin with 312-416 do they? If I call a number 312-416-xxxx I can reasonably assume I am paying for the call, can't I, and entitled to the use of *67 if I wish? I would certainly make no such assumption of privacy regards an 800 number. I would agree with anyone who said that overriding *67 was proper in the case of a 'toll-free' call; the person paying for the call always has a right to know what he is paying for. What prevents me from obtaining a 312-416 number then advertising it as some sort of confidential counseling service and writing down the numbers of all the people who call it thinking they are speaking to me with thier calling number hidden? Is that as bad as getting an 800 number and then charging the caller for using it (we have been through all that here in the past) or is it worse? Subscribers are placed in various blocks of numbers which traditionally identify the class of service they have for good reason. PAT] #JOE ------------------------------ From: Jonathan Subject: Wireless Solution Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 12:04:53 -0700 Organization: Posted via RemarQ, http://www.remarQ.com I am working with a small business that needs seasonal telecoms service -- data and voice, October-December. They are located rather far from the nearest telco central office, so DSL is not available and T-1 is quite expensive. It occurred to me that this might be an excellent candidate for a fixed wireless arrangement. Do any LECs offer this? Are there other economical solutions? ------------------------------ From: jerome@supernet.ab.ca (Jerome Yuzyk) Subject: Re: Audio-Visual, Multimedia Component to Digest Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 21:34:47 -0700 Organization: BRIDGE Scientific Services, Edmonton, AB, Canada Reply-To: jerome@supernet.ab.ca TELECOM Digest Editor 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. Someone else wrote: > Has the thought ever occurred to you of doing a REAL radio talk show? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Regards the contents of the main part > ... > 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 > ... > 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 Once you have enough material, people could make their own radio (i.e., free-running delivery) by choosing their own sequence of presentations from a form or something. There could be a "My Telecom Digest" thing that would play me regular features, or even run randomly through "What's New" or "Memories" or some such palette. Set it up and let it play! Like my friend Warren that tapes TV and watches it when he wants to. Since you are unencumbered by sequence from the start, you can let people make their own. - 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 - [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I was thinking along those lines, but not sure where to start it or quite how to implement it. As of yet, I've not received any responses from anyone willing to do it. I do believe TELECOM Digest has a challenge however, as we enter Century 21 in just a little over five months. Keeping a record of telecom history is important of course, which is why things like the telephone museum and the archives of comp.dcom.telecom (thus, this mailing list) will always be part of the site. The personal, individual thoughts and ideas of contemporary telecom users is also important, along with the sharing of resources to solve telecom-related problems, so this function of the site should continue also, and I hope it will. If you want, think of me as a 'meta service rep' for all facets of telecom. You bring your problems and concerns here; I publish them and we all share in finding solutions. But we also need to constantly be alert to the changes in the industry which are going on all the time. To my way of thinking, it was just becoming very unsatisfactory for telecom-digest.org to be 'just an old, dusty collection of the archives of comp.dcom.telecom' ... which is why in the past few months I've attempted to expand the horizon here just a little to have contemporary telecom events and knowledge be a major part of the site. I've wanted for a long time to deal with privacy issues in a practical, non-theoretical way. I've wanted to have late-breaking telecom news reports available for instant review and analysis. Such things as the constant changes in area codes are impossible for one person to deal with. The very, very, very old-time readers here will recall that in the 1980's there was one source, and one source only, of telecom-related news in an electronic format. Guess who that was? Yours truely ... it was called 'comp.dcom.telecom' and 'TELECOM Digest'. Then things began exploding to the point that it was impossible to handle it all. First came the separation of the people who wanted to talk about privacy, with Dennis Rears moderating that new list. Then came the alt.dcom.telecom newsgroup. Then came Computer Underground Digest when the overflow in that direction got too much. Then came the Usenet comp.dcom.telecom.tech newsgroup when there were operational differences in philosophy between myself and a number of readers of the c.d.t. newsgroup. That brings us up to around 1994 or 1995, when the bright idea of Tim Berners-Lee took root and began changing the world. Is there anyone these days who does not understand fully that 'ideas have consequences'? Was it 1994 or 1995 that the web had the *thirty- nine thousand* percent increase in the number of sites on line? The year before and the years after have seen some unbelievable increases in the number of sites going on line, but that one year it was outrageous. Remember that? From a relative handful of sites on line to *millions* of sites on line less than a year later. There were days during that one year period when ten to fifteen thousand sites were being added every 24 hours. Now, three billion sites plus or minus a few later, with the internet soon to be facing the same kind of addressing crisis that telco is faced with -- in fact, the new 'internet address expansion' thing is officially turned on as of this weekend; new IP addresses will have a few more digits in them as a result so that instead of maxxing out at about four billion addresses the net will be able to accomodate a *billion squared* unique addresses -- I am having a mid-life crisis of my own. In the 1980's and early 1990's people proposing supple- mentary newsgroups and mailing lists would ask me what I thought about their ideas. They would ask for my imprimatuer for whatever value that carries now or back then. Or sometimes they would not seek imprimateur and instead just nail up their notice of revolt on my front door and start their own thing anyway. But at least there was always discussion and notice given. Now, 1999, there are a couple thousand sites dealing in telecom stuff. Many of them are quite good. Many of them that I visit, I find myself saying, "I wish I thought of that idea first". None of them however came around asking my opinion on anything. So there are many very good and some quite excellent telecom-related sites on the net, and where does that leave me? As the custodian of a few thousand old and very dusty telecom files from the archives of Usenet perhaps? Just because I was *first* doesn't mean I am the best. Our history is very important, but I feel the site also has to move on into the present and the future, thus the expansion in recent months. The net is full of new technologies to use in presenting whatever it is that we are about. Why not use it? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jul 1999 15:11:02 -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 > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I can also imagine filing a complaint > with the hospital asking why their outgoing phone calls, which would > frequently be of an urgent or emergency nature lack any identification > on them. Don't be silly, you answer the phone and they say "this is Dr. Whoever calling from the Pigeons of Mercy Hospital". How much more ID do you want? But they don't want you to call random extensions in the hospital when you call back, they want you to call the switchboard who knows how to locate people even though they're running all over the hospital. When doctors return an after-hours call to the answering service from home, they always block CLID since they don't want random patients calling their home numnber. That's equally not anonymous, even though the number they're calling from is equally none of your business. > Why is the hospital essentially categorizing their phone calls in the > same way as a telemarketer, trying to hide themselves? PAT] I can't ever recall getting a blocked call from a telemarketer. They're all out of area, which is not the same thing. Why do you insist on confusing the two? 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: Understandably the staff member does not always want calls directly to their extension. In that case, the hospital's main switchboard number should show up. Often times, the number shown as ID in the cases of centrex or DID is confusing anyway, and the name when shown is some sort of abbreviation. I agree that having DID or centrex numbers shown on caller ID boxes does not make a lot of sense. Having the caller ID box say something like, 'Hospital Name' and the phone number on the other hand is quite appropriate. But the problem is not so much that when you answer the phone the voice on the other end is going to identify herself as Nurse Jane, to tell you that grandpa seems to be getting better/worse, its that 'private' you see on the box *before you answer* that is the concern. How does the recipient of the call know in advance if it is Nurse Jane calling or if it is someone he definitly does not wish to speak with prior to answering in that case? The complaint I said I would register with the hospital would not be that all the internal extensions at the hospital should show up on the box or that the hostess of a gathering where the doctor happens to be that night should have her number exposed, it would be why can't the hospital telecom administrator arrange things so that the hospital's *main listed number* and its name appear instead of just 'private'. Rush-Presbyterian and its affiliate Rush-North Shore in Skokie have it fixed that way, and I have seen many PBX and centrex arrangements where just one 'identifying number' was sent out. It all depends in how it is wired. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 12:28:35 -0700 From: Derek J. Balling Subject: Re: Does Anyone on the West Coast Use Caller ID? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I can also imagine filing a complaint > with the hospital asking why their outgoing phone calls, which would > frequently be of an urgent or emergency nature lack any identification > on them. I don't know about you, but whether I had someone in the > hospital or not -- or I was *assuming* I didn't have anyone there! -- > that's the sort of call I would want to take immediatly, wouldn't you? > Why is the hospital essentially categorizing their phone calls in the > same way as a telemarketer, trying to hide themselves? PAT] You are making an assumption that the ONLY people who Caller-ID-Block was intended for are telemarketers. It was also intended for PRECISELY the hospital, doctor, police, etc. Hospitals have switchboards for a reason. They don't want you to be able to dial into Dr. Smith's private extension in his office up on the 5th floor. They want you to dial the switchboard, so that if Dr. Smith is busy taking three inches out of someone's intestine that they can either route your (non-emergency) call to an answering service, or if it is an emergency to get you to someone else who can help. Likewise, the police officer who gets an idea about something you reported and wants to call you really DOESN'T want you to have his home phone number so you can call him every day hounding him to solve your case. You are attaching an unnecessary stigma to Caller ID Blocking ... This seems a lot to me like the recent discussion about the new Kubrick film and how WB didn't want the "stigma" of an NC-17 rating, even though NC17 was created specifically to NOT have the "X" stigma. All (Anonymous|Private) means is that the person who is calling you doesn't want you to have the ability to call them back directly on the number they're calling from. Nothing more. If you wish to imply from that statement that "you don't want to talk to those people", then resign yourself to not wanting to talk to doctors, police, AS WELL AS the occasional telemarketer. It's my experience that I have personally YET to get a telemarketer who came in as Private, they ALWAYS seem to come up as Out Of Area ... I think they're all moving to crappy areas with crummy service so that nobody will ever know who they are. ;-) D [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: See my answer to John Levine above. I merely suggest that telecom administrators similarly situated as those you describe above have their outgoing lines arranged to give a generic number intended for identification and call-back purposes. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Bill Ranck Subject: Re: Does Anyone on the West Coast Use Caller ID? Date: 16 Jul 1999 19:28:21 GMT Organization: Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA Al Iverson wrote: > Well, the hospital my father was rushed to after recently having a seizure > and passing out while driving, that hospital blocks caller-ID by default. > It comes up "private" or "anonymous," not "unvailable." > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I can also imagine filing a complaint > with the hospital asking why their outgoing phone calls, which would > Why is the hospital essentially categorizing their phone calls in the > same way as a telemarketer, trying to hide themselves? PAT] If I understand it correctly they are blocking their numbers, not hiding behind a non-complient PBX like a telemarketer. I assume they are doing this to keep people from getting the direct extension number for the phone a doctor/nurse/employee happened to use to call out on. There are plenty of good reasons for that. A better way to handle it would be to have the hospital's main information/switchboard number come up no matter what extension was used for the outbound call. Maybe they can't or don't know how to set that up. Bill Ranck +1-540-231-3951 ranck@vt.edu Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, Computing Center [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That's precisely my point. My complaint would be about the configuration of their network, not whether or not some individual doctor, social worker, etc is in a position to take incoming calls at one moment or another. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #223 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Jul 16 18:37:03 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id SAA08589; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 18:37:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 18:37:03 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199907162237.SAA08589@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #224 TELECOM Digest Fri, 16 Jul 99 18:37:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 224 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Fire in Toronto Bell Infrastructure - Damage Very Severe (pete@tao.ca) Phone Chaos in Toronto - Fire in Bell Office (Jim Willis) Legal Settlement With Merrick Bank (Babu Mengelepouti) Internet Site Warning About Merrick Bank (webmaster@wardscorner.com) Re: Does Anyone on the West Coast Use Caller ID? (Al Iverson) Re: www. Prefixes (Derek J. Balling) Re: Nokia Incompatibility With Car Stereo (John Nagle) For Sale: Panasonic Office Phone System with Voicemail (Timon Sloane) 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, 16 Jul 1999 16:38:28 -0400 EDT From: pete Subject: Fire in Toronto Bell Infrastructure - Damage Very Severe Friday morning at 10:32 in the Bell Canada Central Office (CO) there was a contained electrical short on the third floor. This wasn't a big deal because they simply lock down the area and suck all of the oxygen out of the room. Unfortunately, the designers of this rediculously cool fire extinguisher didn't bother to connect this system to the sprinkler. Two explosions rocked the building as millions of dollars worth of network ATM switches combusted on the 6th and 9th floor. Unconfirmed reports say that one engineer was rescued while there is a possibility that several techs were killed. Any telecommunication service carried over Bell's extensive copper infrastructure were immediately cut. Phone exchanges were suddenly islands (someone could call someone in the same exchange could call someone else) and while the outages primarily took out 416/905 other parts of Canada will experience "issues" for at least two days. The cell networks were likewise effected (only Fido could call other Fidos) and the ATM backbone servicing our wonderful financial institutions were likewise dead. Many unhappy consumers. Even radio stations that send their signals through a (Bell) leased line were playing canned music. Notable as well is that E911 emergency services were also down. Every copper based ISP in Toronto was down. Companies like UUNet and PSInet all lease bandwidth and infrastructure from Bell. Cable modem users would have been unaffected because their net traffic never touches the Bell infrastructure. There is no firm ETA when everything will be "normal". Emergency rerouting of the PSTN phone traffic (likely through New York!) has taken effect, however this stopgap solution cannot hope to connect everyone in Toronto at the same time. At one moment your server could be touching 60% of the net; the next you could be all alone. Billions of dollars in business has not happened. While this will annoy the suits right off, to a geek this is one of the most romantic scenarios possible -- a real life version of the "islands in the net" theme. There has never been a loss at such a central point in recent Toronto history, and be sure that heads will roll as the illusion of redundancy is shattered. This is a sorry day for Bell, who likely lost this year's profit before noon. Predictably, Bell media contacts are trying to play the damage and the service outages down. More information becoming available on a moment for moment basis, so this is to be considered late-breaking as opposed to absolute recount. Pete [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I was not planning another issue of the Digest today, but felt this should be rushed out immediatly to the net. As additional reports come in, I'll continue pushing them out over the weekend. Good luck getting back to normal conditions there. In the Illinois Bell fire in May, 1988, service was out nearly a month. I have no way at present of comparing that situation to the present one of course. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Jim Willis Subject: Phone Chaos in Toronoto - Fire in Bell Office Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 17:04:32 -0400 TORONTO (CP) -- A large part of Toronto was without telephone service today after an electrical fire at a Bell Canada office. There was no immediate indication how widespread the disruption was, but there were unconfirmed reports of problems elsewhere in Canada. Telephones at Toronto police headquarters and all police stations in the city were out of commission, said police spokesman Const. Devin Kealey. Computer and Internet services that use phone lines were also down. Emergency 911 service was out briefly as well. While it was soon repaired, police were asking people to avoid using it except in life-threatening situations. Telephone service to Toronto's fire departments was also reduced to emergency lines. The Toronto Stock Exchange said a few of its member firms lost their communications links, but found other ways to trade stocks. "Our trading will remain open," said exchange spokesman Steve Kee. The derivatives market, which includes the trading of options and futures contracts, was shut down, however. Derivatives trading makes up a tiny portion of the exchange's daily business. More than 70 firefighters were called to the morning blaze that officials say may have started when a tool was dropped in an electrical room, creating an explosion and sending fire and thick smoke coursing through the building. One worker injured in the fire was taken to hospital in serious condition. This story from http://www.canoe.ca/TopStories/bell_jul16.html Jim Willis ppost2@drlogick.com www.drlogick.com/printpost ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 14:03:50 -0700 From: Babu Mengelepouti Reply-To: dialtone@vcn.bc.ca Organization: US Secret Service Subject: Legal Settlement with Merrick Bank Pat, In light of your recent misadventures concerning Merrick Bank, I thought that it may be interesting to you to relay this little tidbit. I received a call from Merrick Bank last month, in which they utilized an illegal automated telecommunications device. The laws in the state of Washington require that telemarketing calls be placed only with humans available, and recordings may be played only at the consent of the person reached. I allege that the autodialer which Merrick used blatantly violated this law. No human was available, I was instructed only to call an 800 number to receive my "guaranteed" Visa card. Your previous article on the subject is a good reference for how their "guaranteed" card offer really works. After the message was complete, I called the 800 number, gathered all of the information I could on Merrick Bank (which proved difficult since they would give me only Florida PO boxes and Merrick Bank is actually based at 6056 Fashion Square Drive, Salt Lake City UT 84107, 801/685.7700), and immediately filed a complaint with the attorney general's office. Today, I received both a letter from the AGO (in which they stated that Merrick Bank did not respond to their complaint), an envelope from Merrick Bank offering a legal settlement, complete with all, um, "bank settlement documents." As part of the settlement agreement, I cannot reveal the terms, and Merrick Bank admits no wrongdoing. That said, state law provides for civil penalties of not less than $500 nor more than $2,000 for each violation of the telemarketing provisions of the law. In this case, there was one alleged violation. I called the representative at the attorney general's office, and he advised me that he'd received a copy of the documentation which Merrick sent to me. He stated that Merrick indicated in their letter to the attorney general's office that they will no longer be violating Washington state law in their telemarketing procedures. He also stated that Merrick admits no intentional wrongdoing and cited "operator error" as the reason that I received the call. The attorney general's representative was skeptical as to whether or not this is true, but he said that proving otherwise would be difficult without more complaints, and he would be forwarding a brief to the FCC. Regardless of my personal settlement of all claims against Merrick Bank, the case has apparently taken on a life of its own now that the attorney general's office is involved. In light of my recent settlement, I would advise everyone who is a victim of illegal telemarketing calls to gather as much information as possible about who is calling, and then immediately contact their state attorney general's office. Your tax dollars pay their salary, and who knows -- a stern letter from them might actually do some good! [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The Merrick Bank VISA card scam as it was being done here on the net was first exposed in this Digest, a month or so ago. I am glad you were able to benefit from it instead of getting hurt by it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Webmaster Subject: Internet Site Warning About Merrick Bank Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 02:09:07 -0400 A resource page is www.wardscorner.com/merrick . [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I recommend reading it. There is a lot of useful information there for people who have been taken in by this latest scam; this latest in the increasingly large number of fraud hives on the net. Thanks for passing this along. PAT] ------------------------------ From: radparker@radparker.com (Al Iverson) Subject: Re: Does Anyone on the West Coast Use Caller ID? Organization: See sig before replying! Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 16:16:25 -0500 In article , radparker@radparker.com (Al Iverson) wrote: > In article , lpovirk@my-deja.com wrote: >> I can't imagine why anyone would ACCEPT calls from anyone who >> expressly refuses to reveal their identity. > Well, the hospital my father was rushed to after recently having a seizure > and passing out while driving, that hospital blocks caller-ID by default. > It comes up "private" or "anonymous," not "unvailable." > Now you can imagine at least one scenario where calls from blocked > locations are calls you may want to receive. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I can also imagine filing a complaint > with the hospital asking why their outgoing phone calls, which would > frequently be of an urgent or emergency nature lack any identification > on them. I don't know about you, but whether I had someone in the > hospital or not -- or I was *assuming* I didn't have anyone there! -- > that's the sort of call I would want to take immediatly, wouldn't you? > Why is the hospital essentially categorizing their phone calls in the > same way as a telemarketer, trying to hide themselves? PAT] They don't lack identification or try to hide themselves. It says "private," NOT "unavailable." I have yet to receive a telemarketing call that shows up as "Private" -- every one I've ever received in Minnesota actually shows their info (less likely), or it says "Unavailable" (more likely). My work also shows up as "Unavailable." Our PBX is too old to push Caller ID information and we're not ready to replace it yet. Incidentally, you could imagine filing a complaint, but I can imagine being more interested in whether or not your sick relative is okay, and writing off the caller ID issue as "petty stupidness." Frankly, I thought the issue is whether or not it's possible that there are legitimate calls that you may get where the caller has caller ID blocked. Filing a complaint after the fact is not the same as preventing it from happening. Al Iverson 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. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 12:44:54 -0700 From: Derek J. Balling Subject: Re: www. Prefixes > That is obvious. But it is also obvious that the primary means of > connecting over the Internet has moved to HTTP. I believe that the > main machine in a domain (any one using the "root" domain as a name) > should support http -- if only by forwarding it to the proper server. So even though a particular machine may be something as completely specialized as a Cisco router, you would burden it with the overhead of maintaining a miniature web server, just because you're too lazy to think about the FQDN of the machine you want to connect to? > Load sharing between machines in the domain can easily be handled. > Only the user needs to know the name pop.example.com or > smtp.example.com or mail.example.com -- others just write to > user@example.com and MX records do the rest. Right. Instead of pushing for abolition of www. which will never happen, why not write up an RFC to add a new DNS record "WWW", which would say "if someone wants the web server for , they really want: www.domain.com, or sales.domain.com or whatever. You could even do some slick stuff like: @ IN WWW 5 www.ourdomain.com IN WWW 10 wwwbackup.ourdomain.com with the wwwbackup being a failover mirror somewhere else in the world. > It has been many moons since I used gopher, and ftp is acceptable > at the beginning of that kind of connection. Just as is "www" ... > I made sure that both > domains I set up work without the www, and would not accept service > from an ISP that refused to do otherwise. If a customer specifically requests that their domain work without the www, then any ISP who refused is an idiot, because it is the customer's domain, if they want to burn their root domain to be their web site that is their privilege. Personally, I would want to be a little more forward-thinking than that ... you never know what the future might hold that you would want to keep the root-domain "untarnished" for... You and I have no idea what the most popular method of internet use will be 10 years from now. Just as it is "www" today, it might be "cas" tomorrow or something else, who knows. Using your plan, sites would have to be "one or the other" since they can only commit their @ domain to a single service... using the accepted norm allows flexibility of growth and adaptability to change going forward. > Yes the Internet is more than http/www. But the trend now is making > http the primary form. Put your mail on mail. and your news on news., > and let http reside on the 'root' CNAMEd machine. Why do you insist that the web is the primary form? Actually, I think the figures still dictate that e-mail is the most popular use of the net, and I strongly suspect that if accurate figures were dictated that "on-line gaming" as a whole probably generates lots more bandwidth than web surfing (but I can't back that up, just a hunch). > It makes it a ton easier to say and write. I have to quote my High School Journalism teacher: "The easiest way is very seldom the best way. Learn this and you will do great in life." - M.Habernig (I was admittedly a bit of a slacker in school *grin*) D ------------------------------ From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) Subject: Re: Nokia Incompatibility With Car Stereo Date: 16 Jul 1999 19:59:18 GMT Organization: Netcom Celeste Tyree writes: > I need to know if any one else out there has had the same problems > that I have with a Nokia 6160 mobile phone. > When I use (or even have the phone in my vehicle) the phone in my > vehicle, I receive a loud hum from my car stereo. I have found that > it is worse when I'm playing a CD. I don't have to worry about the > volume of the ringer on my phone because I receive an alter from my > car stereo. It is so bad that I have to turn off the stereo before I > answer the phone. When I am not on the phone I find that the rear > speaker will "crackle" intermittently. > When this problem first occurred I called AT&T Wireless (I have the > One Rate plan), and told them what was happening. As usual, no one > had an answer. It's not their problem. It's a problem with the car stereo. The phone is a transmitter; it has to emit some RF. Any decent piece of electronics should be insensitive to low power transmitters in the immediate vicinity. (Good pieces of electronics work well right next to high-powered broadcast transmitters.) There are fixes for such problems. A good car stereo installer should be able to install the necessary filters cheaply. This is a known and well-understood area. Tell them you have an RFI interference problem; if they don't understand what that is, call somebody else. The European Union has standards for consumer equipment in this area, but the US only has standards on emission, not sensitivity. John Nagle ------------------------------ From: Timon Sloane Organization: FlowWise Networks Subject: For Sale: Panasonic Office Phone System with Voicemail Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 20:39:25 GMT I'm auctioning a complete Panasonic small office phone system on ebay. The system includes support for 32 users, and includes a KXT123211D control unit and a TVS100 voicemail system. The system can be found at: http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=132594327 timon ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #224 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Jul 17 01:19:26 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id BAA24131; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 01:19:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 01:19:26 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199907170519.BAA24131@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #225 TELECOM Digest Sat, 17 Jul 99 01:19:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 225 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson The Crisis at Pacifica Radio (TELECOM Digest Editor) Re: Does Anyone on the West Coast Use Caller ID? (Chuck Forsberg) Re: Does Anyone on the West Coast Use Caller ID? (John R. Levine) Re: Does Anyone on the West Coast Use Caller ID? (Gerry Belanger) Re: Does Anyone on the West Coast Use Caller ID? (Derek Balling) Re: Does Anyone on the West Coast Use Caller ID? (Steve Uhrig) Re: Does Anyone on the West Coast Use Caller ID? (John David Galt) Re: Kill Advertising Windows (Dave O'Shea) Re: Kill Advertising Windows (Steven J Sobol) Re: DSL vs. Cable Modems (Derek Balling) Re: DSL vs. Cable Modems (Jonathan Seder) Re: 1800SKYTEL2 Blocked in Las Vegas (Stanley Cline) Re: Canada's Namespace (Tenexus) 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 about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! 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, 17 Jul 1999 00:11:59 EDT From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: The Crisis at Pacifica Radio The board of directors for Pacifica Foundation has been attempting to change the format of its radio stations for quite awhile now. Its station in Texas, KPFT changed from a very politically left-wing commentary type of programming to an mostly-music format several months ago. Some have suggested the reason for the change is that Pacifica wants to more closely emulate National Public Radio, and get some of the money for itself that major corporations routinely toss at NPR. A story making the rounds is that one day members of the board at Pacifica said in essence, 'we have had enough of this hippie shit ...' and they decided to pull the plug on it. Staff members at KPFA in Berkeley, CA however are not giving in or accepting the change as well as management had hoped for. In fact, to the contrary, there have been demonstrations and violent confron- tations between demonstrators and police outside the KPFA studios for the past week. For the past few days, demonstators with sympathetic members of the local comunication-workers union have staged a picket line outside the entrance of KPFA's transmitter site to prevent phone company employees -- who will not cross the picket line -- from doing the required installation of a circuit which will allow KPFA to be operated remotely by another Pacifica station, KPFK in Los Angeles. Management at KPFA has for several days now had armed security guards on duty blocking the entrance to their building on Martin Luther King Way and University Avenue in Berkeley. The armed security guards several days ago escorted the entire staff out of the building, with the exception of a few people. All those escorted out were apparently fired. The station has been operating now for a few days using its recorded archives with the help of a couple employees who were retained on its staff. Station management is hoping soon to get the data link between itself and KPFK in Los Angeles connected so that 'normal programming' can be resumed; or at least as 'normal' as management at the southern California outlet of Pacifica would have things. The demonstrations going on each day at the Berkeley radio station show no sign of ending anytime soon. The locked out employees have vowed to 'take back Pacifica for the people' and they've amply illus- trated their intentions in confrontations with police that have resulted in a large number of arrests, both of staff members as well as members of the community in general who have rallied in their defense. At other Pacifica-owned stations around the country, including WBAI in New York City, KPFT in Texas and KPFK in Los Angeles, on-air employees have been sternly warned against *any* discussion regards the dispute in Berkeley. How long or how well that will hold up I do not know. In fact back in April when the dispute at Berkeley's station first began heating up, on-air staffers at KPFA were warned to keep their mouths shut about it, at least on company time, that there was to be *nothing* said about the change in direction Pacifica was taking. That might seem to be a reasonable request of any person who wishes to behave in a professional and responsible way; you do not publicly criticize your employer at his expense. You reconcile your differences privately or you work somewhere else that you like better. But it happened; several on-air people at Pacifica's Berkeley station began bad-mouthing the board and its plans. When they did so, they were in some cases abruptly removed from the air. One day last week, the station had two hours of 'dead air' when management chose to immediatly remove one of their commentators in the middle of his program. That's not a very professional thing to do either, but I am told other staff members refused an assignment to cover for the person removed, in which case management should have either announced there were 'technical difficulties' and played music for a couple of hours, or did a re-run from the past or something; not just push a carrier with no modulation on it. I guess KPFA management has tried to take the official position there are no problems at all, and they have steadfastly refused any on-air commentary about it; just sort of stumbling along, using what they have of their backup taped archives to tide them over. When there was rioting in the street in front of their studio one day last week by locked out staff and community sympathizers, the on-air person at the time dared to even mention what was going on outside his window, so they fired him also on the spot. The 'hippies' who were running KPFA for Pacifica need to learn that no one automatically owes them a radio station. No one has a right to demand time on the airwaves which 'belong' to someone else, regard- less of how that 'ownership' of the airwaves may have come about, no matter how illegitimate they may find the board of Pacifica as presently constituted and its properties. KPFA is still the property of Pacifica to do with as it pleases subject to laws, etc. Just as 'freedom of the press' belongs to the people who own the presses, I suppose the right to have your speech amplified so it can be heard outside of normal hearing range belongs to the owners of radio stations. But it also seems to me Pacifica has taken an extemely hypocritical stance in this matter in light of their long-standing, very liberal and left-leaning, well-known political views over the years. They're not reluctant at all to report on labor disputes and corporate shenanigans where they find them; they're not afraid at all to take the federal government to task on a variety of issues. They've never been reluctant to allow their on-air commentators to say things which brought Pacifica almost to the verge of legal action because of defamation of character. In fact, many's the time Pacifica people have committed character assasination on the air. Now all of a sudden when Pacifica itself has become 'an enemy of the people' if the Berkeley community is to be believed, the station refuses to discuss it publicly on the air. I guess we all have our blind spots, that certain place in life where we have to protect ourselves, no matter how inconsistent it may be with the rest of our logic. If, as is claimed, Pacifica was getting tired 'of all the hippie shit' at KPFA, and if their intention is to go a little more main stream in order to line up at the corporate slop trough with National Public Radio and National Public Television when the left-overs are tossed out after every meal, why couldn't they have treated their employees a little more decently in the process? In one sense, I cannot really blame the employees for feeling that they 'owned' KPFA; for so many years they put on whatever nonsense they felt like with little or no concern from management. Pacifica, which should be in the forefront setting an example of how corporate employers should treat their employees ought to have invited employee participation in the conversion. Surely among all the people on their staff at least some would have understood the need to program things just a wee-bit more toward the center, that is, if they expected to be able to be on the air at all over the next few years. Not everyone on their staff is a crazy person ... but instead they hire a private security firm to physically evict all their employees and then stay on the air acting like nothing out of the ordinary happened at all, as though a couple hours of dead air when the latest employee gets marched out the door and an infinite amount of 'best of' re-runs going on for days at a time are common at every radio station. Its easy for me to sit here and wish a plague on both their houses; let them eat each other inside-out until the powerless employees have all but given up and Pacifica is left with a reputation that renders them totally impotent in the process. I am sure the federal government is enjoying watching it all unravel also. Whatever. If you are around the San Francisco Bay area you might wish to go look in on it all; the protests and demonstrations are continuing daily at Martin Luther King Way and University Ave. as well as out at the transmitter site. Just be careful you don't get in the way of a police officer on the scene who has an urge to crack open your head with his club or insert his club up your Back Orifice for good measure. I guess the cops on location are enjoying it also, watching the 'hippies' in their own sort of civil war among the 'more to the left' and the 'less to the left' segments. PAT ------------------------------ From: caf@agora.rdrop.com (Chuck Forsberg) Subject: Re: Does Anyone on the West Coast Use Caller ID? Date: 17 Jul 1999 03:12:17 GMT Organization: RainDrop Laboratories/Agora(sm), Portland, Oregon In article , Derek J. Balling wrote: > It's my experience that I have personally YET to get a telemarketer > who came in as Private, they ALWAYS seem to come up as Out Of Area > ... I think they're all moving to crappy areas with crummy service so > that nobody will ever know who they are. ;-) I thought Caller ID was supposed to be national?? Most junk calls are 0 but so are some legitimate calls. It would be nice to be able to block calls with caller ID of 0. Perhaps there could be a law that says all junk calls must use a special caller ID. Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX PP-ASEL/HP Skylane N2469R caf@omen.COM Omen Technology Inc The High Reliability Software www.omen.com Author of YMODEM, ZMODEM, RZ, SZ, Pro-YAM, ZCOMM, GSZ, and DSZ TeleGodzilla BBS: 503-617-1698 FTP: ftp.cs.pdx.edu pub/zmodem POB 4681 Portland OR 97208 503-614-0430 FAX:503-629-0665 ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jul 1999 23:31:04 -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 > [ Hospitals, for good reasons, block CLID. ] > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: ... > But the problem is not so much that when you answer the phone the > voice on the other end is going to identify herself as Nurse Jane, to > tell you that grandpa seems to be getting better/worse, its that > 'private' you see on the box *before you answer* that is the concern. > How does the recipient of the call know in advance if it is Nurse Jane > calling or if it is someone he definitly does not wish to speak with > prior to answering in that case? You don't. Deal with it. If you got a call from 215-365-9916, a real number showing on my CLID box, how would you know in advance who it was? (I don't have the option that shows the subscriber name, but it would probably say "Bell Atlantic".) Don't get me wrong, if I had a chance to help round up all of the outbound telemarketers and ship them off to Siberia for re-education and intensive self-criticism, I'd grab a cattle prod and do it. But it's just plain wrong to pretend that CLID will reliably identify telemarketers or other callers in advance, because the most it can tell you is the name of the subscriber to whom the calling phone is billed, not the name of the person on the phone. I find CLID useful when I recognize the number, so for example I can not answer the phone if I'm in a hurry and my charming but very chatty mother-in-law calls. I occasionally find it useful when some kid makes prank calls to my 800 number (which spells a woman's name) to call them back and tell them to cut it out. But I don't find it the least bit useful in predicting when a call will be from someone I don't want to talk to. "OUT OF AREA" doesn't help much, most of my out of area calls are from my sister, calling from a rural telco in Vermont. 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: wa1hoz@kona.javanet.com (Gerry Belanger) Subject: Re: Does Anyone on the West Coast Use Caller ID? Date: 17 Jul 1999 01:18:37 GMT Bill Ranck (ranck@joesbar.cc.vt.edu) wrote: > A better way to handle it would be to have the hospital's main > information/switchboard number come up no matter what extension > was used for the outbound call. Maybe they can't or don't know > how to set that up. This is what our local Hospital in Danbury CT does. All calls show the main number. I wish my employer would do that. As it is, we get the number on the outgoing trunk which happens to be selected, instead of the base number of our DID block. At least the company name shows up properly. Gerry Belanger, WA1HOZ wa1hoz@javanet.com Newtown, CT g.belanger@ieee.org ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 18:19:10 -0700 From: Derek Balling Subject: Re: Does Anyone on the West Coast Use Caller ID? At 05:43 PM 7/16/99 -0400, TELECOM Digest Editor noted: > The complaint I said I would register with the hospital would not be > that all the internal extensions at the hospital should show up on > the box or that the hostess of a gathering where the doctor happens > to be that night should have her number exposed, it would be why > can't the hospital telecom administrator arrange things so that the > hospital's *main listed number* and its name appear instead of just > 'private'. Rush-Presbyterian and its affiliate Rush-North Shore in > Skokie have it fixed that way, and I have seen many PBX and centrex > arrangements where just one 'identifying number' was sent out. It > all depends in how it is wired. PAT] It was my understanding (I am not an expert in this department, just repeating something I heard once) that if you had your phone service coming in as PRI's, this was possible, but if you have it coming in on standard T1 trunks this wasn't possible. (Something to do with the how the CNID signalling got done, that with PRI lines the CPE could set it at will, and standard T1 lines couldn't or something.) But I could be completely off-base, I just seem to remember hearing that. D ------------------------------ From: Steve Uhrig Subject: Re: Does Anyone on the West Coast Use Caller ID? Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 20:20:17 -0400 Organization: bright.net Ohio Al Iverson wrote: > Well, the hospital my father was rushed to after recently having a seizure > and passing out while driving, that hospital blocks caller-ID by default. > It comes up "private" or "anonymous," not "unvailable." > Now you can imagine at least one scenario where calls from blocked > locations are calls you may want to receive. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I can also imagine filing a complaint > with the hospital asking why their outgoing phone calls, which would > frequently be of an urgent or emergency nature lack any identification > on them. I don't know about you, but whether I had someone in the > hospital or not -- or I was *assuming* I didn't have anyone there! -- > that's the sort of call I would want to take immediatly, wouldn't you? > Why is the hospital essentially categorizing their phone calls in the > same way as a telemarketer, trying to hide themselves? PAT] The local hospitals all block their CID. One reason could be that they have a common outgoing trunk group used by both the hospital and the doctors offices in the adjacent medical buildings. If they gave out the outgoing number they would have people trying to call in on the outgoing lines because that was the number on their CID box. If they just sent the name of the hospital, then they would have people calling the hospital listed number asking who from the hospital called them. How is the turret operator going to have any idea who is using all the outgoing trunks?? Needles to say the CID blocking on the trunks can't be disabled on a per call basis. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think they should try to reconfigure it. At Rush North Shore Hospital in Skokie, the same PBX operators who answer for the hospital also respond for 'Valley Answering Service' which is a separate, distinct company (owned as a subsidiary by the hospital) serving as answering service for the adjacent offices in the Medical Arts Building. How the operator responds (as 'Rush North Shore operator X' or as 'Dr. Smiths office, may I help you' or as 'Doctors Answering Service') depends on what lights up when the call comes in. Outgoing calls from hospital extensions all show the main listed number *including patient rooms which are direct-dialable on an entirely different exchange* but with extension numbers which do not overlap those of the hospital. Patient rooms begin 847-933-1xxx or 2xxx but they still go out showing 847-677-9600. PAT] ------------------------------ From: John_David_Galt@acm.org (John David Galt) Organization: Diogenes the Cynic Hot-Tubbing Society Subject: Re: Does Anyone on the West Coast Use Caller ID? Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 22:31:36 GMT John R. Levine wrote: >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I can also imagine filing a complaint >> with the hospital asking why their outgoing phone calls, which would >> frequently be of an urgent or emergency nature lack any identification >> on them. > Don't be silly, you answer the phone and they say "this is Dr. Whoever > calling from the Pigeons of Mercy Hospital". How much more ID do you > want? But they don't want you to call random extensions in the > hospital when you call back, they want you to call the switchboard who > knows how to locate people even though they're running all over the > hospital. I don't see this as a problem. Don't all modern PBXes allow them to send the CLID of the hospital's main number? (If their PBX weren't capable of this, chances are it wouldn't be sending CLID at all, and the calls would display as "Out of Area" rather than "Anonymous".) > When doctors return an after-hours call to the answering service from > home, they always block CLID since they don't want random patients > calling their home numnber. That's equally not anonymous, even though > the number they're calling from is equally none of your business. This is why I feel that Caller ID ought to send the number from the calling card (when one is used) rather than the location. >> Why is the hospital essentially categorizing their phone calls in the >> same way as a telemarketer, trying to hide themselves? PAT] I agree with this. Blocked calls from telemarketers are common here. John David Galt ------------------------------ From: Dave O'Shea Subject: Re: Kill Advertising Windows Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 17:31:38 -0500 Jeff Colbert wrote in message news:telecom19.222.6@telecom-digest.org: > Go to the friendly folks at Siemans in Germany for a free utility that > will kill pesky advertisements, and also act as a proxy server > allowing multiple PC's to share an internet connection. I have been > using it for a couple of weeks now and it works quite well and is easy > to set up. > http://www.siemens.de/servers/wwash/wwash_us.htm > Surf geocities sites without hassle now! It's free for non-commercial use, too. Hats off to Siemens. It works well, though it's limited by the instabilities of the Win95 platform I run it on. The only problem I have noted is with some javascript sites, and a couple of site's like MS's "windows update" site. It also has the nice feature of stripping the "referrer" information that's sent to the host, and can block animated GIF's. Good karma for Siemens, I think. :-) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I would appreciate some comparisons to http://telecom-digest.org/secret-surfer.html which also helps disguise the user, and attempts to stop popup windows. PAT] ------------------------------ From: sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net (Steven J Sobol) Subject: Re: Kill Advertising Windows Date: 16 Jul 1999 23:03:33 GMT Organization: North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.4NET > Go to the friendly folks at Siemans in Germany for a free utility that > will kill pesky advertisements ... in what context? North Shore Technologies Corporation http://www.NorthShoreTechnologies.net We don't just build websites; we build relationships! 815 Superior Ave. #610, Cleveland, OH 44114-2702 216.619.2NET 888.480.4NET Host of the Forum for Responsible & Ethical E-mail http://www.spamfree.org ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 18:11:17 -0700 From: Derek Balling Subject: Re: DSL vs. Cable Modems > That's one reason that some of the cable model suppliers put proxy > servers at the head end. For popular web pages, their subscribers see > the best possible performance, without any issues of sharing the link > out. It also has the advantage of reducing the bandwidth they need to > support from each head end. > I expect the DSL guys to learn the lesson and do it to. "Best possible performance" is NOT always the case, by any stretch of the imagination. MANY Cable customers immediately reconfigure their browser after the tech leaves to ignore the proxy server. They do this, because by and large, the proxy server introduces FAR more problems than it solves. I have also noticed significantly BETTER performance going direct. Also keep in mind that dynamic content SHOULDN'T be cached so in the modern world, the proxy server SHOULDN'T help you on the majority of web sites. Unfortunately, dynamic content IS cached, by and large, which means that instead of helping you it hinders you. Companies (both Cable and xDSL) can feel free to invest their money in a proxy server, but they would be far better off investing those funds in better hardware for other areas... D ------------------------------ From: Jonathan Seder Subject: Re: DSL vs. Cable Modems Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 18:29:59 -0700 Organization: Posted via RemarQ, http://www.remarQ.com I believe that with all cable modem systems, each different data rate and direction gets its own frequency band. All the users of a particular data rate/direction share that single frequency band. Thus, all 100K/500K users are in effect on a single full-duplex asymmetric-rate CSMA/CD LAN. Like Ethernet, performance falls off dramatically as usage crosses certain thresholds. At the busy times of day - 5pm-9pm - individual users may get only a small fraction of the total data rate. The Palo Alto Cable Co-op network -- as of January -- was split into five physical subnetworks, so the above setup actually happens five times over. I believe that the Cable Co-op head-end connections are more than adequate to handle even the 2.5Mbps max aggregated data rate for the 500K ("Bronze") customers. I used to be a Cable Co-op customer but switched to Covad/Brainstorm DSL which has performed much more reliably (albeit at much higher cost). Jonathan Seder Joshua M.K. Masur wrote: > As far as "degradation" -- i.e., demand effects on shared IP bandwidth > -- not all cable modem systems work the same way. Here in Palo Alto, > cable modem service via ISP Channel allocates dedicated bandwidth > (starting at 500kbps downstream/100kbps up) back to the head end, > rather than shared bandwidth at some theoretical higher speed. Given > the local cable operation's pending sale to AT&T, of course, this is > likely to change. ------------------------------ From: sc1@roamer1.org (Stanley Cline) Subject: Re: 1800SKYTEL2 Blocked in Las Vegas Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 23:41:06 GMT Organization: by area code and prefix (NPA-NXX) Reply-To: sc1@roamer1.org On 16 Jul 1999 03:00:22 -0400, dannyb@panix.com (Danny Burstein) wrote: > a) you could call their "regular" number, which, being in St. > Louis, would usually be long distance (but not too outrageous if you Actually, the SkyTel non-800 numbers are in Jackson, MS, home of SkyTel -- and MCI WorldCom. (Their HQs are a few blocks apart in downtown Jackson.) SC ------------------------------ From: alphabetagamma@hotmail.com (Tenexus) Subject: Re: Canada's Namespace Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 01:13:48 GMT Organization: Sprint Canada Inc. On Fri, 16 Jul 1999 04:02:16 -0600, Joey Lindstrom wrote: > The few companies that do have .ca addresses aren't terribly smart > about it either. For example, you can visit Sprint Canada's website by > surfing to "www.sprintcanada.ca". Isn't that a little redundant > redundant? Well, actually they do this because they use www.sprint.ca (and the whole sprint.ca domain) for their MOST(TM) online Internet service. So, this was just a decision made by someone at Sprint. Neil ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #225 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Jul 17 15:17:24 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id PAA16399; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 15:17:24 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 15:17:24 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199907171917.PAA16399@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #226 TELECOM Digest Sat, 17 Jul 99 15:17:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 226 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson BBC News Sci-Tech Payphones go Online (Mike Pollock) How to Increase Public Acceptance of Overlays in California (Linc Madison) Canada Blitzed by Phone System Disruption (Joseph Singer) Re: Fire in Toronto Bell Infrastructure - Damage Very Severe (L. Raphael) Nokia (Cell Phone) vs. Car Stereo (Lauren Weinstein) Re: Nokia Incompatibility With Car Stereo (Juha Veijalainen) Re: DSL vs. Cable Modems (Koos van den Hout) Re: DSL vs. Cable Modems (Walter Dnes) Re: Split For 760 Area Code in California (Linc Madison) Re: Canada's Namespace (Joey Lindstrom) Last Laugh! Dead Cow DOA (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 about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! 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 Subject: BBC News Sci-Tech Payphones go Online Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 13:10:55 -0400 Organization: It's A Mike! http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_395000/395433.stm [Photos and Audio available at above link] Payphones go online Net access by credit card or BT phone card By Internet Correspondent Chris Nuttall A new generation of payphones incorporating high-speed Internet access has been launched in the UK. The telecoms giant BT said it was setting up the world's first truly national network of multimedia payphones, with 1,000 due to be in place by March of next year and the first officially opened by the model Caprice at London's Waterloo station on Thursday. Net payphones exist in other countries, with the Netherlands closest to achieving a country-wide network. Ken Livingstone: You could vote with this. Labour MP Ken Livingstone, bidding to be London's mayor, was on hand at a news conference to praise the Multiphone for enabling easier Net access to all and "breaking through a lot of the fears and worries that people have." Priced and placed for all? But BT's minimum charge of 1 for 10 minutes' surfing (compared to 10p for off-peak home phone calls and 1 an hour at the easyEverything Internet shop) was criticised at the news conference and the company was asked why it was not siting the terminals on council estates. Malcolm Newing: "World first" BT said the minimum charge was due to high development costs and the Multiphones would be sited at first where there was "highest footfall" - airports, railway stations, motorway service areas and shopping centres across the UK. "This is the first time that everyone in the UK will have the opportunity to use online services 24 hours a day," said Malcolm Newing, director of BT Payphones. Type by screen The Multiphone's features include: Twelve-inch touch-sensitive colour screen. Users can type in URLs and e-mails using the screen. BT will have a portal site as a home page and uses Websense technology to block access to objectionable material. The Multiphone ISDN2 connection, providing 64K bps Net access on one channel and phone calls carried on the other. Free information is provided on the screen without a Net connection such as the latest news, sport, travel and an entertainment service. Services to be added later this year include: Videophony - users would be able to see as well as hear the person they are calling, the first of these will be installed in the Milllennium Dome. Video e-mail - users can take a photo of themselves at the terminal and attach it to an e-mail. Local street guides will give users their exact location and help them plan a route to where they are going. A built-in printer - BT is still searching for one that can deliver acceptable reliability. Free directory enquiry information on screen. Malcolm Newing said the Multiphone would fit in with BT's recent announcement of multimedia kiosks with PhotoMe as there was going to be an explosion of public Internet access terminals. the kiosk would have a seat and could not be placed as easily as the Multiphone , he said. But perhaps the most impressive feature of the Multiphone is what happens when the screen freezes or Internet speeds slow to a crawl: no matter how hard you hit it with the phone receiver in frustration, the vandal-proof screen will not break! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 18:49:05 -0700 From: LincMad001@telecom-digest.zzn.com (Linc Madison) Subject: How to Increase Public Acceptance of Overlays in California Organization: LincMad Consulting The California legislature is currently proceeding with a bill that would not only reverse the 310/424 overlay (scheduled to go into effect tomorrow, but postponed by the CPUC pending reconsideration), but also prohibit all general-services overlays in California, making thousands-block pooling and service-specific overlays (the usual incompatible mish-mash of "cellular, pagers, faxes, and modems") the official state policy, FCC be damned. The current bill, AB 818 by Wally Knox, is pure foolishness, and dangerous foolishness at that. Thousands of lines were scheduled to be turned on tomorrow, but those customers will just have to wait (or switch telcos), since the CPUC and the legislature have thrown those contracts into limbo. The root problem is that people in L.A. are whining about having to dial 1 + area code + number on all calls, including local calls within the same area code. In my comments before the CPUC roundtable on area code relief two weeks ago, I proposed taking creative action to increase public acceptance of overlays. As I see it, it isn't so much the nuisance of pressing four more keys to dial a number, as the increased confusion of what constitutes a local call. It's bad enough that most people in metropolitan areas in California have several area codes that are a mix of local and toll; overlays would add to the soup. My proposal: 1. Expand local calling radius to at least 17 miles, abolishing the ZUM plan entirely. All calls would be in one of three categories: local, local toll (intra-LATA toll), or toll (inter-LATA toll). 2. Aggressively consolidate rate centers in metropolitan areas. For example, Los Angeles zones 1 to 14 could be consolidated into at most 5 zones, possibly 2 or even 1. (Consolidating to one zone would effectively erase the 213/323 split boundary, creating a retroactive overlay.) San Francisco zones 1 to 3 would become a single zone. East Bay 1 to 5 would become a single zone. 3. As overlays are implemented, allow permissive 10D/1+10D on local calls at the same time that 7D calls are discontinued. Continue to allow 1+10D on all calls, as today, because there is no purpose to ever prohibiting it. Consider requiring 1+10D on toll calls, even in areas that are not overlaid. (Unfortunately, 10D local and 7D local cannot coexist in California, due to some conflicts in numbering.) These proposals would make it much more clear whether a number was local or toll (as well as increasing the local calling area to a more reasonable radius), and give consumers a tangible benefit in exchange for the inconvenience of an overlay. ** 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 will be read sooner! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 21:32:38 -0700 From: Joseph Singer Subject: Canada Blitzed by Phone System Disruption TORONTO (Reuters) - Communications across Canada were thrown into disarray Friday following an early morning explosion and three-alarm fire at a Bell Canada phone service center in downtown Toronto. The outage affected a large number of services, including telephone lines, cell phones, bank machines and Internet lines. In Toronto, 911 emergency lines were disrupted. Eyewitnesses reported communications disruptions in Ottawa, Montreal and Toronto and as far afield as Halifax and Vancouver. Bell Canada said technicians were back on-site and the company, Canada's largest telephone carrier and a unit of BCE Inc., hoped to have service restored around 1 p.m. EDT. Authorities were asking Toronto-area residents not to use 911 emergency phone lines unless it was a matter of life or death. Some bank branches and automatic teller machines were out of action in downtown Toronto. ``There are phones in downtown Toronto and surrounding areas that have been affected,'' Bell Canada spokeswoman Ann Mahdy told Reuters at the scene. Bell Canada declined to give any further details about the disruptions. Firefighters were called at 7:26 a.m. EDT to respond to a ninth-story blaze at a Bell Canada facility after an explosion on the fourth floor, a fire official told Reuters at the site. Fourteen fire trucks and about 75 firefighters responded to the call. What caused the explosion and fierce blaze is still unknown. A 54-year-old electrician, earlier believed missing, was found and rushed to a Toronto hospital but his condition was not known, a fire official said. The blaze was under control by 10:16 a.m. EDT, he added. The fire official said the communications problems did not begin until around 11 a.m. EDT. The extent of the damage at the phone center was unknown, the firefighter added. The incident is being investigated as a workplace mishap, said Staff Sgt. John Sillaots of Toronto police. The Toronto Stock Exchange, Canada's largest, was affected as some securities firms had problems trying to place orders and trade through the systems. But the exchange decided to stay open after considering whether to shut down for the rest of the day. Joseph Singer Seattle, Washington USA [ICQ pgr] +1 206 405 2052 [msg] +1 707 516 0561 [FAX] Seattle, Washington USA ------------------------------ From: raphael@lisa.cs.mcgill.ca (Louis Raphael) Subject: Re: Fire in Toronto Bell Infrastructure - Damage Very Severe Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 02:54:15 GMT pete (pete@tao.ca) wrote: > There is no firm ETA when everything will be "normal". Emergency > rerouting of the PSTN phone traffic (likely through New York!) has > taken effect, however this stopgap solution cannot hope to connect > everyone in Toronto at the same time. At one moment your server could > be touching 60% of the net; the next you could be all alone. Here at York University, on the northern outskirts of North York/Toronto (I'm posting from McGill, but I'm really at York), we had a network (ONet) outage this morning, but service came back some time later or this afternoon, I didn't really notice. I was successful in making a long-distance phone call (using a pre-paid calling card, of all things) to Montreal, as well as a few local calls. I'm now telnet'ing in to my account at lisa.cs.mcgill.ca, and network speeds appear to be normal. Somehow, a part of the phone network seems to be back up. This is quite the day -- I understand that a freight train also derailed near Cornwall today ... Louis ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Jul 99 00:09 PDT From: lauren@vortex.com (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: Nokia (Cell Phone) vs. Car Stereo Greetings. Celeste Tyree expresses concern that her Nokia 6160 cell phone (which I'll note at this point is a TDMA IS-136 unit) interferes with her car stereo. I could get into all sorts of details about FCC Type Acceptance and Radio Frequency Interference Class Designations and such ... but the bottom line is that most likely nothing at all is actually "wrong." Devices that generate radio frequency energy create varying degrees of interference in radio receivers, which themselves have various degrees of interference rejection capability. There are all sorts of rules that specify what sorts of devices are allowed to accept or reject what sorts of interference -- you've probably noticed labels about this on all manner of consumer electronics. You can pretty well count on the Nokia phone meeting all the standards. It's also likely that the car stereo doesn't have particulary good out-of-band rejection capability, which isn't normally a big issue. Busy digital systems like cell phones generate all sorts of RF hash. The range of that interference is very limited, but if you're just a few feet away from a sensitive radio you're likely to overload it. In fact, run your typical digital cell phone within a couple of feet of a modern desk telephone and you'll probably get the same sort of interference (I do!) This doesn't mean that anything is wrong with the cell phones, the desk phones, or the car stereo. It does mean that modern electronics has complex interference issues, which is why the standards regarding this area are spelled out in considerable detail. --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: juhave@iobox.fi (Juha Veijalainen) Subject: Re: Nokia Incompatibility With Car Stereo Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 18:18:15 +0300 Organization: Jkarhuritarit In article , cmtyree@yahoo.com says ... > I need to know if any one else out there has had the same problems > that I have with a Nokia 6160 mobile phone. > When I use (or even have the phone in my vehicle) the phone in my > vehicle, I receive a loud hum from my car stereo. I have found that > it is worse when I'm playing a CD. I don't have to worry about the > volume of the ringer on my phone because I receive an alter from my > car stereo. It is so bad that I have to turn off the stereo before I > answer the phone. When I am not on the phone I find that the rear > speaker will "crackle" intermittently. 6160 is probably a TDMA phone? Pulsed transmission sometimes interferes with poorly shielded or improperly installed equipment, like your car radio. And as you you wrote, in another car you did not have the problem. Basically any equipment with amplifier circuits may be susceptible to this problem. Also, my own experience shows that cheap equipment is also usually the worst (my cheap desk phone at home picks up GSM transmission from about 1 metres, more expensive phones at the office don't pick up the interference at all). Also, the older the equipment, the less shielding against this type interference. In my current one year old car, the factory installed radio does not pick up GSM transmissions. My two previous cars did not have factory installed radios -- those radios (Blaupunkt and Sony) picked up interference whenever someone used a phone in my car. Maybe the reason was faulty installation or just the fact that the radios were older. Best way to avoid interference is to use external antenna with hands free set. If the antenna/hands free is installed properly, there should not be any interference to other equipment. Also, I remember reading an article how to install/fix car radios properly. Unfortunately I do not remember the technical details -- was it proper grounding or some kind of capacitor installation? Juha Veijalainen, Helsinki, Finland, http://www.iki.fi/juhave/ Some random words: bomb,steganography,cryptography,reindeer ** Mielipiteet omiani ** Opinions personal, facts suspect ** ------------------------------ From: Koos van den Hout Subject: Re: DSL vs. Cable Modems Date: 17 Jul 1999 08:49:31 GMT Organization: Koos van den Hout Derek Balling wrote: > "Best possible performance" is NOT always the case, by any stretch of the > imagination. MANY Cable customers immediately reconfigure their browser > after the tech leaves to ignore the proxy server. That is where the "transparant proxy" enters the picture. Using a high-speed switch in the network core it is possible to reroute all calls to port 80 through the proxy. > Also keep in mind that dynamic content SHOULDN'T be cached so in the modern > world, the proxy server SHOULDN'T help you on the majority of web sites. > Unfortunately, dynamic content IS cached, by and large, which means that > instead of helping you it hinders you. That means the originator of the dynamic content did not mark it as dynamic content in the http headers. Using the correct "Expires:" and "Pragma: no-cache" headers helps. > Companies (both Cable and xDSL) can feel free to invest their money in a > proxy server, but they would be far better off investing those funds in > better hardware for other areas... I wrote a plan for a proxy server for a large educational institute where the right proxy will save us approximately 25% bandwidth and associated bandwidth costs (this figure was based on measurements of how much port 80 traffic is part of total traffic and on the effect- iveness of a proxy already serving part of the institute). With the (European) bandwidth costs that means that a large hardware cache (NetCache) would pay itself back in one year. Koos van den Hout, PGP key via keyservers koos@kzdoos.xs4all.nl (Home) koos@pizza.hvu.nl (Work) http://web.cetis.hvu.nl/~koos/ ------------------------------ From: waltdnes@interlog.com (Walter Dnes) Subject: Re: DSL vs. Cable Modems Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 05:41:31 GMT Organization: Interlog Internet Services On Fri, 16 Jul 1999 13:48:43 GMT, craigp@world.std.com (Craig Partridge) wrote: > That's one reason that some of the cable model suppliers put > proxy servers at the head end. For popular web pages, their > subscribers see the best possible performance, without any > issues of sharing the link out. It also has the advantage of > reducing the bandwidth they need to support from each head end. >I expect the DSL guys to learn the lesson and do it to. This isn't a cable or xDSL or dial-up or ISDN issue. It's an *ISP* issue. *ANY ISP*, regardless of the "engine under the hood", will see improved performance with a caching proxy. Walter Dnes 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 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 18:55:06 -0700 From: LincMad001@telecom-digest.zzn.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Split For 760 Area Code in California Organization: LincMad Consulting In article , black@csulb.edu (Matthew Black) wrote: >> I'm rather surprised at the decision to give the new code to the more >> urban part of 760. In particular, if the region continues its >> opposition to overlays, in six years you'll have people who changed >> from 213 to 714 to 619 to 760 to (new), and who will be facing yet >> another change. > Seems only fair to me. Should those communities creating excessive > demand for new numbers bear the brunt of area code splits? I feel > those communities with cell phones and pagers should get the new area > codes first. IMHO, I feel the 760 plan is most justified. That would be reasonable *IF* the plan moved, say, the 35 or 40% of area code 760 with the highest growth rates into a new code. The problem is that the majority of the current 760 numbers will change. That is unusual, and not justified. The goal of area code relief planning is to minimize disruptions to customers. Making a significant chunk of people change twice so that a smaller number of people don't have to change, doesn't make sense. ** 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 will be read sooner! ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 06:52:56 -0600 Reply-To: Joey Lindstrom Subject: Re: Canada's Namespace On Sat, 17 Jul 1999 01:19:26 -0400 (EDT), Neil wrote: >> The few companies that do have .ca addresses aren't terribly smart >> about it either. For example, you can visit Sprint Canada's website by >> surfing to "www.sprintcanada.ca". Isn't that a little redundant >> redundant? > Well, actually they do this because they use www.sprint.ca (and the > whole sprint.ca domain) for their MOST(TM) online Internet service. > So, this was just a decision made by someone at Sprint. When www.sprint.ca was first activated, they didn't have an internet service to sell -- surfing to it got you redirected to www.sprintcanada.ca. Which leads to another question: how can one company have two .ca domains, when that's clearly against the rules? Answer: they (the .ca registrars) allow for exceptions where it may not be clear to a customer which name to use. For example, Coca-Cola would be permitted to register coke.ca and cocacola.ca. So, they allow sprint.ca and sprintcanada.ca, but they would NOT allow themost.ca because that's just a service provided by that company, and we can't allow that now can we? Similarly, Coca-Cola could not register sprite.ca. Oh, and they'll also let you have two domains if your company name is spelled differently in French and English. :-) 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 At the all-you-can-eat barbecue, you have to pay the regular dinner price if you eat less than you can. --Steven Wright ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 13:25:31 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Last Laugh! Dead Cow DOA http://thestandard.com/articles/mediagrok_display/0,1185,5542,00.html Dead Cow DOA When you can't trust a clandestine cult of hackers who distribute cracking software on CDs, whom can you trust? Windows NT administrators were probably really looking forward to the release of Back Orifice 2000. As noted in Grok last Friday, the Cult of the Dead Cow produced the software and distributed it from DefCon, the hacker conference held last weekend in Las Vegas. Dead Cow said it was just a network-administration tool designed to expose security holes in NT, which Microsoft could then fix. Who wouldn't want that? But the tech press broke the bad news that the CD on which Back Orifice 2000 was distributed also carried the harmful Chernobyl virus, CIH. ZDNet blew the story all the way out with two reporters on the byline and an image of an infected CD. News.com was a bit more restrained, but still featured it on its top center graphic. News.com's Tim Clark quoted an e-mail from Dead Cow member Omega that said, "It was not our plan to do this; and frankly, it makes us look like idiots." Hackers Admit Virus in "Trojan Horse" Disk http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,39272,00.html?st.ne.fd.gif.e Back Orifice CDs Infected with CIH Virus http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2294628,00.html [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If it was not 'their plan' to distribute the virus in this sneaky way, then *who's plan* was it? I am not entirely convinced it was not 'their plan' originally, and then when some people in the media found out about it, all of a sudden Dead Cow started making disclaimers and acting like the injured party in the whole thing. All of a sudden they discover that their Back Orifice has been tampered with when it fact it was their real plan to give everyone else a pain up their back orifices until they got caught trying to sneak up on a few people. If it indeed was not 'their plan' to do this, then I think everyone would be interested to find out what sort of warped mind; what sort of sick person would have thought up the scheme to not only infect as many computers as possible with the virus but besmirch the reputation of Dead Cow as well at the same time. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #226 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Jul 18 20:03:04 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id UAA08340; Sun, 18 Jul 1999 20:03:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 20:03:04 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199907190003.UAA08340@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #227 TELECOM Digest Sun, 18 Jul 99 20:03:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 227 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson 30th Anniversaries - Both Happy and Sad (TELECOM Digest Editor) Re: www. Prefixes (James Bellaire) Re: www. Prefixes (Walter Dnes) www.PAT == PAT (Michael Spencer) Re: Toronto(416)'s New Area Code? (Linc Madison) Isotec Terminals (Alain Chagnon) Telecom Term Paper (Brad Davey) Just a Question About New Area Codes (EclectiJim) Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce (Tony Toews) Re: DSL vs. Cable Modems (Derek Balling) Re: Split For 760 Area Code in California (Joel B. Levin) Re: 1800SKYTEL2 Blocked in Las Vegas (Travis Dixon) Century 21 (Derrick Balling) Hackers Turn Against Their Own Kind (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 about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! 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, 18 Jul 1999 14:34:04 EDT From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: 30th Anniversaries - Both Happy and Sad As I write this on Sunday early afternoon, the United States Coast Guard and others continue their search for John Kennedy and others in the plane crash which occurred late Friday night. Through an odd and very cruel twist of fate, as the Kennedy family grieves in seclusion at their home on Martha's Vineyard, today marks the thirtieth anniversary of another Kennedy family tragedy: On this date in 1969, Senator Ted Kennedy was involved in the automobile accident which caused the death of Mary Jo Kopeckne when his car plunged off the bridge and into the water. This incident and the allegations surrounding it virtually assured that Ted Kennedy would never become president of the USA. But it was also this third week of July, in 1969 that American astronauts first went to the moon. Their trip began on July 16, and reached its high point four days later on July 20, 1969 when they left their ship and first stepped out onto the surface of the moon. Later today I intend to release a special issue of the Digest commemorating that occassion with a reprint from this Digest in 1994 on the 25th anniver- sary of the occassion. Also included will be Don Kimberlin's fascinating account of the role he played in the telecommunications needed to make the moonwalk possible. An exhibit now open in the Telecom Archives which is the HTML-ized version of Don's report, along with hundreds of photos from the Apollo-Saturn 11 voyage can be seen at: http://telecom-digest.org/camelot-on-the-moon.html I hope you like it. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: bellaire@tk.com (James Bellaire) Subject: Re: www. Prefixes Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 10:00:19 GMT It was Fri, 16 Jul 1999 12:44:54 -0700, and Derek J. Balling wrote in comp.dcom.telecom: >> That is obvious. But it is also obvious that the primary means of >> connecting over the Internet has moved to HTTP. I believe that the >> main machine in a domain (any one using the "root" domain as a name) >> should support http -- if only by forwarding it to the proper server. > So even though a particular machine may be something as completely > specialized as a Cisco router, you would burden it with the overhead of > maintaining a miniature web server, just because you're too lazy to think > about the FQDN of the machine you want to connect to? You would name a router with the root name? That really seems silly. Who outside of your tech staff even needs to know the name of your router? A name like sl-gw9-chi-5-2-1544k.sprintlink.net is fine for a router, and the ROOT machine is the only one I suggest MUST have HTTP. Putting a Cisco under the root name would allow people to easily find it by using "telnet example.com". Not good. >> Load sharing between machines in the domain can easily be handled. >> Only the user needs to know the name pop.example.com or >> smtp.example.com or mail.example.com -- others just write to >> user@example.com and MX records do the rest. > Right. Instead of pushing for abolition of www. which will never happen, > why not write up an RFC to add a new DNS record "WWW", which would say "if > someone wants the web server for , they really want: > www.domain.com, or sales.domain.com or whatever. You could even do some > slick stuff like: > @ IN WWW 5 www.ourdomain.com > IN WWW 10 wwwbackup.ourdomain.com Ok -- now we would (theoretically) have an MX style record for every domain. Which wouldn't be too bad -- but it would require the redesign of every browser in existance. That has little chance of happening. >> It has been many moons since I used gopher, and ftp is acceptable >> at the beginning of that kind of connection. > Just as is "www" ... Unlike Pat, I accept both. But I prefer no WWW. >> I made sure that both >> domains I set up work without the www, and would not accept service >> from an ISP that refused to do otherwise. > If a customer specifically requests that their domain work without the > www, then any ISP who refused is an idiot, because it is the > customer's domain, if they want to burn their root domain to be their > web site that is their privilege. Personally, I would want to be a > little more forward-thinking than that ... you never know what the > future might hold that you would want to keep the root-domain > "untarnished" for... Just get your router / firewall to route based on port. 80 goes to the old web machine, 443 to your secure server, 70 to that gopher that hasn't come out of its hole in several years, 21 to the ftp box, 23 to the telnet, etc. By the time http goes away the rest of technology will catch up with the needs of the users. (We may even have IPv6 if we are lucky - lotsa numbers!) I still remember when my ISP was small enough that all the services ran easily off of the same machine and all those FQDN prefixes were not needed at all. Now they have pop. mail. smtp. news. www. members. ftp. telnet. - a bit confusing and a lot more to remember and type. > You and I have no idea what the most popular method of internet use > will be 10 years from now. Just as it is "www" today, it might be > "cas" tomorrow or something else, who knows. Using your plan, sites > would have to be "one or the other" since they can only commit their @ > domain to a single service... using the accepted norm allows > flexibility of growth and adaptability to change going forward. The root machine can support more than one service. So what will the 'next' protocol be? We had a couple of years warning on HTTP. >> Yes the Internet is more than http/www. But the trend now is making >> http the primary form. Put your mail on mail. and your news on news., >> and let http reside on the 'root' CNAMEd machine. > Why do you insist that the web is the primary form? Actually, I think > the figures still dictate that e-mail is the most popular use of the > net, and I strongly suspect that if accurate figures were dictated > that "on-line gaming" as a whole probably generates lots more > bandwidth than web surfing (but I can't back that up, just a hunch). Mail has intelligent software with MX records. You can email me @TK.COM with little thought to my mail server's real name. (And the way it is set up, you could email to bellaire@whatever.tk.com and still get connected. The magic of domain mail. You can also visit http://BELLAIRE@TK.COM/ and get to my site, because I had the foresight to demand that the root of the domain went to the server. (http://editor@telecom-digest.org/ also works.) p>> It makes it a ton easier to say and write. > I have to quote my High School Journalism teacher: > "The easiest way is very seldom the best way. Learn this and you will > do great in life." > - M.Habernig But "the easy way" reflects the new breed of (how can I say this nicely?) technically incompetent users. A client ran an ad a while back that said "visit our website at example.com or email contest@example.com" (using the proper names). Guess what percentage of people typed contest@example.com into the GO TO field on their browser? [1] Should I have ruled them out because they didn't understand the net? The users got the information they wanted, the client got hits and not errors, and I got a laugh out of it. The end goal of communication is getting the message across. If that means pulling a few technical tricks like root naming the web server I don't mind. Final note: Please note that mail to @whatever.tk.com may fail on systems that try to find the MX for each machine instead of routing the domain mail to the domain's MS server. James Bellaire http://tk.com/telecom/ [1] Answer: 5-10% ------------------------------ From: waltdnes@interlog.com (Walter Dnes) Subject: Re: www. Prefixes Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 05:54:09 GMT Organization: Interlog Internet Services On Fri, 16 Jul 1999 14:22:33 GMT, bellaire@tk.com (James Bellaire) wrote: > It was Thu, 15 Jul 1999 14:19:37 -0700, and Derek J. Balling > wrote in comp.dcom.telecom: >>> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Good for you. Better still, fix it so >>> the 'www' causes it to bounce if someone does try to use it. I do not >>> know what you would get by entering http://www.telecom-digest.org >>> since I have never tried it. Personally, if you do try it, I hope it >>> makes your browser crash. :) Did I ever mention I hate 'www' ?? >> Repeat after me: >> The Internet is not just the web. > That is obvious. But it is also obvious that the primary means of > connecting over the Internet has moved to HTTP. In the past few years, yes. Before that it was gopher. Before that it was ftp, which is still quite popular. So what do you want people to do when the next "latest and greatest" internet protocol comes along? Network admins really have better things to do than change DNS every few years just for the heck of it. Walter Dnes 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 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You almost quoted word for word in your statement 'change DNS every few years for the heck of it' some grafitti I saw several years ago. I was working with a small group of people who were interested in maintaining the clock and bell tower of Holy Family Church on the near west side of Chicago. Although the church itself is one of Chicago's oldest structures and pre-dates the fire by a few years, the existing tower clock and bells were installed in 1921. Among the quaint mechanicals of the whole thing there in the tower was the bell, one ton in weight, a huge thing which sounded when a large metal arm about six feet in height would strike it from the side. This was done by a chain-drive mechanism and some gears in the machine room of the clock itself which was located on the sixth floor of the ten story high tower. The chains wound their way up the shaft to where they connected with a so-called 'universal gear' which in turn moved the arms on the four faces of the clock. When the clock reached the hour mark, the gears would engage in such a way that relays would contact on a board nearby with a 'bang!' and a motor would turn on that proceeded to move the 'hammer' back and forth to strike the bell for the appropriate count. Then the gears would disengage, the relays would drop, the motor would shut off, and the hammer would stop hitting against the bell. All quite 1920-ish in the mechanicals and the electric relay panel, etc. Upstairs on the tenth floor, where the bell itself sat directly below the four sides of the clock a neatly typewritten notice in a glass frame was attached to the wall with a 'notice from the manufacturer'. The manufacturer had been a company called 'Southworth Bell and Clock Company' in some town in England. It noted, 'to properly care for this installation, it is recommended that the Sexton or other persons responsible for its care rotate the bell one-quarter turn every forty years so that the bell wears evenly on all sides.' That often? Once every forty years? And some witty person had written in pencil on the wall next to it, 'I have better things to do than have to run up here every forty years moving that thing around. I have a life of my own, you know.' A telephone which had probably been there forty years ago was mounted on the wall next to it. One of the original six-button, five-line type key sets from Western ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 02:24:34 EDT From: Michael Spencer Subject: www.PAT == PAT Hi -- www.telecom-digest.org and telecom-digest.org both resolve to the same numerical IP address on MIT DNS servers. Since you've never heard from me before, perhaps I should say I read the Digest on Usenet. I have a dial phone and a simpleminded little MS-DOS hack so I can wade through "Press 1 now to talk to a weenie..." stuff using my modem. The Digest is enlightening. Also a substitute for Stephen King: I'm absolutely horrified at the complications involved in calling Granny or using a pay phone in the USA. Ah, Canada. Regards, Michael Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada mspencer@mit.edu URL: http://www.mit.edu:8001/people/mspencer/home.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 18:36:28 -0700 From: LincMad001@telecom-digest.zzn.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Toronto(416)'s New Area Code? Organization: LincMad Consulting In article , kevina_toronto1@my-deja.com wrote: > Does anyone have any information on Toronto's new area code? I noticed > that http://www.647.com/ has been reserved, could it be Bell Canada??? > for advertising the new area code??? No, actually, 647.com belongs to a company near Montreal. However, it may be intended for something related to the new 647 area code for Toronto. > I have also noticed I can dial all > local numbers as 10-digit numbers does that mean 10-digit dialing is > going to be forced on us Yes. > before year end??? No. > I which the code could have been 649 ( 6/49 is a popular lottery > here!!!) With such a code people would be less likely to resist the > area code. 6/49 is a popular lottery in a lot of places, although California's is 6/51 (having originally been 6/49 and then 6/53) and Ireland's was 6/39 last I checked. In any case, 647 has the advantage that it is not a prefix in use in 416 or 905; on the other hand, there is a 905-649 prefix, which would cause a conflict between 649-xxxx and 649-xxx-xxxx when calling from the 905 area. > I have read somewhere on the net that 942 is also reserved for Toronto > as a future area code in a few years? If so why not just have a three > way split now instead of a overlay??? ie. Toronto, East York, and York > to keep "416" and wireless, Etobicoke to move to 942, and North York to > 647, and Scarborough to 437(which I read is also reserved for Toronto)?? > Why wait a few years for the pain of a split, why not just split now > enough to last a dozen years based on projections??? why not just split > the reserved area codes right now!! Hey I wouldn't mind a new area > code? Your split would not be very even. You're leaving far more than half the numbers in 416. Also, a split wouldn't be along borough lines, it would be along arbitrary telephone exchange boundaries, which have no particular significance to most people. > Also as per info from Bell. 1+ numbers except for 1-800, 1-888, 1-877, > 1-866, etc are toll numbers. As such any overlay would be 10-digit not > 11 digit. In Toronto(416) if we want to dial Markham we dial > 905-xxx-xxxx, however if we want to dial Hamilton we dial > 1-905-xxx-xxxx. if we dial a local 905 number as 1+ we get a message do > not dial 1+ before the number you are dialing!! Requiring 1+ on toll numbers is fine. It serves a legitimate purpose in protecting consumers from unintended toll calls. Prohibiting 1+ on local numbers is just idiotic. It serves no purpose at all, other than protecting consumers from accidentally getting a call for free that they thought might cost money. There is no excuse for prohibiting 1+ on local calls. ** 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 will be read sooner! ------------------------------ From: a_chagnon@videotron.ca (Alain Chagnon) Subject: Isotec Terminals Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 14:16:33 GMT Anybody knows a good terminal emulator that can replace an Isotec terminal? Thanks, Alain Chagnon ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 15:20:16 EDT From: Brad Davey Subject: Telecom Term Paper Patrick, My name is Brad, and I am a grad student at SMU in telecomm- unications. I am working on a term paper now, and I need some help. My topic is the leasing of Local Exchange Carriers lines -- how it works, will competition work, etc. Are there any books or articles you can think of to help me? Thanks, Brad ------------------------------ From: eclectijim@aol.comnsp (EclectiJim) Date: 17 Jul 1999 15:55:16 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Just a Question About New A If it is due to the proliferation of cellular phones and other portables that new area codes are constantly being thrust upon us, couldn't these hand-helds be given area codes of their own? I've been caught twice now with personal and business letterhead, envelopes and fax cover sheets with a no-longer-valid area code. Big Brothers (Guv, Biz & Labor) are watching you. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Your suggestion is a good one which has been raised time and again over the past several years of area code proliferation. It has been repeatedly opposed by the wireless phone industry and others who feel it it would an unfair burden on themselves and their customers to require that calls in/out of their system require ten digit numbers with an area code while the traditional telephone companies and their customers were able to call each other locally with only seven digits. It was better they felt that instead of inconveniencing a few people for the good of all it was better to inconvenience everyone so that all customers could be treated -- or mistreated! -- equally. PAT] ------------------------------ From: ttoews@telusplanet.net (Tony Toews) Subject: Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce Organization: Me, organized? Not a chance. Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 01:10:03 GMT dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au (David Clayton) wrote: >> Note that some countries such as Australia have further subdivided >> their name space. >> for instance: WWW.QANTAS.COM.AU (or is it www.qantas.co.au ?) > That's just the "standard" TLD's with a country code on the end, which > seems the standard around the rest of the world. Not really. Here in Canada its abc.ab.ca for Alberta, Canada or abc.ca for Canada. In the UK it's abc.co.uk. 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. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 17:45:15 -0700 From: Derek Balling Subject: Re: DSL vs. Cable Modems > That is where the "transparant proxy" enters the picture. Using a > high-speed switch in the network core it is possible to reroute all > calls to port 80 through the proxy. There is NO such thing as a transparent proxy. (Well, there is a single box, I think by Paul Vixie that is truly transparent). In 99% of the cases, the web server can tell a proxy is in use (or rather can tell that it is NOT a particular user's machine). Any ISP who actually subjected my packets to a transparent proxy like that would pretty quickly find themselves minus one customer, IF I didn't decide to sue them under the ECPA (Electronic Communications Privacy Act). The use of a transparent proxy is not "required for the providing of service", so therefore, the ISP who examines your packets (to say, www.yahoo.com's port 80) without your explicit written permission or a court order is asking for a VERY large lawsuit. I wonder if they even MAKE transparent proxies these days, now that I come to think of it ... certainly can't be too safe of a market if a customer decided to remind the ISP who was boss. ;-) > That means the originator of the dynamic content did not mark it as > dynamic content in the http headers. Using the correct "Expires:" and > "Pragma: no-cache" headers helps. You keep thinking that. ;-) I can cite many cases, first-hand, where very dynamic content that obeys all the rules gets completely hosed by proxies. I have quite a lot of practical experience in this matter, both from the web-content side (where I currently work at a web site that is ranked consistently from #1-3 depending on your method of determining rank) and from the proxy-server side (when I was forced against my will and written objections to deploy one at a Cable ISP former employer). Proxy servers are nothing but trouble for all parties concerned. > I wrote a plan for a proxy server for a large educational institute > where the right proxy will save us approximately 25% bandwidth and > associated bandwidth costs (this figure was based on measurements of > how much port 80 traffic is part of total traffic and on the effect- > iveness of a proxy already serving part of the institute). With the > (European) bandwidth costs that means that a large hardware cache > (NetCache) would pay itself back in one year. If your plan included a transparent proxy server, please don't forget to in2clude legal costs of fighting the ECPA in court as well as the lost revenue of customers who just get annoyed and leave. Although admittedly you do reference European costs so you may not have to contend with that legislation in your particular case, but I think that most of Europe have similar laws on the books these days, don't they? If your plan only included a "regular" (opt-in) proxy, did your plan take into consideration that generally proxy servers get ignored by about 50% of the user populace due to the servers lessening their performance? There is more to things than the bottom line. I'd gladly pay a company a few bucks more a month to have someone who understands that them should just throw bandwidth at the problem instead of trying to make my packets conform to what THEY think Internet traffic is like. D ------------------------------ From: levinjb@gte.net (Joel B Levin) Subject: Re: Split For 760 Area Code in California Organization: On the desert Reply-To: levinjb@gte.net Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 19:46:21 GMT In , LincMad001@telecom-digest. zzn.com (Linc Madison) wrote: > The goal of area code relief planning is to minimize disruptions to > customers. Making a significant chunk of people change twice so that > a smaller number of people don't have to change, doesn't make sense. In my (minority) view, the real answer to this is to go to overlays and make people bite the bullet of dialing 10 or 11 digits. They will only have to take that hit ONCE; then nothing changes if new area codes are added, except that new area codes have to be learned, but that happens anyhow. Meanwhile, no one has to learn different habits, no one has to have their number changed, and any future updates (that still use the existing numbering plan) can be made with impunity. JBL ------------------------------ From: Travis Dixon Subject: Re: 1800SKYTEL2 Blocked in Las Vegas Organization: None of Your Business Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 21:48:01 GMT Flor Riklef wrote: > I just got back from the Black Hat Briefings/DefCon in Las Vegas and > noticed an interesting problem. > I stayed at the Venetian, which has Sprint payphones. The phones > apparently block 1-800-SKYTEL2, which is used with my SkyTel two-way > pager. This is Skytel blocking -- not them. Skytel decided that when payphone vendors started billing them usage charges for 800# calls that they would block these calls to their shared line. If you upgrade to a personal 800# on your pager then you can receive those calls. Payphone surcharges will be added to *your* bill. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 00:22:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Derek Balling Subject: Century 21 > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I was thinking along those lines, but > not sure where to start it or quite how to implement it. As of yet, > I've not received any responses from anyone willing to do it. I do > believe TELECOM Digest has a challenge however, as we enter Century 21 > in just a little over five months. ARRRRRGGGGHHHH!! We enter the 21st Century in a little over SEVENTEEN months. There WAS no year zero, so century 1 was 1..100, 2 was 101..200, etc, up to 20 which is 1901..2000. 21st will begin on 1/1/2001. You're not alone in this, Pat, by any stretch of the imagination, and I'm sure you recognize this fact full-well, but let's try NOT to be intellectual lemmings and follow the unwashed masses in their collective delusion about when the 21st century starts. ;-) D [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am not unwashed. I took a bath just last week. I have heard all the arguments which say 'there was no year zero so we need to pick up the zeroeth year on the back end in order to complete the century' many times. That would be all well and good except you puritans are forgetting a few things about the history of calendars and time-keeping itself. Just as there was no year numbered 'zero' neither were there years numbered 1 through 525 except as an intellectual exercise which was later found defective. In the sixth century, the pope at that time asked one of his scholars and advisors named Dennis The Short (well, that's roughly how we would translate his name today) to detirmine the basis for what would be termed the Christian Era. Dennis decided it had begun 525 years previously. At that time, the consensus was that it occurred in the second century of the Roman Era. As this was now the eighth century of the Roman Era, the figures seemed right and the pope decreed that henceforth the years would be counted from 525 upward. So whatever year it was R.E. was followed by the year 526 C.E. starting the next March 21, which was the day considered to be the start of the new year in those times. It went along that way for a millenium until the sixteenth century when Pope Gregory decided to look things over. His scholars and advisors found some problems. For one, the Romans had gotten things all screwed up and now they were about ten days on the calendar out of synch with what planet Earth was actually doing. For another, it appears that Dennis from a millenium earlier had miscalculated things and lost four years somehow in his chronology of events. Later over in England, Archbishop James Ussher was trying to prove to everyone's satisfaction that the earth had been created on October 23, 4004 BC at nine o'clock in the morning. He also found the errors in the work Dennis had done earlier. After a few years of squabbling back and forth between King James and the pope on the subject of 'what to do about the calendar' among other matters, they finally decided to accelerate the calendar eleven days to catch up with reality and to make subsequent adjustments, should they be required on a more timely basis. Regards the problem of the four years that somehow got overlooked, they just made a few 'paper adjustments' so that things added up correctly. So as ludicrous as it may sound to say that Christ was born in the year 4 (B)efore (C)hrist, i.e. 4 BC, that's the way it is written up today in almanacs, the Christian scriptures, and other references to the history of that era. They had to do something with those four years, so they just put them in a theoretical place somewhere between plus one and minus four. Now today, we refer to the present year by the number '1999' **by common agreement only** with no historical or mathematical proof that it is correct. History would in fact lead us to believe we should refer to the present year as '2003'. My belief is that since we are not considered one year old on the day that we are born and that twelve months has to pass before we are entitled to claim '1', that the Christian Era -- since that is how we choose to number things now -- began at the time of the birth of the historic Jesus, twelve months prior to '1'; a year prior to the year known as '1'. It was a year we would now perhaps call zero although it was known by some other name at that time. None the less, that period of time existed, and rightfully is part of our current frame of reference. Therefore, two thousand years have passed as of this coming December 31. Therefore, two milleniums have passed *at a minimum*; one could say we are three years into the new millenium already. There was no 'zero' only because they had no real under- standing of what 'zero' meant. And if you think it was a problem back in the 16th century trying to reconcile those four missing years, think how much more of a problem it would be to attempt it today. By the way, FYI, new milleniums ALWAYS begin on a Wednesday or a Saturday. I liked it better when they started on Mondays or Thursdays (1-1-1000 was Monday, 1-1-'zero' was Thursday) but then with that calendar adjustment the pope decreed, these special days changed to Wednesdays and Saturdays starting this time around until forever. Go ahead, run 'cal' on your unix box if you don't believe me and the pope, perhaps you will believe the computer. You're welcome. You are also welcome to take a bath and go to bed early on Friday night, December 31 if you wish and consider yourself washed and the occassion just another New Year's Eve like any other. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 15:41:52 EDT From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Hackers Turn Against Their Own Kind The convention this past week featured a web site which was put up as a way of letting people know what was going on. The first day it was up, someone hacked it! The thinking is that the hacking was done by some European hackers who were angry that they could not raise the money to come to the USA for the convention. Maybe so. Then as Monty Solomon pointed out in the prior issue of this Digest, the whole thing ended on a very sour note when 'someone' messed up their 'Back Orifice' product by slipping a virus on the CD given out to the media and others. I wonder if they have figured out who did that? Maybe they decided to blame that on 'those European hackers' also. I know what happened! That dangerous, very evil, menace to the comm- unity Kevin Mitnick did it, using a prisoner phone where they have him in custody. He whistled in the phone at the proper pitch and frequency causing the computer on the other end to install that virus on the CD. He is also responsible for hacking DefCon's web site earlier in the week. Now the authorities will have to postpone his sentencing hearing for another three years while they evaluate how many millions of dollars in damages were inflicted on the Dead Cow organization. If I were those Dead Cow people, I'd be the one to go on the lam, or as I sometimes say, into seclusion. They certainly did not win any new friends after that debacle with Back Orifice. PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #227 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Jul 18 22:37:39 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id WAA14045; Sun, 18 Jul 1999 22:37:39 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 22:37:39 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199907190237.WAA14045@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #228 TELECOM Digest Sun, 18 Jul 99 22:37:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 228 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Phone Service Restored Following Fire (Joseph Kee) Canada Phone Lines Nearly Fixed After Fire (Monty Solomon) Re: Nokia Incompatibility With Car Stereo (Alan Boritz) Re: Snooping OK on Pager Numbers? (Alan Boritz) Re: Snooping OK on Pager Numbers? (Adam H. Kerman) Re: How to Increase Public Acceptance of Overlays in California (Horsley) Re: How to Increase Public Acceptance of Overlays in California (Lichter) Loud Cordless Phones (richard1942@my-deja.com) Interface Standard Set(s) to Wireless Telephone (D. Snow) Re: BellSouth MemoryCall Fails (David A. Burton) Re: Bell Atlantic Brings DSL Services to the Big Apple (Thor L.Simon) Re: Does Anyone on the West Coast Use Caller ID? (Adam H. Kerman) Re: The Crisis at Pacifica Radio (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 about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! 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: Joseph Kee Subject: Phone Service Restored Following Fire Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 01:58:35 EDT Pat, I found this at www.bell.ca. It doesn't look as bad as your first post on Friday said. Phone service restored following fire Toronto, Ontario (July 16, 1999) - Bell Canada announced that phone service has been restored for the vast majority of customers affected by a service disruption at a Bell facility in downtown Toronto. "We are making every effort possible to restore service to affected customers as quickly as possible," said David Southwell, Chief Technology Officer at Bell Canada. "For the vast majority of customers, service has been restored." The disruption, which began at approximately 10:00 a.m., affected local telephone service in an area bounded approximately by Bathurst, Queen, Bay and College streets, and some wireless service. In addition, there was disruption at a national level to certain data services, such as debit card and credit card transactions, and Internet services. The situation developed following an explosion and fire at a downtown Toronto central office early Friday morning. While the investigation into the incident is continuing, Bell officials believe the explosion originated when a short circuit occurred in an electrical panel that was being serviced. A person was hospitalized as a result of the incident. The smoke and heat from the fire also caused the sprinkler system to activate, temporarily impeding the ability to operate emergency backup power. Most service was restored by 3:15 p.m. "Municipal emergency crews were on the scene shortly after the incident," Southwell said. "Bell personnel worked in conjunction with emergency crews to bring the systems back online as quickly and safely as possible to minimize the impact on our customers." Bell Canada, the largest Canadian telecommunications operating company, markets a full range of state-of-the-art products and services to more than seven million business and residence customers in Ontario and Quebec. Our e-mail address is forum@bell.ca. For more information: Don Hogarth Media Relations Bell Canada 416-581-3311 Ann Mahdy Media Relations Bell Canada 416-581-3311 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 01:08:07 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Canada Phone Lines Nearly Fixed After Fire By Luke McCann TORONTO (Reuters) - Communications across Canada were almost back to normal late Friday afternoon after an early morning explosion and three-alarm fire at a Bell Canada phone service center in Toronto caused widespread disruption. The outage affected a large number of services, including telephone lines, cell phones, bank machines and Internet lines for most of the day. http://news.lycos.com/stories/Technology/19990718RTTECH-CANADA-OUTAGE.asp ------------------------------ From: aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) Subject: Re: Nokia Incompatibility With Car Stereo Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 21:51:09 -0400 In article , Celeste Tyree wrote: > I need to know if any one else out there has had the same problems > that I have with a Nokia 6160 mobile phone. > When I use (or even have the phone in my vehicle) the phone in my > vehicle, I receive a loud hum from my car stereo. I have found that > it is worse when I'm playing a CD. I don't have to worry about the > volume of the ringer on my phone because I receive an alter from my > car stereo. It is so bad that I have to turn off the stereo before I > answer the phone. When I am not on the phone I find that the rear > speaker will "crackle" intermittently. The problem is not with your phone, but with your stereo. It probably wasn't designed to operate in a high RF environment. The "crackle" sound you're hearing is probably the normal polling and responses the system does, resulting in your phone transmitting control signals (or responses) to the cellular radio system. It's a normal function but few people get to "hear" it. > I then noticed that when I was in another vehicle I did not have the > problem. I continued to call AT&T Wireless seeking a solution to my > noise problem because it can get so bad that it frightened my infant > grandson when he was in the car ... There's a simple solution to this problem. Turn off the ignition any time you need to use the phone. You have no business holding a phone in your hand while driving, especially with a child passenger. That will get you a moving violation in some places. A car adapter will also eliminate that problem, since it uses an external antenna far enough from your stereo that it shouldn't interfere. The full car kit for the 6162 will only work with an external antenna (I use one, too), so that should take care of it. ------------------------------ From: aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) Subject: Re: Snooping OK on Pager Numbers? Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 22:45:33 -0400 In article , Adam H. Kerman wrote: >> WASHINGTON -- Police can easily "eavesdrop" on pagers if a bill >> approved by the US Senate becomes law. >> The bill says law enforcement officials can monitor all messages sent >> to targeted pagers without having to convince a judge that the >> information can be found only in that way. >> "Congress is trying to do an end run around the Constitution and gut >> the privacy of millions of pager owners," said David Banisar, author >> of The Electronic Privacy Papers. > I'm not aware that there is an existing privacy right. Then you obviously haven't read the Communications Act of 1934. There are specific prohibitions on disclosure of intercepted third-party traffic, and they've been in place for a long time. > We have the right to be secure in our person, papers, and > possessions. But we have another right, a natural right to use the > public way. That includes the airwaves. No you don't. Read the law and you can figure out what is and isn't protected. ------------------------------ From: Adam H. Kerman Subject: Re: Snooping OK on Pager Numbers? Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 12:24:43 -0500 Organization: EnterAct L.L.C. Turbo-Elite News Server > Adam H. Kerman wrote: >>> WASHINGTON -- Police can easily "eavesdrop" on pagers if a bill >>> approved by the US Senate becomes law. >>> The bill says law enforcement officials can monitor all messages sent >>> to targeted pagers without having to convince a judge that the >>> information can be found only in that way. >>> "Congress is trying to do an end run around the Constitution and gut >>> the privacy of millions of pager owners," said David Banisar, author >>> of The Electronic Privacy Papers. >> I'm not aware that there is an existing privacy right. > Then you obviously haven't read the Communications Act of 1934. There are > specific prohibitions on disclosure of intercepted third-party traffic, and > they've been in place for a long time. If you are going to make an argument, make it. You don't explain what you mean by third-party traffic, nor what it has to do with intercepting communications that make use of the public airwaves. >> We have the right to be secure in our person, papers, and >> possessions. But we have another right, a natural right to use the >> public way. That includes the airwaves. >N o you don't. Read the law and you can figure out what is and isn't >p rotected. The law doesn't protect our natural rights. It tends to take them away from many and give privileges to the few. The law didn't create the radio spectrum; it's a natural phenomenon that should be available for the benefit of all, not for the exclusive use of a few. ------------------------------ From: Tom.Horsley@worldnet.att.net (Thomas A. Horsley) Subject: Re: How to Increase Public Acceptance of Overlays in California Date: 18 Jul 1999 07:24:00 -0400 Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services My proposal for increasing acceptance of ten digit dialing: Hey phone companies! Make your $#@! machines accept ten digit dialing for all numbers even if its NOT a long distance call! That way, I could get used to dialing ten digits before it suddenly became mandatory, and, even more important, I could get my computer to always dial ten digits and I wouldn't have to keep reprogramming it every time you change something. I really don't understand what people have against overlays. Do they enjoy having to make sure everyone they ever gave their phone number to gets their new number? Do they enjoy reprogramming their dialers every time their friends in different area codes have their number changed? Do they enjoy tossing any stationery or business cards that have the wrong number on them and getting them reprinted? Do they enjoy having to stop and figure out what area code they are in or the number they are dialing is in because it changed (again)? Why is there never any outrage over all these things? Why does the outrage always come from having to dial four more digits? The most ridiculous thing about the four digit outrage is that if you keep splitting the area codes instead of doing overlays, pretty soon your "next door neighbor" (the standard example in all the outrage stories) is in a different area code anyway! I have the "good fortune" to live in the 305, oops not 305 anymore, now its 407, oops not 407 anymore, now its 561, oops 561 is running out, we'll need a new area code soon location. Not only am I *tired* of having my frigging number changed out from under me what seems like every few months, but the area codes are so small already that only about one out of every ten numbers I ever need to dial are in the same area code anyway (*and* I keep having to learn new area codes for the other ten numbers :-). Please! Make me dial ten digits! I'm beggin ya! Just don't change my number or any of the other numbers I call yet again! >>==>> The *Best* political site >>==+ email: Tom.Horsley@worldnet.att.net icbm: Delray Beach, FL | Free Software and Politics <<==+ ------------------------------ From: stevenl11@aol.comstuffit (Steven Lichter) Date: 18 Jul 1999 02:31:56 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: How to Increase Public Acceptance of Overlays in California These proposals would make it much more clear whether a number was local or toll (as well as increasing the local calling area to a more reasonable radius), and give consumers a tangible benefit in exchange for the inconvenience of an overlay. Why not just go back to step and SAT ACCESS. There is no need for overlays, what they are doing now could be fixed by just adding a single digit to the phone number and or the area code as most of the rest of the world is doing now. The PUC says that is what is being planned by the NPA people in the future, just do it now. They say that until all the offices are converted to electronic this can't be done, well the people that are in non-electronic would just have to deal with it until the switch is made, this would be done much faster if the digit plans would be used and not stupid overlays which no one likes. The baboons that thought up overlays have no idea what is going on. I suspect that they don't even know how to use a phone, or have someone else do it for them as they swing from tree to tree!!!! 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: richard1942@my-deja.com Subject: Loud Cordless Phones Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 21:32:35 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. I presently have a General Electric cordless phone that has a very low ringer. There are no adjustments to it. I am looking for a new cordless phone that has a very loud ringer on it to use outside the house when I'm in the pool. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thank you. ------------------------------ From: D. Snow Subject: Interface Standard Set(s) to Wireless Telephone Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 17:11:36 -0600 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Does anyone make an interface which will integrate a wireless telephone with one or more standard telephone sets? The unit would need to provide current, dialtone and ring to the sets and control the wireless phone for number entry, send and end functions. Thanks. ------------------------------ From: David A. Burton Subject: Re: BellSouth MemoryCall Fails Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 07:30:05 -0500 Organization: Burton Systems Software John Warne wrote: > The following is based on the assumption BellSouth is using an Octal VM > platform in your area, and relates information I gleaned from multiple > discussions with BellSouth: I think they are using a Nortel DMS-100. I don't know what an "Octal VM" is. Is it just another brand and model of switch? > There's a "switch" setting in the VM box that BS has obviously changed. > The Octal box works in one of two ways. You have experienced both of > the ways! > We have the same situation. The solution proposed by BS was for us to > have them install a "transfer mailbox" feature on each and every phone > line/number that would be call forwarded to the phone with the > MemoryCall mailbox. > Oh, by the way, there is a monthly charge for the feature. Yeah, one of the many different answers I've gotten was that it could only have ever worked if there was a "transfer mailbox" on the line, and I should call the business office and see if they would sell or give me one. That guy believed that I must have already had a transfer mailbox for the six months that it worked correctly, but someone noticed the mistake and removed it. I asked how I could have had a transfer mailbox, and he said that the number might have been entered accidentally, by someone who typed the number while trying to enter one of my ringmaster numbers. Yeah, right. However, I question whether the guy even knew what he was talking about when he said that a transfer mailbox would work. I doubt that it would work. A transfer mailbox is what they use to make MemoryCall work when a call is made to a RingMaster number and is NOT forwarded elsewhere. What good would it do to have a transfer mailbox on a phone number which is forwarded elsewhere? Suppose I had a transfer mailbox on that line and forwarded it to my friend's phone, who also has MemoryCall service. Am I to believe that callers would still get MY memorycall, rather than hers? I strongly suspect that a transfer mailbox would only work when the calls were NOT forwarded. > The "switch" or flag in the VM box is global. All customers on the box > get it one way or the other, without individual customization/choice. > Why do it one particular way? Could "revenue stream" influence the > decision? Perhaps. The line that I'm forwarding is a business line, and the number to which I'm forwarding is a residential line (though both go to the same address). BS charges more for MemoryCall on a business line than on a residential line. So, perhaps -- just perhaps -- it might work if I did it the other way: got MemoryCall on the business line and forwarded the residential line to it. But that's not what they've been telling me. >> About three or four weeks ago, BellSouth made a change of some sort, >> and now my MemoryCall service does not work properly for some incoming >> calls. It still works for calls directly dialed to my residential >> phone number, and also when my BellSouth DCS phone is forwarded to my >> residential phone number (either to the primary or to one of my >> RingMaster distinctive ring numbers). But when my business line is >> forwarded to that same number, and I don't answer the call, MemoryCall >> picks up with a generic "Welcome to BellSouth MemoryCall >> service ... please enter a mailbox number" message, instead of my >> personal greeting. >> It used to work. It worked fine for about six months. ------------------------------ From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic Brings DSL Services to the Big Apple Date: 18 Jul 1999 13:10:35 -0400 Organization: PANIX -- Public Access Networks Corp. Reply-To: tls@rek.tjls.com In article , Monty Solomon wrote: > New Yorkers now have a new option for broadband Internet access to > their home or office. One they've had for _months_ from other non-monopoly providers. Bell Atlantic is the last one to arrive at the party on this one. No doubt they'll use their massive monopoly free marketing powers to establish some market share nonetheless (see below). > Bell Atlantic Corp. introduced their Infospeed digital subscriber line > services to parts of Manhattan Thursday. Other parts of the New York > metropolitan area are scheduled to receive the server later this year. For several months, they forced callers to their ISDN ordering/order status line to listen to a solicitation for Infospeed DSL before they could be connected to a human being. This despite the facts that: * The service did not exist yet. * ISDN service was, of course, an offering of their _regulated_ entity, but the Infospeed DSL product is sold by their _unregulated_ internet subsidiary. Cross-marketing like this is a big no-no in the eyes of most state PSCs but clearly they figured if it created enough confusion to keep them in the game for the year or so that others offered DSL but they didn't, it was worth a slap on the wrist. Typical sleazy Bell behaviour. I certainly wouldn't reward it by ordering DSL from them when there are many excellent alternatives. Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com "And where do all these highways go, now that we are free?" ------------------------------ From: Adam H. Kerman Subject: Re: Does Anyone on the West Coast Use Caller ID? Organization: Chinet - Public Access since 1982 Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 21:57:08 GMT jonathan@syntel.com> wrote: > Given the high number of Californians who block their ID, using ACR is > pretty rude, and usually surprises people who encounter it. But > relatively few people who call me (as it happens) block their ID. Once upon a time, wealthy people had footmen to send and receive private messages and butlers who would announce, "Madame is not at home," even though madame's snoring could be heard in the front hall. If madame had too much to drink last night, she wouldn't receive callers the next morning. Caller ID is not a replacement for a butler, but it's the best that those of us in the middle class can afford. Call screening devices like Caller ID and telephone answering machines are wonderful things. Someone makes an anonymous call? He's saying his time is more valuable than mine. Wrong. If someone makes an anonymous call to me and I don't want to be interrupted, I let the answering machine take it. If he refuses to leave a message, I don't give a damn. I won't call anyone rude for subscribing to ACR. They aren't obligated to accept calls and they get to decide how to manage incoming calls. > The California Caller ID policy is really a tragic abuse of privacy. It > seems to me that my right to know who is ringing a bell in my home, > disturbing whatever reverie I happen to be enjoying, is more important > that the accidental, historical right to make anonymous telephone calls. So you feel the same way that I do. I don't understand why you call subscribers to ACR rude. If I were redesigning SS7, I'd always send ANI to the called party and do the database lookup of the billed party's name against ANI. Caller ID would be entirely user-programmable, an optional feature to allow the caller to identify himself and his callback number to the called party if he doesn't receive calls at the number he's dialing from. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 17:49:47 -0500 From: Greg Monti Subject: Re: The Crisis at Pacifica Radio On 17 Jul 1999, TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: > The board of directors for Pacifica Foundation has been attempting > to change the format of its radio stations for quite awhile now. Its > station in Texas, KPFT changed from a very politically left-wing > commentary type of programming to an mostly-music format several months > ago. ... > The locked out employees have vowed to 'take back Pacifica for the > people' ... Thanks for your comment on this topic, Pat. You are correct that this is a battle between the owners of a medium and its employees, who refuse to run that medium they way the owner wants it run. One of the key tenets of broadcasting legislation and regulation in the United States has always been "The licensee must be in control of the broadcasting station." Pacifica management is only firing announcers and throwing them out in the street so that Pacifica can follow Federal regulation and keep their license to own and run KPFA, the very reason for Pacifica's existence. If the fired programmers want to start their own radio station on 94.1 MHz in Berkeley, they can apply to the Federal Communications Commission for a license for it by challenging Pacifica's license renewal. It won't be pleasant or cheap. Federal regulations do not allow the inmates to be in charge of the asylum. Not for a week. Not for a day. Not for a minute. Not for one second. The licensee, Pacifica, MUST be in control. Greg Monti Dallas, Texas, USA gmonti@mindspring.com http://www.mindspring.com/~gmonti [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are absolutely correct from a legal point of view. There are some 'in the know' on the west coast who feel there are serious problems with the way in which the corporation is structured presently. They have concerns which are important about the direction that things are going with the corporation, but the fact remains that long as the corporation is a legal entity and as long as its officers and board obey the law, they are entitled to do as they please. Good or bad, business-like or unbusiness-like, left-wing liberal, right-wing radical, whatever. The license to operate the transmitter is theirs to use as they please. The law does not and cannot dictate your political beliefs or your (lawful) choice of business practices. But -- I feel Pacifica has treated the employees at its Berkeley station very poorly. You do not just march everyone out the door under armed guard and then change the locks on the doors. They had staff people with them for years who I will assume in good faith produced programs for them and did the 'drudge work' involved in running a station like that who did so from the courage of their own convictions, however far out I personally happen to think some of their beliefs and convictions were. You would think that after all the years Pacifica has been transmitting its extremely liberal positions on a variety of social issues that it might have practiced what it preached regards employer/employee relationships. That is, unless Pacifica never believed it all along anyway, and was only going where they thought the market was leading them, and now they see the market leading them a different direction. There is something to be said about simple decency; about honoring the dignity of other people, however difficult that may be under some set of circumstances. Even a bunch of 'hippies' from Berkeley have dignity. I imagine most of them working at the station honestly felt their work was important and was making a difference in the world. All of us would like to feel that way, otherwise what's the reason for being around taking up space at all? Now all of us with no exceptions have treated other people shabbily at one time or another, and all of us have been treated shabbily. Its the nature of our existence. When something which is precious to us is attacked we rise to its defense and try to 'save' it. I would do that in the case of TELECOM Digest and I am sure the Berkeley people feel the same way about 'their' radio station. Its their voice, its their way to make a difference in the world, and they are losing it. You would *think* Pacifica in its wisdom and after years of listening to its own radio programs about the evils of Corporate America would have learned that and been sensitive to it. Unless of course it was all nonsense from the beginning and Pacifica didn't ever believe any of it to start with and that it was all strictly business from day one with the corporation. You would *think* Pacifica would have assembled its loyal staff and told them in essence, "here is where things are at; this is the direction we have to go; we want every one of you to be part of it; if, based entirely on your own conscience you find yourself unwilling or unable to go where we are going, then we will be sorry to lose you but will help you in a transition however we can." They might have even gone so far as to take that little relay station they operate -- the one across town that mostly acts like a trans- lator since KPFA can't get across the hills very well -- and given it to the departing employees: "Here is the license; its yours; from now on never settle for just being employed by a radio station when you can actually own one. Since you aided us in the programming transition here and kept us going we will help you for a couple months getting started over there with the programming you were doing on the air over here. For a month or so on the air we will announce to listeners seeking your programs where they should now tune to find them. Good luck." The flip side of the coin though, the other side of the story was that indeed, Pacifica tried very hard to do everything they could to placate the Berkeley people. My contact tells me that in fact the corporation did tell the Berkeley people for the longest time to clean up their act, to start working in the new direction the corporation wanted to go, and to produce their programs in a manner consistent with those new goals, but it was all in vain. Toward the end it got almost to the point of daily warfare between staff and management, and that nothing said or done any longer would make a difference except a complete housecleaning and a new start. One spokesperson for the ousted employees said, "As of July 15, KPFA is no longer a voice of the people ..." and sadly, that seems to be true, because even 'hippies' have free speech rights and some dignity, and the right to try and improve the world as they feel it should be done. Something went terribly wrong in the process. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #228 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Jul 19 04:38:37 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id EAA27203; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 04:38:37 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 04:38:37 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199907190838.EAA27203@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #229 TELECOM Digest Mon, 19 Jul 99 04:38:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 229 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: www. Prefixes (Derek Balling) Re: So You Thought There Was Enough Fraud Already? (Linc Madison) Re: DSL vs. Cable Modems (Garrett Wollman) Re: Split For 760 Area Code in California (John David Galt) Re: Telecom Term Paper (Donald E. Kimberlin) Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce (J.F. Mezei) Re: The Real Reason For New Area Codes (John R. Levine) Laser Cutting System For Sale (pgeorge7@my-deja.com) Last Laugh? Some Didn't Think it Was Very Funny! (Billy Harvey) 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 about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! 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, 18 Jul 1999 22:06:22 -0700 From: Derek Balling Subject: Re: www. Prefixes > You would name a router with the root name? That really seems silly. It is, but I used it as an example. > Who outside of your tech staff even needs to know the name of your > router? A name like sl-gw9-chi-5-2-1544k.sprintlink.net is fine for > a router, and the ROOT machine is the only one I suggest MUST have > HTTP. But you have no idea what that root machine will be. It COULD be a router, it could be a firewall. Any security expert will tell you not to run ANY services on your firewall. >> Right. Instead of pushing for abolition of www. which will never happen, >> why not write up an RFC to add a new DNS record "WWW", which would say "if >> someone wants the web server for , they really want: >> www.domain.com, or sales.domain.com or whatever. You could even do some >> slick stuff like: > Ok -- now we would (theoretically) have an MX style record for every > domain. Which wouldn't be too bad -- but it would require the redesign > of every browser in existance. That has little chance of happening. Actually, the RFC was brought to my attention as already existing, and its a perfect example for this discussion. RFC2052 defines the "SRV" resource record in DNS, which allows you to define service->machine mappings, such as (using the example from RFC2052). ; HTTP - server is the main server, new-fast-box is the backup ; (On new-fast-box, the HTTP daemon runs on port 8000) http.tcp SRV 0 0 80 server.asdf.com. SRV 10 0 8000 new-fast-box.asdf.com. ; since we want to support both http://asdf.com/ and ; http://www.asdf.com/ we need the next two RRs as well http.tcp.www SRV 0 0 80 server.asdf.com. SRV 10 0 8000 new-fast-box.asdf.com. It also allows for ANY OTHER SERVICE (allowing forward compatibility), such as: telnet.tcp gopher.tcp etc. Currently, no browsers support this (and the RFC acknowledges that the currently necessary "A" record mentality will persist for years to come), but all it requires is some pounding of drums and about ten lines of coding in browsers to add this functionality. In fact, it is my intention to suggest it to the Mozilla team so that Netscape 5.0 might very well support it (who knows). But all in all, this IS the answer to which you seek, all that needs to have happen is for (a) implementation at the browser level, and (b) DNS admins to implement it. I can answer for (B) ... if I had known about it, it'd've been in my config a long time ago. I'll be adding it to my zonefiles in the next couple days. Ask your DNS administrator to do the same. The more people who realize such a feature exists and is unimplemented, the better chance it has of being used. > Just get your router / firewall to route based on port. 80 goes to > the old web machine, 443 to your secure server, 70 to that gopher that > hasn't come out of its hole in several years, 21 to the ftp box, 23 to > the telnet, etc. By the time http goes away the rest of technology > will catch up with the needs of the users. (We may even have IPv6 > if we are lucky - lotsa numbers!) Ack! you've obviously never purchased memory from Cisco before. :) Fill your router's memory with a large BGP table and tell me how much more room you have left to route a whole bunch of separate port routings for the web farm (of hundreds of IP's) that you may have behind the router. After you pay off the national debt paying for your router memory, let me know what the damage was. ;-) > I still remember when my ISP was small enough that all the services > ran easily off of the same machine and all those FQDN prefixes were > not needed at all. Now they have pop. mail. smtp. news. www. members. > ftp. telnet. - a bit confusing and a lot more to remember and type. C'est la vie. The core of the problem is that people want the "small intimate internet" they remember. Pandora cracked the lid on that box a long time ago and it won't be coming back any time soon. > The root machine can support more than one service. So what will the > 'next' protocol be? We had a couple of years warning on HTTP. Who knows what the next protocol will be ... the point is that we have to be FORWARD thinking and not just worried about the laziness of wanting to save four keystrokes on URL's. Wanting to save two keystrokes on dates is getting us into a whole lot of trouble here in a few months. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. > Mail has intelligent software with MX records. You can email me > @TK.COM with little thought to my mail server's real name. (And the > way it is set up, you could email to bellaire@whatever.tk.com and > still get connected. The magic of domain mail. Agreed. Which is why I like the neat RFC I mentioned above. It addresses both issues - forward compatibility (which makes the current "www." necessary), as well as the "simplicity" approach you and Pat favor. As soon as browser vendors implement RFC2052, that problem goes away. > You can also visit http://BELLAIRE@TK.COM/ and get to my site, because > I had the foresight to demand that the root of the domain went to the > server. (http://editor@telecom-digest.org/ also works.) Actually, I think those would break on Mozilla (because the "user@ domain" syntax in a URL is technically "broken" from a standards- compliance perspective), since part of the benefits of Mozilla was that it was going to enforce standards ... I don't know if that's the case or not though. >> I have to quote my High School Journalism teacher: >> "The easiest way is very seldom the best way. Learn this and you will >> do great in life." >> - M.Habernig > But "the easy way" reflects the new breed of (how can I say this > nicely?) technically incompetent users. Then that "new breed" must also come to grips with the fact that there is a learning curve they must adhere to. Before cars first became popular, only a few people learned to drive, and they learned in intricate detail how to do it safely (or they tried anyway). When cars became popular, to use your thinking, all the rules of the road would have been simplified, to make way for the "lowest common denominator". Instead, the government realized that they needed to adhere to standards, and the drivers were required to learn a little about how to drive safely, and pass a test before they could actually go out on the road. Now I'm not advocating "licensing new internet users" (although at times I am tempted), but its an example of how a learning curve is something that people can (and do) grow to accept. > The end goal of communication is getting the message across. If that > means pulling a few technical tricks like root naming the web server > I don't mind. But you do that (RFC2052 excepted) at the expense of a root address which you may find VERY valuable down the road. > Final note: Please note that mail to @whatever.tk.com may fail on > systems that try to find the MX for each machine instead of routing > the domain mail to the domain's MS server. Actually, you ARE aware that the "order of operations" should be (for the example above): First Choice: the MX record for whatever.tk.com (if it exists) Second Choice: the MX record for tk.com (if it exists) Third Choice: direct delivery to whatever.tk.com Fourth Choice: bounce mail to sender as undeliverable So the MTA (Mail Transfer Agent) SHOULD try to find the MX record for each machine, but it should then also step up "level by level" until it gets to the root-domain. If it still hasn't found an MX record, then it has to assume that you want direct delivery and go nuts trying. But I think we're just about surpassing the "relevant to telecom" ratio on this thread so maybe we should kill it now ... we know the solution (RFC2052) and all it takes is for vendors to implement it. :) D ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 02:00:22 GMT From: LincMad001@telecom-digest.zzn.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: So You Thought There Was Enough Fraud Already? Organization: LincMad Consulting In article , TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: > Check out this report I found the other day while surfing the World > Wide Shopping Mall -- err -- Web. > Just imagine! Someone visits a sex site in the Netherlands, and pays > for it charging the call to your phone bill through a company in > Hong Kong. > They say this will eliminate 'security concerns about sending your > credit card over the internet' ... I wonder if new concerns may arise > as a result. This company had a booth at the Web 99 Expo this month in San Francisco. I didn't wander by, though, since I think this is an idea that should be shut down before it gets off the ground. I'm a purist -- I don't believe that any "information content" costs or anything other than the pure cost of carrying the call should ever be billed to my telephone account. That means no 900 or 976 numbers, no billing travel clubs or merchandise or web site memberships or anything else, to my telephone number. ** 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 will be read sooner! ------------------------------ From: wollman@lcs.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman) Subject: Re: DSL vs. Cable Modems Date: 19 Jul 1999 02:01:06 GMT Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science In article , Derek Balling wrote: > Any ISP who actually subjected my packets to a transparent proxy like > that would pretty quickly find themselves minus one customer, IF I > didn't decide to sue them under the ECPA (Electronic Communications > Privacy Act). At which point the court will remind you that you signed (or verbally agreed to) a contract with them stating that they could, in fact, do whatever they want with your packets -- if indeed it didn't say that that packets weren't even yours anyway. Take a look at some of those service agreements. A number of them are quite scary, and most people don't have the financial backing to tie a Fortune 50 company up in court for the decade it would take to resolve the legality thereof. (Sure makes me glad I run my own dialup infrastructure and don't have to contract with a third-party ISP to get remote access like people at some other major US universities do.) Garrett A. Wollman | O Siem / We are all family / O Siem / We're all the same wollman@lcs.mit.edu | O Siem / The fires of freedom Opinions not those of| Dance in the burning flame MIT, LCS, CRS, or NSA| - Susan Aglukark and Chad Irschick ------------------------------ From: John_David_Galt@acm.org (John David Galt) Organization: Diogenes the Cynic Hot-Tubbing Society Subject: Re: Split For 760 Area Code in California Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 02:57:15 GMT Joel B Levin wrote: > In , LincMad001@telecom-digest. > zzn.com (Linc Madison) wrote: >> The goal of area code relief planning is to minimize disruptions to >> customers. Making a significant chunk of people change twice so that >> a smaller number of people don't have to change, doesn't make sense. > In my (minority) view, the real answer to this is to go to overlays > and make people bite the bullet of dialing 10 or 11 digits. They will > only have to take that hit ONCE; ... Overlays make sense if the area is small and there is no logical place to split it further (for example, 213/323 should have been an overlay). But the 760 area is over 400 miles long, and includes major parts of three LATAs! Making a mostly-rural area that big give up 7-digit dialing just because one tiny corner of it is crowded is ridiculous. I say, split off the San Diego suburbs where all the growth is occurring, and let them be the ones to change for once. Then if 760 or other mostly-rural codes need to be split again, split them at the LATA boundaries. Even when the national number length needs to be increased (2007?), there is no need for rural places to start dialing huge number-lengths just because of growth in cities. Instead, let's have a variable length number system as they have in Britain. Give metro Los Angeles a two digit area + 10 digit numbers (the ones they have now) and it will have all kinds of room for new growth without splitting; but other areas can go 3+9, 4+8, or 5+7 and keep their shorter numbers. John David Galt ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 23:32:28 -0400 From: Donald E. Kimberlin Subject: Re: Telecom Term Paper Brad Davey writes: > My name is Brad, and I am a grad student at SMU in telecomm- > unications. I am working on a term paper now, and I need some help. > My topic is the leasing of Local Exchange Carriers lines -- how it > works, will competition work, etc. Are there any books or articles > you can think of to help me? SET TONGUE-IN-CHEEK.SYS /ON Brad, the book you need to get is the book listing the USOCs - Universal Service Order Codes -- that LECs use to write their service orders. If you can get a copy, and once having one, if you can understand it, you should be granted advancement to doctoral student status, because you will be unraveling some of the greatest mysteries of the telecommunications industry! (Hint: Among the things you will discover is that USOCs are in no sense of the word "universal" at all.) ------------------------------ From: J.F. Mezei Subject: Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 23:54:38 -0400 > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: > Regards the guy who got his groceries without an approval code, it > depends in large part who was at fault. A store/chain has a very specific contract with the credit card company/bank which clearly defines the responsabilities of each. If the store does not follow procedures and the charge is disputed or card is bad, then the store won't get its money for that transaction. The advent of POS terminals has permitted some banks to set a $0 floor limit for a merchant (eg: all transactions require authorisation) in exchange for lower fees per transaction. (since fraud levels will drop, banks can give a break to the merchant). The agreement between bank and merchant will specify what happens if the POS is down. Not following this does not mean that transactions are void, but it does mean that if a stolen card is used at that time and the merchant did not follow the steps, the merchant will not get his money. Remember that when the POS is down, stores may have to call for authorisation or at the very least check that the card does not figure in the printed booklet containing stolen card numbers. If the card was printed in that booklet and the merchant accepted the transaction, it will not get its money. > to fraud as say an electronics store would be. If his sale was within > the floor limit *and* the store otherwise met the rules by making him > present an actual card, etc then the credit card issuer will approve > the sale once the link to them becomes operational. Not necessarily, if the transaction is done manually (imprinted on the traditional paper), the transaction will only become known to the bank when the paper is presented to the bank for deposit. Getting an authorization simply gives the merchant a guarantee from the bank that he will get his money from the bank when he presents a sale slip for that amount for that card. > approval will be 'forced'. They have to do this as a matter of merchant > goodwill; no merchant will wait on hold five or ten minutes to get an > approval for twenty dollars. Yes. Some merchants (notably mail order outfits) are forced to get authorizations for every transaction and may in fact be forced by the bank to provide more than just the card number to validate the transaction. It depends on the relationship between the merchant and the bank. Remember that small merchants may not be able to justify the cost of a POS or even an imprinter and will write the sales slips manually. Another thing to keep in mind is that the bank may have its own internal floor limits set in place for periods of great rush (when everyone goes out to buy flowers in the morning of mothers day for instance). In such cases, the bank will do very minimal authorizations for transactions below a secret amount set internally by the bank for that day. (for instance, by not checking your balance and only checking if card reported stolen, banks can increase the number of transactions per second significantly and thus handle additional loads). However, in periods of great rush, the risk is taken by the bank and not the merchant. As long as the merchant gets an authorisation number, he is covered and will get his money. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In the case of mail order places, if the system is down it is not quite such a concern since the order will just sit there a few minutes until the system comes back up. The problem is the customer at the cash register waiting in line and holding up all the customers behind him. Of course it helps if you are a very large national chain such as Walmart or Radio Shack. Where the merchant is considered a very valuable account, VISA/MC tends to be more lenient in their policies also. So much depends upon the merchant's 'track record'. An Area Sales Manager for Tandy (the guy who oversees 30-50 Radio Shack stores in his territory) mentioned to me that, 'we tell VISA how we intend to do things, not them telling us ...' Of course some merchants have a horrible track-record for fraud as well. Amoco had this one dealer in Chicago on Congress Parkway on the south edge of downtown, where it turns into the expressway. He was on both sides of the expressway so he could get traffic in each direction. His fraud rate was so high that the credit card office put in a red phone in the cashier's cage which was a *tie-line* to the sales authorizers, who at that time (early 1970's) were just a few blocks away. If he sold a package of chewing gum to someone on an Amoco card, the cashier had to lift that receiver and get an authorization code. On the credit card office end, the tie-line just went into the automatic call distributor like the 800 lines and the local Chicago area lines and got splashed out to whichever author- izer was idle. The guy was a total crook himself, so what did he care if a few customers with abused or misused cards filled up with gas at his place every day. His wife or his girlfriend, I do not not know which, worked at the credit card office however the company did not realize the relationship between the two people. She filled him in on a couple of secrets about the process which he used to his advantage. One, the office in those days was receiving a post office semi- trailer truck full of merchant charge tickets each day, and as they were put in 'batches' or 'trays' for the intial balancing in order that checks could be written and sent to the merchant the same day, if the batch or tray of approximatly a thousand charge tickets was out of balance, if the out of balance was five dollars or less, the clerks were authorized to write it off and not waste time looking for it. More than that, they had to go back and look for the error with their manual adding machine tapes, matching the dealer's header cards against the tickets, etc. If any given dealer was out of balance by three or four dollars they likewise would write it off, i.e. the dealer's charge tickets enclosed totalled $27 and the dealer's summary card requested $30. This guy found out they did that and started sending in his charge tickets every day a dollar or two dollars short. They finally caught him doing it and started sending him chargebacks for every nickle, and the area sales manager went over to his station and told him to 'start being more careful about checking the totals on your summary cards each day'. Two, his girlfriend told him about the way inbound charge tickets were handled: the clerks would open the packets make sure the dealer's summary was in front, stack them in metal trays in bunches of a thousand or so at a time, and off they would go for microfilming as the first order of business. Over the next several days of the ticket getting handled, machine punched and sorted, and whatever, if it got mutilated or NMU'ed (NMU = 'non-machine useable') then the shreds of it or whatever was left were stored in a certain place at the end of the processing line. An 80-column card called 'substitute for invoice' was inserted in the original's place in the processing line, with a '7' punched in column 32 which caused it to fall out once it reached the end of processing at which point the shreds of the original would be inserted with the customer's statement and a rubber stamp imprint saying 'sorry this was damaged in processing'. If the original was totally gone or somehow showed up missing, then they'd use the microfilm copy to balance the batch and the customer would get the microfilm saying 'sorry we can't find the original ticket, please pay from this microfilm copy of your charge ticket. So at the very beginning of the process those tickets had to be microfilmed before they were 'turned loose for processing in the house' and lost among millions of others. But what they were not doing was insuring that the merchant indicia was legible before the tickets were turned loose in processing. When this clown on Congress Parkway found that out, he began stuffing a few handwritten charge tickets of his own in his summary each day; handwritten account number on top, no dealer indicia at all, always some small amount he knew the office would write off when the ticket fell out in processing, went to manual lookup and adjustments, etc. Then one day the adjustments clerks found in their work a charge ticket for about $200.00 for some sort of TBA (tires, batteries and accessories) which in the account number area only had the handwritten phrase 'B&O Railroad, Acct #3', no customer signature and no dealer indicia. They made one clerk sit at a microfilm viewer for about eight hours looking through thousands of dealer summary cards with explicit orders: find out who it is ... they never could figure it out and had to write it off so a new rule was passed: the first thing that happens, when new charge tickets come in is the clerk will use the dealer summary card -- always clearly printed and quite legible because he wanted his money after all -- and thumb rapidly through all the charge tickets he enclosed. If any of them had dealer indicia that was not completely legible take a pen and handwrite the dealer's ID number on the ticket somewhere. Never mind if the customer account is legible or imprinted or handwritten or right or wrong, just make sure we have someplace to charge it back to if it falls out of billing. *Then* send it to microfilm, *then* balance the batch to pay the dealers, *then* turn it loose in house for billing. Not before. They finally caught the same guy submitting charge tickets which were 'questionable' and in each case his own dealer imprint was barely readable if at all, and they told him to cut that out. When they finally bounced him as a dealer however was after they caught his floozy girlfriend running her own scheme in the office and found out the two of them were friends. She worked in the area called 'inbound' and she would thumb through all those tickets rapidly alright, but not to make sure the dealer indicia was legible, but rather to look for *her personal charge tickets* for the gas she bought for her own car. When she found one of her tickets she would tear it up -- before it got microfilmed of course -- and then either short the dealer or pay the dealer but short the tray batch or sometimes put in a 'substitute for NMU invoice' with a bogus number of some sort and let adjustments have to write it off. Or she would pick a real account number and customer service would have to write it off two months from now down the line or maybe the collectors would have to write it off. She had quite a scheme but she didn't know the supervisor saw her stick a charge ticket in her purse one day and walk away toward the ladies room where the ticket would otherwise get flushed away. They intercepted her in the hallway before she went in the ladies room and asked her point blank, 'would it be okay if we look in your purse?' Like all such cases they had her sit in a private office for a few minutes until someone from human resources came in with her supervisor. They escorted her down to the lobby, out to the street, handed her a *manually written* check -- so anxious were they to get her out of there -- with her final pay through the end of the current day, her vacation pay, a couple day's severence pay added in and told her 'there is no reason for this to go any further; stay away, do not ever come in the building again for any reason; we will tell your former co-workers that you were transferred to a different department; please do not force things to become nasty. Do not ever tell anyone what you did and how you did it, and we won't need to carry this any further. Now please leave.' I do not know how, but a week or so later they found out she had gotten a job working for the dealer on Congress Parkway -- as his midnight shift cashier yet! -- and they were so annoyed at that point the company went in and tossed the guy out; took over the station and ran it themselves for a couple months until they could get a different dealer. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jul 1999 00:29:09 -0400 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: the real reason for new area codes Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > If it is due to the proliferation of cellular phones and other > portables that new area codes are constantly being thrust upon us, ... > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Your suggestion is a good one which > has been raised time and again over the past several years ... If it were really cellular and pagers that were sucking up phone numbers, service specific overlays would be a swell idea. But it's not, so they're a lousy idea. The real problem is CLECs, competitive local phone companies. Because of the way that phone calls are routed and billed, every CLEC needs at least one prefix with 10,000 numbers in every rate center (billing point) in which it expects someday to offer service. Since a city like Boston has about eight rate centers and there's probably two dozen CLECs, the number of prefixes used is huge. Since few CLECs have many customers, these prefixes tend to be mostly or entirely empty. There are several real solutions. One is to consolidate rate centers. It's absurd for Boston, which is not that large a city, to have more than a single rate center. It has many for historical reasons (each was originally a manual operator office) and Bell doesn't want to consolidate since that would turn some message unit calls into free calls, which might lose them a small amount of revenue. Denver did consolidate, quite effectively, and US West didn't resist much since all calls within the Denver area were already free. Another solution is to upgrade the switch software so numbers can be handed out in blocks of 1000 rather than of 10,000, and up to 10 CLECs can share a single prefix. This is happening slowly, and the FCC needs to prod the telcos hard to make it happen faster. The last solution is number portability. Once numbers are portable, it becomes much less important for CLECs to have a prefix in every rate center, so long as they have one in a rate center nearby. (These days, the physical location of a switch need have nothing to do with the rate center, and it's common for a telco to have one switch with prefixes in a bunch of different rate centers.) Portability also makes service specific overlays a bad idea, since you'll be able to switch between landline and cellular and keep the same phone number. 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: pgeorge7@my-deja.com Subject: Laser Cutting System For Sale Date: Sunday, 18 Jul 1999 23:58:02 -0600 Organization: Laser Reply-To: pgeorge7@my-deja.com CNC Laser Cutting System For Sale: 4' x 4' cutting area w/ 100 watt Sealed Synrad CO2 Laser. $39,500 Laser 1, Ltd. (414) 383-2000 Ask For George ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 21:40:14 EST From: Billy Harvey Subject: Last Laugh? Some People Don't Think it Was Funny > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If it was not 'their plan' to > distribute the virus in this sneaky way, then *who's plan* was it? I > am not entirely convinced it was not 'their plan' originally, and then > when some people in the media found out about it, all of a sudden Dead > Cow started making disclaimers and acting like the injured party in > the whole thing. All of a sudden they discover that their Back Orifice > has been tampered with when it fact it was their real plan to give > everyone else a pain up their back orifices until they got caught > trying to sneak up on a few people. > If it indeed was not 'their plan' to do this, then I think everyone > would be interested to find out what sort of warped mind; what sort of > sick person would have thought up the scheme to not only infect as > many computers as possible with the virus but besmirch the reputation > of Dead Cow as well at the same time. PAT] Pat, I hope you realize that a small group of computer gurus who could write a multi-platform software package that allowed remote administration of an operating system that has required literally thousands of programmers thousands of hours to develop, would have the brains to write their own virus if they wanted one instead of having to borrow an easily detectable one. Regards, Billy [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Maybe so, but in that case, who did put the virus on the CD Rom? I think it had to be an inside job; who else had access to the product? And if they know, or find out, I wonder if they will tell the public or try to keep it secret, the way telco/credit card back offices do with they discover an employee who has a 'problem' or caused an 'incident'. Some reporter on television a couple days ago was saying the computer used to copy the CD Roms had the virus on it by accident; that no one was aware of it until the virus had been copied on to all the CDs ... It seems odd that your 'small group of computer gurus with brains' would not have seen that, or at the very least completely inspected the computer they were using prior to turning out all the work doesn't it? As I noted in the subject line above, some people may think it was funny; obviously Dead Cow members do not. How are they taking it, by the way? Any of them had any more to say to the media or the net? PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #229 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Jul 19 15:00:38 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id PAA20471; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 15:00:38 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 15:00:38 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199907191900.PAA20471@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #230 TELECOM Digest Mon, 19 Jul 99 15:00:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 230 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Telecom Update (Canada) #191, July 19, 1999 (Angus TeleManagement) Re: A Week We Won't Forget (John J. Brassil) Re: Snooping OK on Pager Numbers? (Andrew Emmerson) Re: DSL vrs. Cable Modems (Isaac Wingfield) Re: DSL vrs. Cable Modems (Msgt. Paul Berens) Re: DSL vrs. Cable Modems (Derek Balling) Re: Answering Machines / Call Screening (Hugh Pritchard) Data vs. Voice Switch (Marcy Dixon) You've Got Mail. You're Being Watched (Monty Solomon) Bright Light to Offer Free Spam Protection (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 about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! 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, 19 Jul 1999 12:38:22 -0400 From: Angus TeleManagement Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #191, July 19, 1999 * * * TELECOM UPDATE * * Angus TeleManagement's Weekly Telecom Newsbulletin * * http://www.angustel.ca * * Number 191: July 19, 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: ** Bell Fire Cuts Toronto Phones, Disrupts Data Networks ** Stentor Canadian Network Management to Dissolve ** Microsoft Invests $600 Million in Rogers ** AT&T Activates Toronto-Vancouver Fiber ** Optel to Wholesale High-Speed Internet to ISPs ** Cablecos Must Tariff High-Speed Internet Access for ISPs ** Telemetrix to Build Fido Network in Manitoba, Saskatchewan ** Sprint Launches "It's Easy Unlimited In-Province" ** Number Portability Extended in BC, Ontario ** Nortel Spins Off Maker of Anti-Piracy Software ** Wireless Carriers Report Increased Activations ** Mitel Expands Channels for Voice/Data Products ** Bell Nexxia Launches VPN Service ** CRTC Changes Rules for Basic Cable Rates ** Court Backs ISP's Cancellation of Spam Account ** Minacs, Phonettix Merger Approved ** U.S. Takeover Battle Ends in Compromise ** Bell Wins Round in Domain-Name Dispute ** Clearnet Adds Internet-Ready Phones to Mike ** Angus on the Witness Stand BELL FIRE CUTS TORONTO PHONES, DISRUPTS DATA NETWORKS: On July 16, an electrical explosion and fire in a Bell Canada central office in downtown Toronto knocked out about 113,000 lines for several hours. Several national data networks also went down, including some serving bank machines and credit card users. The affected CO was back in service the same day, but disruption of some data networks lasted into the weekend. ** Two days later, in an unrelated incident, several hundred thousand residents of the Peel region, west of Toronto, lost 9-1-1 service for about 12 hours. Some callers attempting to reach 9-1-1 during this period found their phone service frozen for a time following their call. STENTOR CANADIAN NETWORK MANAGEMENT TO DISSOLVE: Stentor Canadian Network Management (SCNM), which manages the cross- Canada network of Canada's regional telcos, will close down by year end. Bell will provide "national operational support services" to Telus and other former SCNM members. MICROSOFT INVESTS $600 MILLION IN ROGERS: Microsoft Corp. is investing $600 Million in shares of Rogers Communications that potentially represent 9% of Rogers' equity. Rogers says it will use Microsoft software for interactive TV services, beginning next year. AT&T ACTIVATES TORONTO-VANCOUVER FIBER: AT&T Canada has activated a 4,475-km fiber optic route from Toronto through Winnipeg, Regina, and Calgary to Vancouver. OPTEL TO WHOLESALE HIGH-SPEED INTERNET TO ISPs: Optel Communications says that it will offer DSL high-speed services to Internet Service Providers in Greater Toronto, starting September; and in Montreal, starting November. CABLECOS MUST TARIFF HIGH-SPEED INTERNET ACCESS FOR ISPs: CRTC Telecom Decision 99-8 tells cablecos to file proposed tariffs for wholesale high-speed Internet service. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/internet/1999/8045/02/d99-08.htm TELEMETRIX TO BUILD FIDO NETWORK IN MANITOBA, SASKATCHEWAN: Telemetrix Inc. has signed a letter of intent to build a PCS network in Manitoba and Saskatchewan to Microcell Connexions' specifications and operate it as part of Microcell's cross- country wireless network. SPRINT LAUNCHES "IT'S EASY UNLIMITED IN-PROVINCE": A new Sprint Canada residential calling plan, called It's Easy Unlimited In-Province, offers calls anytime within the customer's province for 10 cents/minute with a $20/month maximum. NUMBER PORTABILITY EXTENDED IN BC, ONTARIO: Local Number Portability will be activated in Victoria, BC, on August 23 and in Thornhill and Unionville, Ontario, on or about July 23 and August 11 respectively. NORTEL SPINS OFF MAKER OF ANTI-PIRACY SOFTWARE: Nortel Networks has spun off Nepean, Ont.-based Channelware Inc. as a separate company with 44% Nortel ownership. Channelware makes software that enables computer games to be distributed on line on a pay-per-use basis. WIRELESS CARRIERS REPORT INCREASED ACTIVATIONS: Three wireless carriers report the following increases in subscribers during the second quarter: ** Clearnet PCS and Mike: 61,573 (last year 52,410; June 30 total: 408,503). ** Microcell Fido: 60,234 (last year: 52,679; June 30 total: 404,577). ** Rogers Cantel: 109,500 (last year: 24,900; June 30 total: 2,180,200). MITEL EXPANDS CHANNELS FOR VOICE/DATA PRODUCTS: Mitel has established a new category of dealers, "Platinum Elite Value Added Resellers," to market voice/data products such as SX- 2000 for Windows NT. BELL NEXXIA LAUNCHES VPN SERVICE: Bell Nexxia has introduced Nexxia.IP VPN, which utilizes Nexxia's IP network and the Internet to provide a global virtual private network service. Nexxia.IP VPN is accessible by wireless via Bell Mobility. CRTC CHANGES RULES FOR BASIC CABLE RATES: CRTC Broadcasting Public Notice 99-108 adopts new rules requiring cable companies to get Commission approval before increasing basic monthly fees because of the addition of a specialty service. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/bcasting/notice/1999/p99108_0.txt COURT BACKS ISP'S CANCELLATION OF SPAM ACCOUNT: An Ontario Superior Court judge has sustained the action of Nexx Online in canceling the account of a large-scale spam broadcaster. The court ruled that spam is in "breach of the emerging principles of Netiquette." MINACS, PHONETTIX MERGER APPROVED: Phonettix Intelecom shareholders have approved their company's merger with Minacs Group, forming Canada's largest call center outsourcer. The combined company has taken the name Minacs Worldwide. (See Telecom Update #184) GLOBENET COMPLETES FINANCING FOR CROSS-ATLANTIC FIBER: Bermuda-based GlobeNet Communications has assembled the US$940 Million in financing needed to build a fiber-optic link between North and South America via Bermuda. GlobeNet was founded two years ago by Canadian telecommunications entrepreneur Mike Kedar, founder of Call-Net. U.S. TAKEOVER BATTLE ENDS IN COMPROMISE: A month-long bidding war between Qwest Communications and Global Crossing has ended in compromise: Qwest will acquire Denver-based regional telco US West for US$35 Billion, and Global Crossing will buy Frontier Corp, a long distance company, for US$11 Billion. (See Telecom Update #184, 188) BELL WINS ROUND IN DOMAIN-NAME DISPUTE: The Federal Court has told Globe Tete Communications to close down its Web site pending a ruling on whether its domain name, www.lespagesjaunes.com ("the yellow pages"), violates a Bell ActiMedia trademark. CLEARNET ADDS INTERNET-READY PHONES TO MIKE: Clearnet Communications has added two additional handsets to its Mike service. Mike i1000plus ($229) and Mike i500plus ($79) provide an Internet browser plus e-mail, fax, and remote dial-up. ANGUS ON THE WITNESS STAND: In the July-August issue of Telemanagement, Ian Angus tells how his testimony on the "telephonic" character of the Internet figured in a court battle on whether the Internet is governed by Canada's human rights legislation. Also in Telemanagement #167: ** Gerry Blackwell's assessment of LAN-based phone systems: "They're small and rare, but they work." ** In "Apples, Oranges, and Benchmarks," Henry Dortmans presents some factors to consider before comparing your phone bills to those of another organization. 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. ------------------------------ From: John J. Brassil Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 08:59:30 -0500 Subject: A Week We Won't Forget! Just read the reprint of the 25th anniversary piece in TELECOM Digest. I was an 8-year old boy living in Houston, Texas at the time of the landing, and my mother kept my sister and myself up late so we could watch Armstrong's historic first steps "live" (in quotes because of the transmission delays ;) .) As long as I live, I'll never forget that night, one of the few crystal clear memories I still have from my childhood. I just wanted to express my gratitude to Don Kimberlin for his part in making it happen -- especially now because of what I do that I have a better appreciation for what a tenuous thing it was! John J. Brassil | Network Engineer, Vanderbilt Network Design & Engineering | 615.322.2496 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Kimberlin is just one of many folks on this mailing list who have had important roles at one time or another in historic events involving telecommunications. I've always felt very privileged to be among such an elite group. :) Seriously. But Don Kimberlin's role in the 1969 moonwalk has always been one of the most exciting for me. If anyone reading this has not yet had a change to visit http://telecom-digest.org/camelot-on-the-moon.html I hope you will do so today or tomorrow during this 30th anniversary observance of 'one small step for man; a giant leap for mankind'. PAT] ------------------------------ From: midshires@cix.co.uk (Andrew Emmerson) Subject: Re: Snooping OK on Pager Numbers? Date: 19 Jul 1999 14:17:41 GMT Organization: CIX - Compulink Information eXchange Reply-To: midshires@cix.co.uk In article , ahk@chinet.chinet.com (Adam H. Kerman) wrote: > The law doesn't protect our natural rights. It tends to take them away > from many and give privileges to the few. The law didn't create the > radio spectrum; it's a natural phenomenon that should be available for > the benefit of all, not for the exclusive use of a few. Sorry but this is absolute drivel. You have no natural right to intercept other people's private communications. Are you saying that I have a natural right to peep in your mailbox, read the newspapers that have been delivered to you and also open your mail, just because your mailbox does not have a padlock on it? No, of course not. Your so-called privileges awarded to the few have been assigned to people (corporations) that have invested significant money to provide a service that other people are happy to pay to use. The radio spectrum is indeed a natural phenomenon, just like land. But that doesn't give me the right to build a garage in your front garden just because I feel like doing so. Land (and radio spectrum) are apportioned according to a set of rules designed for harmonious living and co-operation. If you don't want play by those rules, then you are not a member of society and cannot expect society to protect what you consider _your_ rights. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 09:41:23 -0700 From: Isaac Wingfield Subject: Re: DSL vs. Cable Modems Jonathan Seder wrote: > I believe that with all cable modem systems, each different data rate > and direction gets its own frequency band. All the users of a > particular data rate/direction share that single frequency band. Thus, > all 100K/500K users are in effect on a single full-duplex > asymmetric-rate CSMA/CD LAN. Cable Modems (at least contemporary ones -- DOCSIS-compliant) do not operate in a CSMA/CD mode; they are not very "Ethernet-like" at all. It is absolutely impossible for two modems to communicate if directly connected together; a modem's output is not at all compatible with its input. There is no equivalent to an Ethernet "crossover cable". Data flow in both directions is orchestrated by gear installed in the cable plant's headend. All data to all modems in the system is scheduled by the headend, so there is no possibility for collisions there. This is a classic time-division-multiplex scheme, with data for various destination modems lining up like so many boxcars in a train. The aggregate downstream rate is either ~27 MBits/second, or ~38 MBits/second, depending on whether 64 QAM or 256 QAM is used for modulation. All upstream communication from each and every modem is also scheduled from the headend, so (with one exception), no collisions ever occur in that direction either. The exception is during the time when a modem is "registering" to obtain permission to talk. That can occur during a specified time in the TDM sequence when other modems are also attempting to do the same thing, and collisions can occur. During the times that "real" data is flowing, no collisions occur at all; this is another TDM stream, except that successive packets of data may come from entirely different transmitters, in entirely different parts of the cable plant. Messages sent downstream to all modems allow them to synchronize their upstream transmissions so when their packets of data come together in the cable "backbone", they fit together without overlap, just like the boxcars in a railway switching yard. Upstream rates can vary depending upon the amount of noise and interference in the cable at the chosen frequency in a given plant, but will be between a few hundred KBits/second and about 5 or 6 MBits/second. It is perfectly possible for various clients within the same up- or down-stream "channel" to have different data rates; is is merely necessary to assign more time slots in the TDM stream to certain modems. And of course, there is no necessary relation between the up- and down-stream rates assigned to any given modem. > Like Ethernet, performance falls off dramatically as usage crosses > certain thresholds. At the busy times of day - 5pm-9pm - individual > users may get only a small fraction of the total data rate. This is true, but not because of "collisions"; it's just that all the available bandwidth is being used (and used rather efficiently, I might add -- a lot of work went into developing strategies to do that). Much of the problem seems to be a combination of "dOOdS" providing "wAreZ" and people running gaming servers, both prohibited by contract in many cable modem systems. Many Windows users are knowingly or unknowingly sharing their hard drives with others in the cable plant; this too adds congestion, and has caused some operators to filter the offending ports. Long-term strategies for improving performance include: Using more downstream channels; using more upstream channels; dividing a cable plant into smaller "service regions" so fewer clients compete for data resources. All of these, of course, cost money. In the future, look for flexible provisioning, allowing people to pay for what they get (and to be prevented from using what they don't pay for), and allowing providers to offer different levels of QoS, at different price points. Data rate allocation strategies, if not currently deployed modems, make telephony over cable perfectly possible; not IP telephony, BTW -- the "real thing". That's a large part of the reason why AT&T invested in TCI. Isaac Wingfield Project Director isw@ictv.com ICTV Vox: 408-364-9201 14600 Winchester Blvd. Fax: 408-364-9300 Los Gatos, CA 95030 ------------------------------ From: Msgt Paul Berens Subject: Re: DSL and Cable Modems Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 06:55:20 -0600 Kevin DeMartino, Dynamics Research Corporation wrote: > It is clear that in the next few years cable modems will provide > subscribers with much higher data rates than digital subscriber line > (DSL) techniques. But what about the future? The technical discussions of which technology, XDSL or Cable Modems, will carry the most bits is interesting, but follow the money. The consumer wants one bill ( and the concomitant savings this should produce due to lowered overhead) for his telephone, his ISP, and his television/movies. XDSL isn't going to carry "content" such as television, right? As long as that's true, seems to me we should bet on the cable providers. They can provide everything XDSL can provide -- plus content. Paul Berens paul.berens@ieee.org ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 07:26:58 -0700 From: Derek Balling Subject: Re: DSL vs. Cable Modems >> Any ISP who actually subjected my packets to a transparent proxy like >> that would pretty quickly find themselves minus one customer, IF I >> didn't decide to sue them under the ECPA (Electronic Communications >> Privacy Act). > At which point the court will remind you that you signed (or verbally > agreed to) a contract with them stating that they could, in fact, do > whatever they want with your packets -- if indeed it didn't say that > that packets weren't even yours anyway. > Take a look at some of those service agreements. A number of them are > quite scary, and most people don't have the financial backing to tie > a Fortune 50 company up in court for the decade it would take to > resolve the legality thereof. (Sure makes me glad I run my own dialup > infrastructure and don't have to contract with a third-party ISP to > get remote access like people at some other major US universities do.) Actually, no. The ECPA is designed to prevent just such abuses. IIRC, there are even provisions in the ECPA nullifying such clauses in subscriber agreements, in favor of the law. (e.g., that the privacy rights bestowed by the ECPA are not something you can waive). Besides, who needs to worry about tying a Fortune 50 company up in a court of law. Have you seen the state of affairs in tort law these days? Tobacco, long considered the golden-child of financial stability, just got hit with a judgment that amounts to 5% of their Market-Cap. All you have to do is count the number of users affected by the proxy. Is it greater than 100? (I think 100 is the minimum for a "Class"). Bang, instant class-action lawsuit. That means any of a bajillion lawyers will happily swoop down and work for a percentage, hoping to get the "Next Big Case". They'd settle out of court in a heartbeat before they want to be accused of snooping on everyone's data. Personal data security is the big buzzword these days, and anyone not toeing the line on it finds that the line has moved forward and they've been left behind. D ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 13:07 EDT From: Hugh Pritchard Subject: Re: Answering Machines / Call Screening Organization: MCI WorldCom > We subscribe to Caller ID, but telemarketers are still driving us nuts > with their "out-of-area" calls. I work at an MCI site in northern Virginia, across the Potomac from Washington, DC. Used to be when I called my home in Maryland, the Caller ID would display "MCI" and the main PBX number. Fine. Then MCI took some (or all) of its sites "local," meaning MCI itself was providing dial tone. Now, when I call home the Caller ID box shows "OUT OF AREA". Not fine. My family answers "OUT OF AREA" calls on the chance that it's me. Otherwise, nobody would answer "OUT OF AREA" calls. I heard a rumor at work that, since MCI now controls dial tone, with all that may imply, MCI was generating the character string "OUT OF AREA" for the CID name lookup for my site, which has a few floors of telemarketers. Hugh Pritchard, M.Sc. Mailto: Hugh.Pritchard@WCom.com metro Washington, DC ------------------------------ From: Marcy Dixon Subject: Data vrs. Voice Switch Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 08:43:30 -0500 Organization: SBC Internet Services Can somebody please explain to me the difference between a voice switch and a data switch? What's their functional difference? Can one switch do both? Would a telephone company want to put a data switch in a central office? If so, are RBOCs forced to allow other telcos to collocate these switches? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 01:12:44 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: You've Got Mail. You're Being Watched. THE RIGHT THING You've Got Mail. You're Being Watched. By JEFFREY L. SEGLIN It was tragic," recalled Mary Beth Heying, a principal at Edward Jones & Company, the brokerage firm in St. Louis. In April, an employee had complained to the human resources department after receiving an E-mail containing inappropriate material, meaning off-color jokes, pornography and so on. "We investigated and found that a large number of associates were involved" in distributing such messages, Ms. Heying said. Depending on "the egregiousness of their involvement," she said, the company dismissed 19, warned 41 and allowed 1 to resign. http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/07/biztech/articles/18ethics.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 03:13:22 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Bright Light to Offer Free Spam Protection by James Niccolai, IDG News Service\San Francisco Bureau Bright Light Technologies Inc. plans to introduce a free service for consumers on Monday designed to help them keep junkmail at bay. Called Bright Mail, the service so far has only been available through Internet service providers (ISPs). Bright Light, of San Francisco hopes offering its service free to consumers will encourage them to ask ISPs to implement a commercial version, the company said in a statement. http://www.idg.net/idgns/1999/07/16/BrightLightToOfferFreeSpam.shtml ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #230 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Jul 19 15:52:29 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id PAA23381; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 15:52:29 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 15:52:29 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199907191952.PAA23381@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #231 TELECOM Digest Mon, 19 Jul 99 15:52:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 231 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: www. Prefixes (James Bellaire) Re: www. Prefixes (Dik Winter) Re: BellSouth MemoryCall Fails (John Warne) Re: Bell Atlantic Brings DSL Services to the Big Apple (Roy Smith) Re: Bell Atlantic Brings DSL Services to the Big Apple (David B) Re: Does Anyone on the West Coast Use Caller ID? (Matthew Black) Re: Loud Cordless Phones (Julian Thomas) Re: How to Increase Public Acceptance of Overlays in California (H Stein) Any 10D Dialing of Toll-Free Numbers? (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 about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! 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: bellaire@tk.com (James Bellaire) Subject: Re: www. Prefixes Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 17:16:44 GMT It was Sun, 18 Jul 1999 22:06:22 -0700, and Derek Balling wrote in comp.dcom.telecom: >> You would name a router with the root name? That really seems silly. > It is, but I used it as an example. >> Who outside of your tech staff even needs to know the name of your >> router? A name like sl-gw9-chi-5-2-1544k.sprintlink.net is fine for >> a router, and the ROOT machine is the only one I suggest MUST have >> HTTP. > But you have no idea what that root machine will be. It COULD be a > router, it could be a firewall. Any security expert will tell you not > to run ANY services on your firewall. I still have not seen firewalls and routers take on that root *name*. I don't care what machine the packets hit first in your organization, it is the machine named EXAMPLE.COM (nothing in front) that I'd like to see used for http. >>> Right. Instead of pushing for abolition of www. which will never happen, >>> why not write up an RFC to add a new DNS record "WWW", which would say "if >>> someone wants the web server for , they really want: >>> www.domain.com, or sales.domain.com or whatever. You could even do some >>> slick stuff like: >> Ok -- now we would (theoretically) have an MX style record for every >> domain. Which wouldn't be too bad -- but it would require the redesign >> of every browser in existance. That has little chance of happening. > Actually, the RFC was brought to my attention as already existing, and > its a perfect example for this discussion. RFC2052 defines the "SRV" > resource record in DNS, which allows you to define service->machine > mappings, such as (using the example from RFC2052). "RFC 2052 (Experimental)" - only one step better than "Informational". Have you implemented RFC 1876 as well? There are a lot of 'gee, wouldn't it be nice' Experimental RFCs. They all have their champions but until the masses say 'gee, that WOULD be nice' they rest comfortably in oblivion. > ; HTTP - server is the main server, new-fast-box is the backup > ; (On new-fast-box, the HTTP daemon runs on port 8000) > http.tcp SRV 0 0 80 server.asdf.com. > SRV 10 0 8000 new-fast-box.asdf.com. > ; since we want to support both http://asdf.com/ and > ; http://www.asdf.com/ we need the next two RRs as well Wow. Even the RFC written back in 1996 suggests that the root name should be given to http. > http.tcp.www SRV 0 0 80 server.asdf.com. > SRV 10 0 8000 new-fast-box.asdf.com. ... > Currently, no browsers support this (and the RFC acknowledges that the > currently necessary "A" record mentality will persist for years to > come), but all it requires is some pounding of drums and about ten > lines of coding in browsers to add this functionality. In fact, it is > my intention to suggest it to the Mozilla team so that Netscape 5.0 > might very well support it (who knows). Three years later and it still hasn't been widely accepted. I wonder how many admins have DNS files filled with experimental stuff? It makes sense to keep the files down to the required data. > But all in all, this IS the answer to which you seek, all that needs to > have happen is for (a) implementation at the browser level, and (b) DNS > admins to implement it. B is pointless unless (a) is widely done. >> Just get your router / firewall to route based on port. [...] > Ack! you've obviously never purchased memory from Cisco before. :) > Fill your router's memory with a large BGP table and tell me how much > more room you have left to route a whole bunch of separate port > routings for the web farm (of hundreds of IP's) that you may have > behind the router. It is an option. Similar to RFC 2052, except with local routing one does not need to rely on others to implement a lesser known feature. >> I still remember when my ISP was small enough that all the services >> ran easily off of the same machine and all those FQDN prefixes were >> not needed at all. Now they have pop. mail. smtp. news. www. members. >> ftp. telnet. - a bit confusing and a lot more to remember and type. > C'est la vie. The core of the problem is that people want the "small > intimate internet" they remember. Pandora cracked the lid on that box > a long time ago and it won't be coming back any time soon. The problem is with people with no memories at all. The newbies who just want information or stuff. If they get errors at your site then they will go elsewhere. You may say "good riddence" but your site loses traffic. >> The root machine can support more than one service. So what will the >> 'next' protocol be? We had a couple of years warning on HTTP. > Who knows what the next protocol will be ... the point is that we have > to be FORWARD thinking and not just worried about the laziness of > wanting to save four keystrokes on URL's. Wanting to save two > keystrokes on dates is getting us into a whole lot of trouble here in > a few months. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. Until then we can have the root named machines handle http. I came from a school of programming where the programmer had to anticipate the errors of the user and the program must 1) not crash on bad data and 2) use bad data to the best of its ability. Browsers have embraced this school of thought. Just look at all the garbage one can type in the GO TO line and still get a site! A far cry from Lynx where (last time I checked) one still had to type http:// . >> Mail has intelligent software with MX records. You can email me >> @TK.COM with little thought to my mail server's real name. (And the >> way it is set up, you could email to bellaire@whatever.tk.com and >> still get connected. The magic of domain mail. > Agreed. Which is why I like the neat RFC I mentioned above. It > addresses both issues - forward compatibility (which makes the current > "www." necessary), as well as the "simplicity" approach you and Pat > favor. As soon as browser vendors implement RFC2052, that problem goes > away. Are you waiting for Hell, Michigan to freeze over? That happens every year. Seeing RFC 2052 implemented even on the server side won't happen that soon. Allowing the root name to go to http is a fix that is used successfully NOW and was being used before 1996 when RFC 2052 was published. I would love it if the browser builders would implement HTML properly. They have enough problems without experimental RFCs. >> You can also visit http://BELLAIRE@TK.COM/ and get to my site, because >> I had the foresight to demand that the root of the domain went to the >> server. (http://editor@telecom-digest.org/ also works.) > Actually, I think those would break on Mozilla (because the "user@ > domain" syntax in a URL is technically "broken" from a standards- > compliance perspective), since part of the benefits of Mozilla was > that it was going to enforce standards ... I don't know if that's the > case or not though. It works on Mo. I have yet to be able to use it on the server side. Personally I'd like to have urls like http://jones@tk.com/ and http://smith@tk.com/ instead of the /~jones variety. The user@host syntax does work for FTP on Mozilla. >> But "the easy way" reflects the new breed of (how can I say this >> nicely?) technically incompetent users. > Then that "new breed" must also come to grips with the fact that there > is a learning curve they must adhere to. Before cars first became > popular, only a few people learned to drive, and they learned in > intricate detail how to do it safely (or they tried anyway). When cars > became popular, to use your thinking, all the rules of the road would > have been simplified, to make way for the "lowest common denominator". Tell you what. Your company can have the business from the 10%'rs who understand all this http/html/www/??? stuff and I'll take the lusers who have money to burn. Deal? (Actually my site is non commercial, so I don't make money -- but I'd rather have people find my site useful than go to someone elses.) > Instead, the government realized that they needed to adhere to > standards, and the drivers were required to learn a little about how > to drive safely, and pass a test before they could actually go out on > the road. Think about it this way: The first cars required a deeper knowledge of the vehicle itself to get it to go. All the button pushing and cranking -- plus roadside repairs on many trips. The modern vehicle takes care of all that for you. Put in gas. Turn key. Go. By comparison any idiot and his grandma could drive a modern car (and do by what I've seen on the roads). The first cars could only be driven by those with the knowledge to keep it running. >> The end goal of communication is getting the message across. If that >> means pulling a few technical tricks like root naming the web server >> I don't mind. > But you do that (RFC2052 excepted) at the expense of a root address > which you may find VERY valuable down the road. When I need that address I'll reclaim it. I don't mind the editing. Besides -- if RFC 2052 takes off then I can just point the http traffic away -- and STILL have an easy to remember and type URL. >> Final note: Please note that mail to @whatever.tk.com may fail on >> systems that try to find the MX for each machine instead of routing >> the domain mail to the domain's MS server. > Actually, you ARE aware that the "order of operations" should be (for > the example above): > First Choice: the MX record for whatever.tk.com (if it exists) > Second Choice: the MX record for tk.com (if it exists) > Third Choice: direct delivery to whatever.tk.com > Fourth Choice: bounce mail to sender as undeliverable Then one of my ISPs is broken because it is skipping choice two (and possibly choice one). > But I think we're just about surpassing the "relevant to telecom" > ratio on this thread so maybe we should kill it now ... we know the > solution (RFC2052) and all it takes is for vendors to implement it. :) Ahh, but telecom is so many things! Let us know when the experimental RFC2052 is in all browsers (including Lynx) and on the majority of domains. Until then I'll burn my root machine name any way I want. James Bellaire [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I personally think the way I have my web name set up is ideal for my needs. Most everyone here knows that http://telecom-digest.org is just an alias which is forwarded to the much longer, harder to remember name: http://hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/index.html All my alias does is point there. I like to think of it as the same as one of the old-fashioned 'cable addresses' used years ago so that people could easily remember the address of the place where wished to send a message. Just as I do not like the use of 'www' on the front of the name, I really do not care for 'index.html' on the end of it either, especially since if 'index.html' is present in a directory, the user will be sent there automatically. Another good thing about using an alias like 'telecom-digest.org' is that in the event I was asked to move to some other site -- if LCS/MIT no longer wanted me at the site or needed the resources to use for something else, it would be a simple matter to place the archives directory elsewhere and have the alias point at that instead. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 14:03:40 +0200 From: Dik.Winter@cwi.nl (Dik Winter) Subject: Re: www. Prefixes >> Who outside of your tech staff even needs to know the name of your >> router? A name like sl-gw9-chi-5-2-1544k.sprintlink.net is fine for >> a router, and the ROOT machine is the only one I suggest MUST have >> HTTP. > But you have no idea what that root machine will be. It COULD be a > router, it could be a firewall. And it could be nothing at all. There is for instance *no* machine with the name "cwi.nl", the domain from which I write this. dik ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 08:34:56 -0400 From: John Warne Subject: Re: BellSouth MemoryCall Fails David A. Burton wrote: > I think they are using a Nortel DMS-100. I don't know what an "Octal > VM" is. Is it just another brand and model of switch? An Octal VoiceMail platform ("box") is produced by a third-party company, and can be used with any number of different type Central Office switches. BellSouth seems to like the Octal line of VM units, and, until a few years ago, the DMS-100. Let me give an example: 955-7522 has a voicemail box. 955-7502 does not. 955-7502 does not have a transfer mailbox installed. 955-7502 call forwards to 955-7522. You call 955-7502. You will get the generic "Hello, you have reached the BS MemoryCall service ..." Now, BS places a transfer mailbox on 955-7502. 955-7502 call forwards to 955-7522. When you call 955-7502, you get the greeting for 955-7522. > That guy believed that I must have already had a transfer mailbox for > the six months that it worked correctly, but someone noticed the > mistake and removed it. I asked how I could have had a transfer > mailbox, and he said that the number might have been entered > accidentally, by someone who typed the number while trying to enter > one of my ringmaster numbers. Yeah, right. OK, this *could* be correct. Or, BS *could* have changed the global flag. Or a software update to the Octal or to the switch *could* have changed the flag state. No way to really tell at this point unless somebody 'fesses up. > However, I question whether the guy even knew what he was talking > about when he said that a transfer mailbox would work. I doubt that > it would work. A transfer mailbox is what they use to make MemoryCall > work when a call is made to a RingMaster number and is NOT forwarded > elsewhere. What good would it do to have a transfer mailbox on a > phone number which is forwarded elsewhere? Suppose I had a transfer > mailbox on that line and forwarded it to my friend's phone, who also > has MemoryCall service. Am I to believe that callers would still get > MY memorycall, rather than hers? I strongly suspect that a transfer > mailbox would only work when the calls were NOT forwarded. I've not been through the scenario with BS here for *RingMaster* numbers, so can't comment. And, David Charles made an excellent point in an earlier Digest: > Also specifications are often written assuming that all switches > involved and the signalling systems connecting them comply with the > same specifications, whereas this is frequently not the case. ------------------------------ From: roy@endeavor.med.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic Brings DSL Services to the Big Apple Organization: NYU School of Medicine, Educational Computing Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 08:53:59 -0400 tls@rek.tjls.com wrote: > Typical sleazy Bell behaviour. I certainly wouldn't reward it by > ordering DSL from them when there are many excellent alternatives. There problem is that there are only many excellent alternatives if you live in one of the areas where the alternatives exist. I live in the Bronx, which last time I checked was considered to be within the borders of New York City (well, at least that's what the taxman says). My neighborhood got cable TV only a couple of years ago (I did not subscribe) but everytime I've called and asked about cable modem, they say it's not available and they have no information as to when it might be. I expect the DSL rollout will be like the ISDN rollout was a few years ago; after dragging their feet as long as they could, they will finally make it available in one or two select COs and it will be another year or two before it's available everywhere. We had a meeting with BA about 6 months ago about DSL. The word we got was they expect that less than half the local loops in the city will qualify in terms of wire-feet and quality limits. My line has RF filters on it so I don't get WABC radio on the phone. My guess is it won't pass DSL specs. Roy Smith New York University School of Medicine ------------------------------ From: David B Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic Brings DSL Services to the Big Apple Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 09:25:17 -0400 Organization: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & News Services In my view, Infospeed is the best broadband/high speed option over copper for consumers offered in New York City. David Thor Lancelot Simon wrote in message news:telecom19.228.11@telecom-digest.org: > One they've had for _months_ from other non-monopoly providers. Bell > Atlantic is the last one to arrive at the party on this one. No doubt > they'll use their massive monopoly free marketing powers to establish > some market share nonetheless (see below). > * ISDN service was, of course, an offering of their _regulated_ > entity, but the Infospeed DSL product is sold by their > _unregulated_ internet subsidiary. Cross-marketing like this > is a big no-no in the eyes of most state PSCs but clearly > they figured if it created enough confusion to keep them in > the game for the year or so that others offered DSL but they > didn't, it was worth a slap on the wrist. > Typical sleazy Bell behaviour. I certainly wouldn't reward it by > ordering DSL from them when there are many excellent alternatives. ------------------------------ From: black@csulb.edu (Matthew Black) Subject: Re: Does Anyone on the West Coast Use Caller ID? Date: 19 Jul 1999 14:29:45 GMT In article , ranck@joesbar.cc.vt.edu says: [original message edited for brevity--matt 990719] > A better way to handle it would be to have the hospital's main > information/switchboard number come up no matter what extension > was used for the outbound call. Maybe they can't or don't know > how to set that up. Maybe they have unidirectional T1's connected to their PBX: one set with DID service for inbound calls and another set for outbound calls. That's precisely the way our Ericsson MD110 is connected to GTE Califonia. Maybe you can explain to our telecom department how they might do this. P.S. I'm not the Telecom Manager ... I'm a Network Analyst. -------------------------------(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 ------------------------------ From: jt5555@epix.net (Julian Thomas) Subject: Re: Loud Cordless Phones Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 14:35:59 GMT In , on 07/18/99 at 09:32 PM, richard1942@my-deja.com said: > I am looking for a new > cordless phone that has a very loud ringer on it to use outside the house > when I'm in the pool. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Have you considered a fixed ringer box on the side of the house? Check Mike Sandman's catalog or web site (http:// www.sandman.com ....). 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! If at first you DO succeed, try not to look astonished! [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Definitly pick up a copy of Mike Sandman's catalog. It should be part of every telecom manager's resources. PAT] ------------------------------ From: herb@herbstein.com (Herb Stein) Subject: Re: How to Increase Public Acceptance of Overlays in California Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 18:32:42 GMT Organization: newsread.com ISP News Reading Service (http://www.newsread.com) I find, here in Missouri, that the 636 area code, which is new and still allows permissive dialing, allows 10-digit dialing. 1 is not required. Hopefully SWBT implements this correctly. My folks number (long distance) require a 1 in front. In article , Tom.Horsley@worldnet.att.net (Thomas A. Horsley) wrote: > My proposal for increasing acceptance of ten digit dialing: > Hey phone companies! Make your $#@! machines accept ten digit dialing > for all numbers even if its NOT a long distance call! That way, I > could get used to dialing ten digits before it suddenly became > mandatory, and, even more important, I could get my computer to always > dial ten digits and I wouldn't have to keep reprogramming it every > time you change something. Herb Stein The Herb Stein Group www.herbstein.com herb@herbstein.com 314 215-3584 ------------------------------ From: Bob Goudreau Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 10:04 EDT Subject: Any 10D Dialing of Toll-Free Numbers? Recent discussion of Toronto's upcoming move away from 7-digit dialing got me to pondering the issue of toll-free dialing in a 10D/11D dialing regime (where 10D can be used for local numbers, but toll calls require 1+10D). Since calls to NPAs 800, 888, 877, etc. cost the caller the same amount (zero) as does a local call, should toll-free numbers be dialable as straight 10D (no 1+ required, although it should still certainly be permitted) in such areas? How about it, readers who live in Maryland, Atlanta, Denver, Dallas, etc.: can you dial toll free numbers using just 10D, or does only the 1+10D format work? Bob Goudreau Data General Corporation goudreau@rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive +1 919 248 6231 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #231 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Jul 19 19:39:10 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id TAA03662; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 19:39:10 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 19:39:10 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199907192339.TAA03662@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #232 TELECOM Digest Mon, 19 Jul 99 19:39:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 232 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson telecom-digest.org Site Map (TELECOM Digest Editor) Re: DSL vs. Cable Modems (Thor Lancelot Simon) Re: Bell Atlantic Brings DSL Services to the Big Apple (Thor L. Simon) V-H Coordinates Information Needed (Ronald W. Roberts) Re: Century 21 (Lowell Kim) Re: Century 21 (Bob Goudreau) Re: Century 21 (David Clayton) Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce (J.F. Mezei) Re: www. Prefixes (Barry Margolin) Re: www. Prefixes (Randolph J. Herber) Re: Last Laugh? Some People Don't Think it Was Funny (Fred Atkinson) 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 about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! 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. Re: Last Laugh? Some People Don't Think it Was Funny (Cortland Richmond) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 17:12:57 EDT From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: telecom-digest.org Site Map At the request of several users of the web site, here is a comprehensive list of the various components to the site at the present time. The index of the archives was updated and released not long ago, and is not being included at this time. http://telecom-digest.org The primary entrance or starting point to the web site. http://telecom-digest.org/archives The root directory for the Telecom Archives. Numerous sub-directories branch off from here to the back issues, special reports, technical files, etc. The index to this area was released recently and is not being repeated or included here. http://telecom-digest.org/camelot-on-the-moon.html The 30th anniversary special report on the 1969 Apollo Saturn 11 trip to the moon, by Don Kimberlin. http://telecom-digest.org/chat An IRC-based chat room for telecom topics. This is java-based and uses a hook into irc.ram-page.com #telecom-topics as a convenience for users. If you prefer, an IRC client linked to irc.ram-page.com will reach the same channel. This is a completely non-commercial, not for profit service. You may also listen to CNN Headline News in the background while chatting if you wish to do so. http://telecom-digest.org/latest-issue.html If you would prefer to pick up the latest issue of TELECOM Digest on your own instead of having it delivered in email, go to this location where the last issue released is always available, with a link back to the main site itself if desired. Warning: each new issue of the Digest erases the previous contents of this file. If you only use this once a day, you may well miss a prior issue from earlier in the day, in which case you would need to go into /archives/back.issues/recent.single.issues to get the ones you missed. This 'directory' is actually just an alias link into the deep archives for the purpose of a convenient shortcut for users. http://telecom-digest.org/linkspage.html An extensive collection of telecom-related web sites recommended as further resources for your review. http://telecom-digest.org/moderator Just me, a visual presentation chatting about the Digest and Archives. http://telecom-digest.org/news The Telecom Digest Daily E-News. Up to the minute news reports of telecom-specific events, plus national and international news from a number of net sources. Typically this is a selection of about a hundred feature stories from a couple dozen sites I call 'the best of the net'. This is updated several times daily, and if you wish you can have the Associated Press Audio Internet news feed in the background as you read, or alternatively, CNN Headline News on a continous, live feed. http://telecom-digest.org/postoffice A private email service. Users may have internet email addresses under any name they choose for the purpose of remaining anonymous and avoiding the usual flood of spam which comes to their 'real' or main email address following any public posting. When these addreses of the form 'username@telecom-digest.zzn.com' become polluted with spam, simply toss them out and obtain a new one. http://telecom-digest.org/search Several templates for use in searching not only the telecom-digest.org web site and the thousands of files in /archives, but also for use in searching the entire web, and Usenet newsgroups. http://telecom-digest.org/secret-surfer.html Surf the web anonymously, keeping identifying features about your browser and IP address private. This service 'loops' your traffic through a couple of proxy servers on the way to its final destination. http://telecom-digest.org/sponsorlinks.html Our 'sponsors page' with links to the International Telecommunication Union, Mike Sandman, and Paula Pettis, all of whose generosity makes this activity possible. Also, a short message about the importance of gifts from users -- people known as Friends of TELECOM Digest -- whose participation is also invaluable. http://telecom-digest.org/TELECOM_Digest_Online This is the Usenet comp.dcom.telecom newsgroup for users who prefer to see telecom news in 'single message style' rather than in 'digest format'. Users can sort the several hundred past messages available at any given time by date with the most recent on top, by author name, by subject title, or by thread. comp.dcom.telecom is a *moderated* Usenet newsgroup. http://telecom-digest.org/tribute Tribute to the Telephone, an online 'telephone museum' edited and maintained by David Massey. Hundreds of files and pictures from the early days of telephony. This directory includes its own search engine. http://telecom-digest.org/webchat An open-posting area for users where public notices, for-sale items, personal opinions, questions/answers and short comments may be posted by anyone without review, but subject to removal after-the-fact if necessary. You might call it our 'guestbook' feature, or 'user bulletin board'. http://telecom-digest.org/y2k-countdown.html A year 2000 countdown clock showing the days, hours, minutes and seconds remaining until the year 2000, as applicable from the time zone in which you are calling. =============================== Feel free to visit any of the above services which interest you. A few other directories not listed above are intended for internal use and are not directly accessible but will open as 'new windows' when you are located on the individual directories above. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) Subject: Re: DSL vs. Cable Modems Date: 19 Jul 1999 15:46:05 -0400 Organization: PANIX -- Public Access Networks Corp. Reply-To: tls@rek.tjls.com In article , Isaac Wingfield wrote: > This is true, but not because of "collisions"; it's just that all the > available bandwidth is being used (and used rather efficiently, I > might add -- a lot of work went into developing strategies to do > that). Much of the problem seems to be a combination of "dOOdS" > providing "wAreZ" and people running gaming servers, both prohibited > by contract in many cable modem systems. Many Windows users are > knowingly or unknowingly sharing their hard drives with others in the > cable plant; this too adds congestion, and has caused some operators > to filter the offending ports. No, that's *not*, as far as I know, the problem. Most performance problems with cable modems seem to stem from two causes, probably operating in combination in many real-world systems: 1) The underlying RF carrier systems don't work very well in an urban environment with many active users. The modems were never really tested in such an environment, and "surprise"... of course it's rather difficult to accurately model such an environment to develop better modems, and now that large numbers of (flawed) modems are deployed, it's hard to test in the real world. I may be one of the few people on RCN's Manhattan system, for example, who has expressed my willingness to allow an engineer from the modem manufacturer sit in my apartment with a 'scope for hours, and anyway they can't cut over my whole building just to cooperate with me! :-) 2) The people who did the link-layer protocols didn't understand how TCP/IP worked, and basically managed to totally break it by introducing a pathological condition. It's the classic issue of running TCP over a reliable link-layer with even a moderate bandwidth-delay product: the link layer tries to be "smart" and retransmit packets it knows were lost, which makes TCP's timers not work, leading to synchronization of TCP timers throughout the system and massive retransmission storms. See Karn's work on this topic based on the reverse- engineering of his own cable modem. This is truly idiotic and of course the modem manufacturers will be loathe to admit that they screwed up and fix things... So, between 1) -- which causes loss of packets -- and 2) which causes worst-case behaviour in cases of packet loss or congestion, many urban cable-modem systems are basically useless during peak hours. Whatever the theoretical advantages may be, the implementations are so awful (and standardized to be awful!) that in the real world, DSL is far, far better. Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com "And where do all these highways go, now that we are free?" ------------------------------ From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic Brings DSL Services to the Big Apple Date: 19 Jul 1999 15:51:45 -0400 Organization: PANIX -- Public Access Networks Corp. Reply-To: tls@rek.tjls.com In article , David B wrote, in response to my suggestion that those seeking high-speed Internet access *not* choose Bell Atlantic's DSL offering over one of the other excellent alternatives, due to Bell's sleazy marketing practices: > In my view, Infospeed is the best broadband/high speed option over copper > for consumers offered in New York City. David, I note that your email address is at "banet.net". Do you work for Bell Atlantic, or are you a customer? If the latter, have you actually tried any other carrier's ADSL offering, or are you speaking solely on the basis of your positive experience with Bell's offering? I don't know whether Bell Atlantic's DSL offering is any good or not. I *do* know that several other carriers offer equivalent pricing and service and that some of these have excellent reputations. I also know that those carriers have been active in the NYC market for some time and consequently have a longer track record WRT DSL service than Bell Atlantic does. And lastly, I know that Bell Atlantic used its monopoly power to try to push DSL to its regulated telephone service customers even when it didn't have a DSL product to sell them, presumably in the hope of creating confusion and keeping those customers away from other providers. Those are plenty of reasons to avoid "Infospeed DSL" for me. In article , Roy Smith wrote: > tls@rek.tjls.com wrote: >> Typical sleazy Bell behaviour. I certainly wouldn't reward it by >> ordering DSL from them when there are many excellent alternatives. > There problem is that there are only many excellent alternatives if > you live in one of the areas where the alternatives exist. I live in > the Bronx, which last time I checked was considered to be within the > borders of New York City (well, at least that's what the taxman says). > My neighborhood got cable TV only a couple of years ago (I did not > subscribe) but everytime I've called and asked about cable modem, they > say it's not available and they have no information as to when it > might be. Have you tried other DSL providers? They can typically deliver DSL service to everywhere Bell Atlantic can, and some places where they can't. Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com "And where do all these highways go, now that we are free?" ------------------------------ From: Ronald W. Roberts Subject: V-H Coordinates Information Needed Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 15:16:21 -0400 Organization: Roberts Communications Where can I get information on the V-H coordinates used to calculate distances between two telephone numbers? What I'm looking for is a table of the area codes plus exchanges and the coordinates and how to do the calculation. Thanks in advance for any help or direction you may provide. Ronald W. Roberts Roberts Communication rwr@robcom.com ___ ( ) \\\|/// ____|___| \\ - - // / \ ( @ @ ) C o * D ---o00o-(_)-o00o--o00o---U---o00o---- KEEP SMILING it makes people wonder what you've been up to ------------------------------ From: lowellkim@aol.com (Lowell Kim) Date: 19 Jul 1999 13:59:34 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Century 21 Regardless of arguments about glitches and irregularities in the way the current calendar progressed, the fact is that the current calendar is what we are going by, and the fact is that the first year of a century begins with 1 and ends with 100. The new millenium begins in 2001. Why do you think the book and movie were called "2001: A Space Odyssey"? ------------------------------ From: Bob Goudreau Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 10:18 EDT Subject: Re: Century 21 Our esteemed editor wrote: > My belief is that since we are not considered one year old on the day > that we are born and that twelve months has to pass before we are > entitled to claim '1', that the Christian Era -- since that is how > we choose to number things now -- began at the time of the birth > of the historic Jesus, twelve months prior to '1'; a year prior to > the year known as '1'. I don't think that's correct. The first year of the Christian era is A.D. 1 -- the "A.D." means "Anno Domini", which is Latin for "in the year of our Lord". i.e., the year 1 supposedly was the first year of Jesus Christ's life. As you have pointed out, we know that Dennis the monk make some errors of calculation, and in any case, there is still no universal agreement about in which year the actual birth occurred; 4 BC is only one of the popular candidate years. (There's even less knowledge about what time of year it was; the current Christmas holiday began as an attempt to Christianize the existing pagan winter solstice festival.) But the idea of the BC/AD calendrical system is that there is *some* arbitrarily-defined epoch point, before which the years are denoted as "BC" and after which the years get "AD" monikers. It's no longer all that important whether that epoch point exactly corresponds to the time of someone's birth. > It was a year we would now perhaps call zero > although it was known by some other name at that time. None the less, > that period of time existed, and rightfully is part of our current > frame of reference. Therefore, two thousand years have passed as of > this coming December 31. Well, no, because the era since the arbitrary epoch point began when 31 December 1 BC ticked over into 1 January AD 1, meaning that 1 January AD 2000 will mark only the 1999th anniversary of that event. > one could say we are three years into the new millenium > already. There was no 'zero' only because they had no real under- > standing of what 'zero' meant. But even if they did, they probably wouldn't have decreed a "year 0" anyway. That's because the numbers used for years are *ordinal* numbers: AD 1 is the *first* year after the epoch point; 1 BC is the *first* year before that point. Ordinal numbers begin at "first", which is why a gold-medalist or a pennant winner gets first place, not zeroth place. And it's the same reason why the year begins on the first day of the first month, instead of on the zeroth day of the zeroth month. So, those folks who feel strongly that there was such as thing as the "year 0" should explain to us why they want to celebrate the new millennium on 1/1/2000 instead of on 0/0/2000. :-) The rest of us will wait for 1/1/2001. Bob Goudreau Data General Corporation goudreau@rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive +1 919 248 6231 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: > AD 1 is the *first* year after the epoch point ... The first FULLY COMPLETED year. What do you plan to do about the 365 days prior to the completion of the first year? Are you suggesting that 1/365th part of 1 is equal to 1? If you believe as you apparently do that he was born on the date 1/1/1 then you are correct that we have to reach 12/31/2001 for two thousand years. If you believe as I do that he was born on 1/1/(for-lack-of-a-better-name)'zero' then you celebrate the millenium in five months. We say his date of birth occurred 1999 years ago, and as of 1/1/2000 we will say his birth occurred two thousand years ago. Doesn't this all come down to whether or not you can rightfully claim to be one year old on the day you were born? PAT] ------------------------------ From: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au (David Clayton) Subject: Re: Century 21 Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 09:56:01 GMT Organization: Customer of Connect.com.au Pty. Ltd. Reply-To: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au Derek Balling contributed the following: >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I was thinking along those lines, but >> not sure where to start it or quite how to implement it. As of yet, >> I've not received any responses from anyone willing to do it. I do >> believe TELECOM Digest has a challenge however, as we enter Century 21 >> in just a little over five months. > ARRRRRGGGGHHHH!! > We enter the 21st Century in a little over SEVENTEEN months. > There WAS no year zero, so century 1 was 1..100, 2 was 101..200, etc, > up to 20 which is 1901..2000. 21st will begin on 1/1/2001. > You're not alone in this, Pat, by any stretch of the imagination, and > I'm sure you recognize this fact full-well, but let's try NOT to be > intellectual lemmings and follow the unwashed masses in their > collective delusion about when the 21st century starts. ;-) ..... > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am not unwashed. I took a bath just > last week. I have heard all the arguments which say 'there was no > year zero so we need to pick up the zeroeth year on the back end in > order to complete the century' many times. That would be all well > and good except you puritans are forgetting a few things about the > history of calendars and time-keeping itself. ..... I'm so glad that we can correct the "mistake" all of those people made in 1901 when they celebrated the start of the 20th Century, (we must know better, don't we?). The only problem is that if 1999 is the last year of this century, then we all have been short changed as it will only have run 99 years! Ripped off by corporate greed again, after all what are the reasons we can't wait one more year to celebrate this "event" anyway? http://aa.usno.navy.mil/AA/faq/docs/millennium.html 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. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: People are entitled to celebrate anything they please on any day they please. There were many people who celebrated on 1/1/1901 but there were an equal or larger number who celebrated on 1/1/1900 as well. Some probably used both dates as an excuse for drunken, rowdy and profane excesses in their behavior as I am sure will happen this time as well. See my answer to Bob G. above. If you claim credit for a year at the time of his birth now you get to 'pay back' that year and wait seventeen months. If you instead say he was born 1/1/sometime and as of a year later we were at 1 (complete year) AD then you go with the end of this year. PAT] ------------------------------ From: J.F. Mezei Subject: Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 16:10:37 -0400 > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: > Of course some merchants have a horrible track-record for fraud as > well. Amoco had this one dealer in Chicago on Congress Parkway on > the south edge of downtown, where it turns into the expressway. Petrol stations have "special" status with credit card companies. The big firms, as a whole, provide a very acceptable level of fraud (percentage of total sales), even though the fraud amounts are high, but the legit sales are so high that the bank/credit card company cannot afford to lose this customer (the gas company). In Canada, one of the bigger problems banks had with petrol stations was the inablity to pinpoint the source of fraud as all tickets were processed centrally by the company and sent as "one account" to the bank (one merchant number). It took some time, but that was eventually resolved. And the bank will work with the petrol company to find the crooks that operate the petrol stations here and there. Interestingly, with e-commerce, this is not a problem as you have a central location for a merchant for global operations. Where the problem may begin to show is if the merchant is in a country with very lax rules and nothing is enforced. It may take enough time for a merchant to be cancelled to make it worth it to try to defraud customers on the internet. But it is nothing new. Telemarketing fraud has existed for a long time. They target elderly people who don't really have a clue as to what is happening. Well e-commerce con artists target the adults who are new to this and have no clue how the internet works. Same story. ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: www. Prefixes Organization: GTE Internetworking, Cambridge, MA Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 20:43:05 GMT In article , James Bellaire wrote: > It was Sun, 18 Jul 1999 22:06:22 -0700, and Derek Balling > wrote in comp.dcom.telecom: >> Actually, the RFC was brought to my attention as already existing, and >> its a perfect example for this discussion. RFC2052 defines the "SRV" >> resource record in DNS, which allows you to define service->machine >> mappings, such as (using the example from RFC2052). > "RFC 2052 (Experimental)" - only one step better than "Informational". > Have you implemented RFC 1876 as well? There are a lot of 'gee, > wouldn't it be nice' Experimental RFCs. They all have their champions > but until the masses say 'gee, that WOULD be nice' they rest > comfortably in oblivion. The masses will soon be using this, because Windows 2000 makes use of it. 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. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 21:05:50 +0000 (GMT) From: herber@dcdrjh.fnal.gov (Randolph J. Herber) Subject: Re: www. Prefixes Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory In article , Derek J. Balling wrote: >> That is obvious. But it is also obvious that the primary means of >> connecting over the Internet has moved to HTTP. I believe that the >> main machine in a domain (any one using the "root" domain as a name) >> should support http -- if only by forwarding it to the proper server. > So even though a particular machine may be something as completely > specialized as a Cisco router, you would burden it with the overhead of > maintaining a miniature web server, just because you're too lazy to think > about the FQDN of the machine you want to connect to? [snip] If the device is going to be in the ``network'' anyway, the overhead of a web server is about 50K bytes. I have seen several commercial web servers for embedded applications, such as printers, routers, furnaces, etc., advertised for in the electronic products and design magazines. They were priced in volume in approximately to sub 1 US$ range. > Why do you insist that the web is the primary form? Actually, I think > the figures still dictate that e-mail is the most popular use of the > net, and I strongly suspect that if accurate figures were dictated > that "on-line gaming" as a whole probably generates lots more > bandwidth than web surfing (but I can't back that up, just a hunch). [snip] The volume of data transfer via web servers has far surmounted the sendmail et al. volume even considering the spammers' volume. This has been so for at least a year. Randolph J. Herber, herber@dcdrjh.fnal.gov, +1 630 840 2966, CD/CDFTF PK-149F, Mail Stop 318, Fermilab, Kirk & Pine Rds., PO Box 500, Batavia, IL 60510-0500, USA. (Speaking for myself and not for US, US DOE, FNAL nor URA.) (Product, trade, or service marks herein belong to their respective owners.) ------------------------------ From: Fred Atkinson Subject: Re: Last Laugh? Some People Don't Think it Was Funny Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 10:05:06 -0400 > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Maybe so, but in that case, who did > put the virus on the CD Rom? Years ago, a vendor (whose name I won't mention here) sent us (when I was at a former employer) some software for us to use to control the network we were operating. They were a *very* reputable company with whom we had been doing business with for years. When we first attempted to install it, our LAN's virus protection sounded off and squawked that there was a virus on the diskette. Fortunately, I had purchased a copy of McAfee for my office computer. They gave the diskette to me and I promptly disinfected it. It worked fine from that moment on. We notified that company and they were absolutely horrified to discover that this had happened on a software package that they had sent us. Viruses get from machine to machine in different ways. They do it through macros in software, diskettes, and other media. I'm inclined to believe that if those hackers had really wanted to be harmful, they'd have written a new virus for which none of the anti-virus vendors have yet got any protection, rather than a new one. It was probably laying dormant on one of the machines that produced the CD-ROM and was added without anyone's prior knowledge. I have been aware of a number of incidents in which someone sent a file over email that infected the PCs of those who were the recipients of the message. Never did it seem to be intentionally done. Pat, I'd suggest that until evidence to the contrary is produced that you give them the benefit of the doubt. Fred ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 11:51:37 -0700 From: Cortland Richmond Organization: TELECOM Digest Subject: Re: Last Laugh? Some People Don't Think it Was Funny > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Maybe so, but in that case, who did > put the virus on the CD Rom? I think it had to be an inside job ... I have seen a hard drive master get infected when a vendor CD was used on the system connected to create it. If checks are not in place to find a virus at that stage -- why scan it, we know where it all came from, right? (WRONG) -- a virus could easily be distributed with the in2stalled software on brand new computers. Easily. Cortland ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #232 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Jul 20 04:22:22 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id EAA21974; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 04:22:22 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 04:22:22 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199907200822.EAA21974@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #233 TELECOM Digest Tue, 20 Jul 99 04:22:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 233 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Book Review: "Residential Broadband", Kim Maxwell (Rob Slade) "Bright Light" POP Spam Filtering: A Bad Idea (Lauren Weinstein) No PIC Selection Question (Evan L. Hill) Re: DSL and Cable Modems (John McHarry) Re: Any 10D Dialing of Toll-Free Numbers? (Reed) Re: Any 10D Dialing of Toll-Free Numbers? (John Viergutz) Re: Split For 760 Area Code in California (Jason Lindquist) Re: Bell Atlantic Brings DSL Services to the Big Apple (Tony Pelliccio) Re: BellSouth MemoryCall Fails (Tony Pelliccio) Re: Canada Phone Lines Nearly Fixed After Fire (Tony Pelliccio) Re: Telecom Term Paper (Tony Pelliccio) Re: Interface Standard Set(s) to Wireless Telephone (Ron Young) Northern Telecom Cards For Sale (Bernie) Monophone (AE Model 40) Wiring Diagram Needed (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 about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! 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 Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 14:53:17 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "Residential Broadband", Kim Maxwell Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKRSDBBN.RVW 990507 "Residential Broadband", Kim Maxwell, 1999, 0-471-25165-8, U$39.99/C$62.50 %A Kim Maxwell %C 5353 Dundas Street West, 4th Floor, Etobicoke, ON M9B 6H8 %D 1999 %G 0-471-25165-8 %I John Wiley & Sons, Inc. %O U$39.99/C$62.50 416-236-4433 fax: 416-236-4448 rlangloi@wiley.com %P 390 p. %T "Residential Broadband: An Insider's Guide to the Battle for the Last Mile" Having gone through the process myself, I can fully sympathize with Maxwell's agonizing over the publisher's choice of a title. And this is no idle complaint: Maxwell uses it to fulfill the general purpose of the preface, that is, specifying the topic to be addressed and the audience for whom it is intended. The book covers high speed communication to the masses, and deals not merely with technical minutiae, but also with applications and use. Maxwell also promises to look beyond current technologies to the extreme long range of prognostication. Thus, while the book is technical in part, it is aimed at the broader market of those who want to know what to expect, and to choose which avenue to pursue. Section one reviews the factors that will drive the demand for broadband access. Chapter one uses the dread phrase "Information Superhighway," but takes a realistic look at the facts behind the fantasy. The discussion of bandwidth, in chapter two, does not make comparisons easy but it does give good figures for a wide variety of media types. Section two looks at networks. Chapter three gives us a fascinating history (going back to the Greeks) and the useful basic concepts of networking. Competing protocols are examined and explained simply but accurately in chapter four, primarily concentrating on ATM (Asynchronous Transfer Mode) and IP (Internet Protocol). A number of Internet myths that catch even those who consider themselves technically with it are dispelled in chapter five. Oddly, though, for all that he chides the traditional network providers for technical timidity, Maxwell does not seem to realize the potential that increased processing power holds for "amateur" networks, such as variations on packet radio and Usenet. Section three talks about access, both within the home (or premises) and to it. Chapter six describes the characteristics of the existing networks that are available to most homes. Ten gigabits per second should be enough for anyone, says chapter seven. (I simply don't believe this. I can see, now, the fad for full frame, picture window sized, 1200 dots per inch, full motion video windows looking out on Tahitian beaches or Swiss ski resorts, requiring a hundred gigabits per second. Stupid, perhaps, but pet rocks got sold ...) The various contending technologies capable of delivering broadband levels of access to residences are reviewed in chapter eight. Chapter nine is a really wonderful explanation of modem technologies: technical, yes, but clear enough for anyone of reasonable intelligence. Similarly, a terrific description of ADSL (Asynchronous Digital Subscriber Line), including the physical properties of phone lines, is given in chapter ten, while cable modems are covered in eleven. Section four looks at the market, by application. Chapter twelve situates us in the current market. Applications for professionals and home based business are listed in chapter thirteen. Entertainment is discussed in chapter fourteen, but, again, the analysis is a bit timid, disregarding animated MUDs (Multiple User Domains) and other graphical collaborations. Chapter fifteen deals with consumer applications, including, somewhat oddly, education. The complex interaction of supply of bandwidth and applications and demand for those applications is examined in chapter sixteen. The book ends in chapter seventeen with projected figures for growth in various areas. Maxwell also provides a lot of humour on the way through. In one example, the tired phrase about having enough time to make a cup of coffee is expanded to a truly ludicrous extent, but one that the makes the point very effectively. (And is pretty much bang on for timing.) I have not yet found any other book that is as clear and realistic in giving the average non-specialist reader an understanding of the issues of providing and using high-speed networks. This work is solidly based, reliable, readable, and even entertaining. Internet clubs, community networks, interested hobbyists, and telecommunications managers should all consider it required reading. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1999 BKRSDBBN.RVW 990507 ====================== (quote inserted randomly by Pegasus Mailer) rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@sprint.ca slade@victoria.tc.ca p1@canada.com Book columns: http://victoria.tc.ca/techrev/mnbkc.htm http://victoria.tc.ca/techrev or http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~rslade ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jul 99 20:34 PDT From: lauren@vortex.com (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: "Bright Light" POP Spam Filtering: A Bad Idea Greetings. Bright Light Technologies (http://www.brightlight.com), which sports an impressive list of technology partners and investors, has introduced a "free" service to end users (previously they have apparently mainly worked with ISPs) that attempts to filter out most unsolicited e-mail (SPAM) before it reaches the user. They do this by trying to detect spam flowing around the net and then applying filtering rules. Rejected messages are pushed aside and can be viewed later if the user wishes, and lists of rejected messages are made available. I'm a long time spam-fighter myself -- I maintain a public spam blocking list at http://www.vortex.com. I'm more than willing to declare the concept of trying to filter out spam (so long as there aren't too many false positives) to be a good one. Unfortunately, the method chosen by Bright Light for end users' use is a potentially major invasion of privacy -- ironic in light of Bright Light's written statements that they want to "avoid the appearance of violating email privacy" (exact quote). The problem doesn't take a masters degree in Internet engineering to understand. To use their service, you have to route ALL of your inbound e-mail through Bright Light servers. Your POP account accesses Bright Light, then they login to your ISP to pick up your mail. It passes through Bright Light, and then to you. From both a Privacy and Risks standpoint, it's hard to imagine a system more primed for potential trouble. Bright Light's talk of highly scalable systems notwithstanding, ANY centralization of e-mail handling systems in this manner, funneling in e-mail from numerous ISPs, represents an immense target for all manner of mischief--even more attractive to problems than the largest individual ISPs. Systems failures and overloading can still happen. Hackers can target the facilities. And of course, the concentration of e-mail traffic could make Bright Light the recipient of choice for legal actions, by those seeking to track or access e-mail messages for any number of purposes (an increasingly popular legal maneuver, as you probably know). The requirement to provide such information could occur regardless of how little (or how much) of users' e-mail is "normally" stored on disk at the service (as opposed to passing through) in the course of routine operations. If the spam filtering rules were only sent directly to the users' "real" ISPs and the spam blocking applied at that level, the red flags wouldn't be flying up this way. The fundamental problem is having the full text of users' total incoming e-mail passing through a centralized third party e-mail service outside of the users' direct control or affiliation. This isn't rocket science -- it should be obvious that this sort of centralization of actual e-mail traffic flow is exactly the *wrong* direction to be moving in. I'd recommend thinking long and hard before participating, as an end user, in any third party service that asks you to route all of your incoming e-mail through them. Even with the best of intentions (and I assume these on the part of Bright Light), and even with a "free" service, the price is much too high. My RealAudio "Vortex Daily Reality Report & Unreality Trivia Quiz" for today (see below for URL to the archive of segments) is devoted to this topic. Take care, all. --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: Evan L. Hill Subject: No PIC Selection Question Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 20:36:50 -0500 Organization: Frontier GlobalCenter Inc. What restrictions are placed on a line where no Long Distance Carrier has been selected? Are 1+800 and 1+888 calls allowed? My long distance carrier now charges $3.00 per month. I normally do not make over $15.00 worth of calls per YEAR. I'm tired of hearing about everyone's 'calling plan' to save money. How about the 'Zero Calls-Zero Dollars' calling plan? I was thinking of either changing carriers, or dropping it altogether and using pre-paid calling cards (if this is even possible). Call me tight, but I think that $3.00 a month is a little steep for a mere entry in a database. Credit card companies and other junk mailers seem to have no problem keeping my name in their database, so why should long distance companies? ------------------------------ From: mcharry@erols.com (John McHarry) Subject: Re: DSL and Cable Modems Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 23:18:41 GMT On Mon, 19 Jul 1999 06:55:20 -0600, Msgt Paul Berens wrote: > The technical discussions of which technology, XDSL or Cable Modems, > will carry the most bits is interesting, but follow the money. The > consumer wants one bill ( and the concomitant savings this should > produce due to lowered overhead) for his telephone, his ISP, and his > television/movies. XDSL isn't going to carry "content" such as > television, right? As long as that's true, seems to me we should bet > on the cable providers. They can provide everything XDSL can provide > -- plus content. I think this "one bill" thing is overrated. What I want, and what companies look for, is the lowest total cost. About the only problem with unbundled bills is the cost of having to pay each one. With the advances in electronic invoicing and payment, this is fast disappearing. If somebody can offer a lower total cost in a bundle, count me in, but I won't pay extra for the bundle. On the other hand, there is a market for inflated bundles for those who don't understand the components. Perhaps this is the segment the "one bill" advocates are after. ------------------------------ From: Reed Subject: Re: Any 10D Dialing of Toll-Free Numbers? Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 17:35:47 -0600 Organization: None whatsoever In Denver, I just tried an 800 number without 1, got "sorry, you must first dial a 1, etc" message ... It would appear that 1+ is getting to mean long-distance vs local, not necessarily toll vs non-toll. Two different issues ... Remember, some areas have *local toll* calling. reed Bob Goudreau wrote: > How about it, readers who live in Maryland, Atlanta, Denver, Dallas, > etc.: can you dial toll free numbers using just 10D, or does only > the 1+10D format work? ------------------------------ From: John Viergutz Subject: Re: Any 10D Dialing of Toll-Free Numbers? Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 17:36:50 -0400 I'm in MD (301), and when I dial the 8XX numbers without the 1 Prefix, I get the LEC (Bell Atlantic) recording "You must first dial a zero or one to complete your call" John Viergutz Director, ISP CLEC Services Competitive Communications Group Riverdale, MD 20737 301.209.0268 (ofc) 301.699.5300 (main) 301.699.5080 (FAX) john@c-c-g.com http://www.c-c-g.com Y O U R T U R N-K E Y C L E C O N E-S T O P S O U R C E ------------------------------ From: linky@see.figure1.net (Jason Lindquist) Subject: Re: Split For 760 Area Code in California Date: 19 Jul 1999 21:28:33 GMT Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Reply-To: linky@see.figure1.net (Jason Lindquist) John_David_Galt@acm.org (John David Galt) writes (pseudonymously?): > I say, split off the San Diego suburbs where all the growth is > occurring, and let them be the ones to change for once. Outlying San Diego County *did* change, when 619 split two and a half years ago. Jason Lindquist <*> "Mostly though, I think it gave us hope, linky@see.figure1.net That there can always be a new beginning. KB9LCL Even for people like us." -- Gen. Susan Ivanova, B5, "Sleeping In Light" ------------------------------ From: nospam.tonypo1@nospam.home.com (Tony Pelliccio) Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic Brings DSL Services to the Big Apple Organization: Providence Network Partners Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 23:43:40 GMT In article , tls@panix.com says: > One they've had for _months_ from other non-monopoly providers. Bell > Atlantic is the last one to arrive at the party on this one. No doubt > they'll use their massive monopoly free marketing powers to establish > some market share nonetheless (see below). No doubt -- here in Rhode Island DSL has been available for at least a year. How do I know? The Ocean State Free-Net is using a DSL line to a remote test site. The actual cost of this line is something like $400 a month for 384K service - not a bargain when you consider I'm getting a 416K DSL line for $259 a month and they'll throw in the router. I nearly fell over when I got a promotional mailing from Bell Atlantic touting their ATM services. For only $284 a month I can get a 56KB line -- whooopie! Is there any other reason that soon, all my links to Bell Atlantic for my Providence office will be gone? We recently disconnected three off premises extensions to our PBX when the cost for these little beasts went from $20 a month to $90 a month. If Bell continues on this path they're bound for disaster. Of course Brooks has good pricing for local service -- where WorldCom/UUNET is outrageous because they're tier one provider. I told the rep I didn't care if they provided to God, their prices were way out of line. == Tony Pelliccio, KD1S formerly KD1NR == Trustee WE1RD ------------------------------ From: nospam.tonypo1@nospam.home.com (Tony Pelliccio) Subject: Re: BellSouth MemoryCall Fails Organization: Providence Network Partners Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 23:45:11 GMT In article , dave48@burtonsys. com.nospam says: > John Warne wrote: >> The following is based on the assumption BellSouth is using an Octal VM >> platform in your area, and relates information I gleaned from multiple >> discussions with BellSouth: > I think they are using a Nortel DMS-100. I don't know what an "Octal > VM" is. Is it just another brand and model of switch? It's Octel. And it's a decent voicemail system -- just prone to crashes now and then. == Tony Pelliccio, KD1S formerly KD1NR == Trustee WE1RD ------------------------------ From: nospam.tonypo1@nospam.home.com (Tony Pelliccio) Subject: Re: Canada Phone Lines Nearly Fixed After Fire Organization: Providence Network Partners Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 23:46:52 GMT In article , monty@roscom.com says: > TORONTO (Reuters) - Communications across Canada were almost back to > normal late Friday afternoon after an early morning explosion and > three-alarm fire at a Bell Canada phone service center in Toronto caused > widespread disruption. > The outage affected a large number of services, including telephone > lines, cell phones, bank machines and Internet lines for most of the > day. > http://news.lycos.com/stories/Technology/19990718RTTECH-CANADA-OUTAGE.asp I wonder how much Bell Canada had to pay to have a new DMS switch trucked in, and then wired in. Not to mention all the other facilities they have to replace in order to get all the services running. == Tony Pelliccio, KD1S formerly KD1NR == Trustee WE1RD ------------------------------ From: nospam.tonypo1@nospam.home.com (Tony Pelliccio) Subject: Re: Telecom Term Paper Organization: Providence Network Partners Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 23:51:04 GMT In article , bwdavey@yahoo.com says: > My name is Brad, and I am a grad student at SMU in telecomm- > unications. I am working on a term paper now, and I need some help. > My topic is the leasing of Local Exchange Carriers lines -- how it > works, will competition work, etc. Are there any books or articles > you can think of to help me? As an example, check out http://www.ripuc.org They've got the interconnection agreements that Bell Atlantic has signed with other carriers. == Tony Pelliccio, KD1S formerly KD1NR == Trustee WE1RD ------------------------------ From: Ron Young Subject: Re: Interface Standard Set(s) to Wireless Telephone Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 16:59:35 -0700 Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. If you mean you want to use standard telephone sets to send and recieve calls over a cellular network, then see the PhoneCell devices from Telular. http://www.telular.com/prod/prod003.htm -ron- D. Snow wrote: > Does anyone make an interface which will integrate a wireless > telephone with one or more standard telephone sets? > The unit would need to provide current, dialtone and ring to the sets > and control the wireless phone for number entry, send and end > functions. ------------------------------ From: Bernie Reply-To: bwalery@uswest.net Subject: Northern Telecom Cards For Sale Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 22:56:50 -0500 Organization: U S WEST Interprise I have some NOrthern Telecom cards for sale. Some from Meridian and some Option 11. Not really familiar with the stuff but I need to sell it to make some room. For example I have: (5) NTBK45AC System Core Pack Cards (2) NTND09CA 12 MB Memory Cards (2) NTND09BA 6 MB Memory Cards (1) NTAK12BB Expansion Cabinet Option 11 (2) NT6D39AA CPU Network Shelf Please let me know if interested and I will send you a list and you can feel free to make me an offer. Thanks, Bernie bwalery@uswest.net ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 23:56:33 -0700 Subject: Monophone (AE Model 40) Wiring Diagram Needed From: Keelan Lightfoot I am looking for the wiring diagram to the Atuomatic Electric Model 80 telephone (Monophone). I have 50% of the wiring diagram (half of the sticker is stuck to bottom of telephone.) I found this telephone with a few of it's wires disconnected, and have no idea where they go. It would appear that everything is in working condition, so this will make a nice addition to my collection. Any help appreciated, Keelan Lightfoot ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #233 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Jul 20 05:10:05 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id FAA23596; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 05:10:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 05:10:05 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199907200910.FAA23596@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #234 TELECOM Digest Tue, 20 Jul 99 05:10:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 234 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: www. Prefixes (Derek J. Balling) Re: Century 21 (Don Seeley) Re: Bell Atlantic Brings DSL Services to the Big Apple (Roy Smith) Re: Snooping OK on Pager Numbers? (Adam H. Kerman) Re: BellSouth MemoryCall Fails (David A. Burton) Re: DSL and Cable Modems (Steven J. Sobol) Re: Your Weird "Wrong Number" Problem (Bill Levant) Re: V-H Coordinates Information Needed (Jerry Harder) 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 about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! 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, 19 Jul 1999 18:09:26 -0700 From: Derek J. Balling Subject: Re: www. prefixes >> ; HTTP - server is the main server, new-fast-box is the backup >> ; (On new-fast-box, the HTTP daemon runs on port 8000) >> http.tcp SRV 0 0 80 server.asdf.com. >> SRV 10 0 8000 new-fast-box.asdf.com. >> ; since we want to support both http://asdf.com/ and >> ; http://www.asdf.com/ we need the next two RRs as well > Wow. Even the RFC written back in 1996 suggests that the root name > should be given to http. Where are you seeing that? No, it is saying that if someone is using an RFC2052-compliant browser, they can do a lookup for service "TCP/http" for the root domain and they will be told "go to server.asdf.com on port 80 for your page". In the example given, the root domain can (and is in the example) unassigned to a specific IP address. In the example given, if they were NOT using an RFC2052 compliant browser access the root-domain would fail unless a "backup" A record existed for the root domain. Keep in mind here, lest we argue at cross-purposes. *grin* I am not against someone, if they want to, burning their root domain on a web server. I am merely indicating that this decision may not be the best forward-thinking decision, ESPECIALLY when alternatives exist which allow the user to get the same experience, and for it to be achieved in a graceful manner. > Three years later and it still hasn't been widely accepted. I wonder > how many admins have DNS files filled with experimental stuff? It > makes sense to keep the files down to the required data. Why? I mean, seriously, are you so strapped for space on your external DNS server that you can't spare the extra hundred or so bytes to implement it? Does sending that update to your secondary NS REALLY cost you so much that it will break you? >> But all in all, this IS the answer to which you seek, all that needs to >> have happen is for (a) implementation at the browser level, and (b) DNS >> admins to implement it. > B is pointless unless (a) is widely done. Double-edged sword. It doesn't matter how many browsers implement it if nobody's DNS is configured. The two are mutually and equally important for it to work. >> Ack! you've obviously never purchased memory from Cisco before. :) >> Fill your router's memory with a large BGP table and tell me how much >> more room you have left to route a whole bunch of separate port >> routings for the web farm (of hundreds of IP's) that you may have >> behind the router. > It is an option. Similar to RFC 2052, except with local routing one > does not need to rely on others to implement a lesser known feature. It is an option "on paper". In the real world where routers have finite resources, it is not a viable option. >> C'est la vie. The core of the problem is that people want the "small >> intimate internet" they remember. Pandora cracked the lid on that box >> a long time ago and it won't be coming back any time soon. > The problem is with people with no memories at all. The newbies who > just want information or stuff. If they get errors at your site then > they will go elsewhere. You may say "good riddence" but your site > loses traffic. First, it depends a great deal on the site. PERSONALLY, I could give a pair of fetid dingo's kidneys if someone visits my site. If they're too inane to see the "www." at the beginning of the URL, what do I care if they don't get to see pictures of me and a copy of my resume? :) Now, if you're a "mission critical site", sure you suck it up and deal and you CNAME your root domain to your web server, or add an A record, or however you want to handle it. BUT -- and this is the point I've been making all along -- that's not the best "forward thinking" method to do things. RFC2052-like solutions ARE forward-thinking solutions. They allow for this generation (albeit probably too late to stem the tide) but also for future generations of communication. > Until then we can have the root named machines handle http. > I came from a school of programming where the programmer had to > anticipate the errors of the user and the program must 1) not crash on > bad data and 2) use bad data to the best of its ability. Browsers > have embraced this school of thought. Just look at all the garbage > one can type in the GO TO line and still get a site! A far cry from > Lynx where (last time I checked) one still had to type http:// . Funny, my CS professors ingrained into ME the concept of GIGO, Garbage In Garbage Out ... if you got bad data, you'd end up giving out bad data. In fact, I can't think of a CompSci professor who DIDN'T mention it at some point in time. >> Agreed. Which is why I like the neat RFC I mentioned above. It >> addresses both issues - forward compatibility (which makes the current >> "www." necessary), as well as the "simplicity" approach you and Pat >> favor. As soon as browser vendors implement RFC2052, that problem goes >> away. > Are you waiting for Hell, Michigan to freeze over? That happens every > year. Seeing RFC 2052 implemented even on the server side won't > happen that soon. Allowing the root name to go to http is a fix that > is used successfully NOW and was being used before 1996 when RFC 2052 > was published. > I would love it if the browser builders would implement HTML properly. > They have enough problems without experimental RFCs. *sigh* That ain't no lie. Thankfully Mozilla is doing a much better job with HTML than anything so far. Maybe it'll convince MS to join the club. (Hope, Pray) >> Actually, I think those would break on Mozilla (because the "user@ >> domain" syntax in a URL is technically "broken" from a standards- >> compliance perspective), since part of the benefits of Mozilla was >> that it was going to enforce standards ... I don't know if that's the >> case or not though. > It works on Mo. I have yet to be able to use it on the server side. > Personally I'd like to have urls like http://jones@tk.com/ and > http://smith@tk.com/ instead of the /~jones variety. The user@host > syntax does work for FTP on Mozilla. It works because the browsers have implemented it as authentication instead of pathing. (e.g. you might log into a company intranet using http://user:password@intranet.company.com/ ) But it still violates several ESTABLISHED RFC's ... I sincerely wish that Mozilla would break that hack. >> Then that "new breed" must also come to grips with the fact that there >> is a learning curve they must adhere to. Before cars first became >> popular, only a few people learned to drive, and they learned in >> intricate detail how to do it safely (or they tried anyway). When cars >> became popular, to use your thinking, all the rules of the road would >> have been simplified, to make way for the "lowest common denominator". > Tell you what. Your company can have the business from the 10%'rs who > understand all this http/html/www/??? stuff and I'll take the lusers > who have money to burn. Deal? (Actually my site is non commercial, > so I don't make money -- but I'd rather have people find my site useful > than go to someone elses.) Hehehe ... actually my company PROBABLY refers people to your site ... ;-) But that's not the point really. The 90%'ers only get to the places because the world is catering to them. Instead of bringing them up to a level where they can communicate intelligently, we're "dumbing down the net" and making it into one big AOL-like hell. (IMHO) >> Instead, the government realized that they needed to adhere to >> standards, and the drivers were required to learn a little about how >> to drive safely, and pass a test before they could actually go out on >> the road. > Think about it this way: The first cars required a deeper knowledge > of the vehicle itself to get it to go. All the button pushing and > cranking -- plus roadside repairs on many trips. The modern vehicle > takes care of all that for you. Put in gas. Turn key. Go. > By comparison any idiot and his grandma could drive a modern car (and > do by what I've seen on the roads). The first cars could only be > driven by those with the knowledge to keep it running. So why then, using your logic, do I still have to go in and take a drivers test and get a license? >> But you do that (RFC2052 excepted) at the expense of a root address >> which you may find VERY valuable down the road. > When I need that address I'll reclaim it. I don't mind the editing. > Besides -- if RFC 2052 takes off then I can just point the http traffic > away -- and STILL have an easy to remember and type URL. Important lesson: Once you ACCEPT a URL, you're stuck with it forever. That's the problem. Where I work we actually have a database of old URL's that need to be redirected to new ones. If you accept the URL of the root domain now, you will NEVER be able to get it out of peoples' bookmarks. If you never allowed it to get there in the first place, you're fine. :) >> Actually, you ARE aware that the "order of operations" should be (for >> the example above): >> First Choice: the MX record for whatever.tk.com (if it exists) >> Second Choice: the MX record for tk.com (if it exists) >> Third Choice: direct delivery to whatever.tk.com >> Fourth Choice: bounce mail to sender as undeliverable > Then one of my ISPs is broken because it is skipping choice two (and > possibly choice one). I stand corrected. After I said something I started doubting my own thoughts and went back and reread RFC974. RFC974 doesn't say anything about the MX records being "heirarchical" in nature. I guess I've always just out of force of habit filled my zonefiles with MX records and never had to think about what would happen if they weren't there. :) >> But I think we're just about surpassing the "relevant to telecom" >> ratio on this thread so maybe we should kill it now ... we know the >> solution (RFC2052) and all it takes is for vendors to implement it. :) > Ahh, but telecom is so many things! Let us know when the experimental > RFC2052 is in all browsers (including Lynx) and on the majority of > domains. Until then I'll burn my root machine name any way I want. Nobody's telling you that you can't. :) I'm just saying that UNTIL we have a firm, accepted alternative, we should NOT encourage people to type in URL's minus the "www." > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: ... > Just as I do not like the use of 'www' on the front of the name, I > really do not care for 'index.html' on the end of it either, > especially since if 'index.html' is present in a directory, the user > will be sent there automatically. That actually can be eliminated in one of two ways: 1.) Telling the web server that the DirectoryIndex is index.html 2.) Simply removing the index.html from the URL Many configurations do not use index.html as the "default" page though. A user who subscribes to the "unix way" (unlimited characters in file names) who puts his page on an ISP's IIS server may find that the IIS server is configured to look for INDEX.HTM ... and since his file is named index.html, he has to specify it in the URL to get the page visible. > Another good thing about using an alias like 'telecom-digest.org' is > that in the event I was asked to move to some other site -- if LCS/MIT > no longer wanted me at the site or needed the resources to use for > something else, it would be a simple matter to place the archives > directory elsewhere and have the alias point at that instead. PAT] But as far as this discussion goes, that would work equally well for "www.telecom-digest.org". ------------------------------ From: Don Seeley Subject: Re: Century 21 Date: 20 Jul 1999 03:02:54 GMT Organization: EnterAct L.L.C. Turbo-Elite News Server Bob Goudreau wrote: > --- snip -- snip --- * > Well, no, because the era since the arbitrary epoch point began when > 31 December 1 BC ticked over into 1 January AD 1, meaning that 1 > January AD 2000 will mark only the 1999th anniversary of that event. > --- snip -- snip --- * * Edited out lots of more-of-the-same pointlessness re: the "millenium" WHOO-WHOO! Here comes the cluetrain! Do you celebrate when your odometer reaches 100,001 miles? It's not about when JC was or wasn't born. It's celebrating rolling over the 19xx digits. Just mentally translate "Millenium" into "Y2K", get some much needed rest and have yourself a good time on New Years Eve! Don Seeley Daring Designs Typography - Graphics - Layout http://www.daringdesigns.com/~dschi/ dschi@daringdesigns.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Don, let me save everyone the trouble of answering you. What they are going to tell you is that the odometer on your car starts at zero, therefore you do not have to claim that extra mile at the other end to make it an 'official' hundred thousand miles. Calendars and years on the other hand do not start with zero so we have that 'little problem' at the end of only having 99 of whatever. PAT] ------------------------------ From: roy@endeavor.med.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic Brings DSL Services to the Big Apple Organization: New York University School of Medicine Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 21:38:06 -0400 tls@rek.tjls.com wrote: > Have you tried other DSL providers? They can typically deliver DSL > service to everywhere Bell Atlantic can, and some places where they > can't. If BA owns the local loops, how can other providers get me service? If there's other ones to try, I'd love to hear about them. Nothing would make me happier than dumping BA. ------------------------------ From: Adam H. Kerman Subject: Re: Snooping OK on Pager Numbers? Organization: Chinet - Public Access since 1982 Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 03:41:59 GMT Andrew Emmerson wrote: > ahk@chinet.chinet.com (Adam H. Kerman) wrote: >> The law doesn't protect our natural rights. It tends to take them away >> from many and give privileges to the few. The law didn't create the >> radio spectrum; it's a natural phenomenon that should be available for >> the benefit of all, not for the exclusive use of a few. >Sorry but this is absolute drivel. If you want to be a member of my fan club, get the application from Linc Madison; he's the president. > You have no natural right to intercept other people's private > communications. Are you saying that I have a natural right to peep in > your mailbox, read the newspapers that have been delivered to you and > also open your mail, just because your mailbox does not have a padlock > on it? No, of course not. As in of course I didn't say any of that. > Your so-called privileges awarded to the few have been assigned to > people (corporations) that have invested significant money to provide > a service that other people are happy to pay to use. The trouble is that those corporations didn't pay for the exclusive right to use a portion of the radio spectrum at value. The license is not the value of those rights. > The radio spectrum is indeed a natural phenomenon, just like land. At least you admit to understanding the fundamental principal. Now think real hard and see if you can understand why you don't have the right to open my mail or steal my newspaper. > But that doesn't give me the right to build a garage in your front garden > just because I feel like doing so. Lovely. I never said I don't have the right to exclusive use of a parcel of land, as long as I paid for it and repay society for the value bestowed on the parcel that I didn't create. (Land has value due to location. A location has value due to infrastructure, natural features, and what has generally been built in the area. What I do with my own land doesn't raise the value of the specific parcel but contributes to the value of the general area.) > Land (and radio spectrum) are apportioned according to a set of > rules designed for harmonious living and co-operation. Hardly. More like first come, first served. There was no apportionment based on need, population, value, ability to pay, or any objective criterion. > If you don't want play by those rules, then you are not a member of society > and cannot expect society to protect what you consider _your_ rights. There is a distinction between the rules and what my rights are. Society did not create my rights. ------------------------------ From: David A. Burton Subject: Re: BellSouth MemoryCall Fails Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 02:26:18 -0500 Organization: Burton Systems Software John Warne wrote: > David A. Burton wrote: >> I think they are using a Nortel DMS-100. I don't know what an "Octal >> VM" is. Is it just another brand and model of switch? > An Octal VoiceMail platform ("box") is produced by a third-party > company, and can be used with any number of different type Central > Office switches. BellSouth seems to like the Octal line of VM units, > and, until a few years ago, the DMS-100. Okay, I've found enough info on a bellsouth.com site http://www.interconnection.bellsouth.com/guides/msg_ip/indexf.htm to determine that my BellSouth voicemail service is provided on a BTI voicemail box rather than an Octel (with an "e") voicemail box. There're *lots* of companies with the initials BTI. Does anyone know what BTI stands for? Dave ------------------------------ From: sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net (Steven J. Sobol) Subject: Re: DSL and Cable Modems Date: 20 Jul 1999 01:51:34 GMT Organization: North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.4NET On Mon, 19 Jul 1999 06:55:20 -0600, Paul.Berens@spacecom.af.mil allegedly said: > consumer wants one bill ( and the concomitant savings this should > produce due to lowered overhead) for his telephone, his ISP, and his > television/movies. XDSL isn't going to carry "content" such as > television, right? As long as that's true, seems to me we should bet > on the cable providers. They can provide everything XDSL can provide > -- plus content. I suppose if having one bill is important to you, maybe that's true. But I subscribe to DirecTV through my cable company, and I have a POTS line and an ISDN line through Ameritech. That's three bills -- four if I decide to get the premium movie channels because they're offered separately through US Satellite Broadcasting, and USSB sends its own invoice. That's fine with me. ISDN is offered by the phone company and is, at least for now, the solution with the best bang-for-the-buck where bandwidth is concerned (no cable modems in this part of town yet). I don't mind that it's not even on the same bill as my POTS charges. IOW, I care more about bandwidth than convenient billing options. I suspect I'm not the only person that doesn't mind not having one bill. North Shore Technologies Corporation http://www.NorthShoreTechnologies.net We don't just build websites; we build relationships! 815 Superior Ave. #610, Cleveland, OH 44114-2702 216.619.2NET 888.480.4NET Host of the Forum for Responsible & Ethical E-mail http://www.spamfree.org ------------------------------ From: Wlevant@aol.com (Bill Levant) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 22:31:33 EDT Subject: Re: Your Weird "Wrong Number" Problem In a message dated 99-07-08 17:31:51 EDT, was written: > I'm pretty sure what this is is a trying-to-be-clever FAX machine that > recognizes that it got a human voice on the other end of the line > rather than CNG tones, and plays its canned "I'm sorry . . ." recording > and hangs up. Is there such an animal? If so, this is the best suggestion I've heard yet. And, sorry for my tardy replies to all who responded ... I've been on vacation, and now have *28* (that's right, twenty-eight) TELECOM Digests to read. [Note to a certain TELECOM Digest Moderator with too much free time on his hands -- PAT, maybe you and I should coordinate vacation weeks. :) ] Bill ------------------------------ From: Jerry Harder Subject: Re: V-H Coordinates Information Needed Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 08:50:51 GMT Organization: @Home Network Check out www.tariffs.com, www.ccmi.com, or www.valucom.com among others. All the tariff service firms that I know provide this database and more for a fee. Good luck, Jerry Harder remove spamnein from address to reply Ronald W. Roberts wrote in message news:telecom19. 232.4@telecom-digest.org: > Where can I get information on the V-H coordinates used to calculate > distances between two telephone numbers? What I'm looking for is a > table of the area codes plus exchanges and the coordinates and how to > do the calculation. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #234 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Jul 20 14:21:09 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id OAA12828; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 14:21:09 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 14:21:09 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199907201821.OAA12828@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #235 TELECOM Digest Tue, 20 Jul 99 14:21:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 235 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Thirty Years Ago Tonight (TELECOM Digest Editor) Re: SpeechWorks Gives the Web a Voice (Lisa Jacobson) Re: Century 21 (Bob Goudreau) Re: Century 21 (LARB0) Re: Century 21 (Fred R. Goldstein) 2000 Silliness (Joey Lindstrom) Specifics on Romans' "Screw-up" (was Re: Century 21) (Carl Moore) Re: The Crisis at Pacifica Radio (Alan Boritz) Re: You've Got Mail. You're Being Watched. (Steven J. Sobol) Re: Last Laugh! Dead Cow DOA (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 about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! 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, 20 Jul 1999 14:09:45 EDT From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Thirty Years Ago Tonight All afternoon on that Sunday thirty years ago, the men sat in their ship and we kept wondering when are they going to do it ... when are they going to open the door and walk out? Then finally after several hours it was announced the walk on the moon itself would begin. The hatch came open, down the stairs they went, and one sort of big intense chill went down the spine of everyone watching it on television, which was almost everyone in the world it seems. Pardon me if I wax nostalgic today. It has been only twelve years prior, in 1957 that the high school political science teacher had told us that with the Soviet Union's successful 'Sputnik' venture the day before we were likely in for some very hard times in the USA. Throughout the day and evening today, the various forms of media are replaying and reprinting the pictures, words and videos of the occassion. If you were not around to see it the first time, and even if you were, try to catch as many of the re-plays as you can. My own humble effort at this, in connection with Don Kimberlin's own account of the occassion is on line at: http://telecom-digest.org/camelot-on-the-moon.html PAT ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 09:07:06 -0400 From: Lisa Jacobson Subject: Re: SpeechWorks Gives the Web a Voice On the 30th Anniversary of the First Moon Landing, SpeechWorks Defines a New Site SpeechSite New Product Offers Easiest Access to Employees, Typical Web Site Data and E-Commerce Using Speech Recognition Over the Phone BOSTON, Mass.July 20, 1999 We've all been there. You call a company's main phone number to be connected to the precise person who can service your account. Instead, you get stuck in a dial-by-name directory or on hold for several minutes. Or, you call a company to ask for directions from the South and the person you reach can only give directions from the North. Worse still, while trying to check on the status of your ticket order, you get trapped in 'touch-tone hell' and hang up in frustration without finding out anything. Today, SpeechWorks International, Inc., the leading provider of conversational speech recognition technology and solutions for over-the-telephone applications, introduces SpeechSiteTM, making today's telephone pain points a thing of the past. SpeechSite brings the web model of self-service to the telephone transforming the call to a business for the first time since Neil Armstrong spoke to the world from the moon thirty years ago. Callers Land on a New Site A revolutionary approach to speech application development, SpeechSite is the first solution to package auto attendant, information retrieval and commerce capabilities seamlessly into a single, speech-activated system. Through one telephone number, SpeechSite serves as a friendly, personalized 'welcome mat' to any companygreeting and routing callers who wish to speak directly to an employee or allowing them to do business through an easy-to-use, automated process. It's the age of self-service and e-commerce," said Robert Mirani, research director, Customer Relationship Management (CRM) Strategies, Yankee Group. For both consumer-oriented and business-to-business applications, the phoneand particularly the cell phoneis the ubiquitous access device and delivers on the 'anytime, anywhere' claim of the web. Businesses that begin to extend their e-business strategies to leverage next generation speech technologies and applicationsSpeechWorks SpeechSite being a leading examplewill reap significant benefits. SpeechSite completely revamps the way companies answer the phone, giving callers immediate access to information previously available only through corporate web sites, complex touch-tone menus or a myriad of different phone numbers. Just like the evolving web model, SpeechSite also lets callers conduct transactions anytime, from the convenience of any phone. SpeechSite's carefully designed speech-enabled user interface takes into account the way people understand information they 'hear' on the phone and information they 'see' on the web. Just as people know what to expect on a corporate web site, they will soon know what to expect on a SpeechSite as well. Here is an example of how it works: SpeechSite: Hello, this is the SpeechSite for XYZ Company. You can say, 'Company', 'Products', 'Directions' or 'Making Contact.' Caller: 'Directions'. SpeechSite: 'From which direction will you be coming from?' Caller: 'The Boston Airport' (The system provides the directions. The caller can also say 'fax it' to get the directions faxed to them, and then continue moving through other self-service options, or just hang up.) SpeechSite brings it all together, said Steve Cossette, vice president of distribution planning, Continental Airlines. 'We want one platform that transforms the way we answer all our calls in the same way that our web site has transformed our screen-based interaction with customers. SpeechSite is the product that can do this for us.' A New Paradigm for Application Development Not only does SpeechSite present a new customer contact concept, it also provides a new approach to speech application development. The SpeechSite product platform includes a variety of customizable, pre-packaged applications that make it easy for companies to set up and expand their own SpeechSite. SpeechSite takes the development of speech-activated services beyond the previous toolkits by offering horizontal applications such as call routing and product information retrieval that can be configured without programming to meet individual company needs. The SpeechSite product is based on the award-winning SpeechWorks 5.0 product line that includes its highly accurate SMART recognition engine; industry-leading building blocks, known as DialogModules; and powerful tools. SpeechWorks core technology and auto attendants are already handling millions of calls and transactions at companies such as United Airlines, Hewlett-Packard, FedEx, E*TRADE and Guardian Life Insurance Company. Benefits of SpeechSite With SpeechSite from SpeechWorks, corporations can: Make it easy for callers to get information, complete transactions and be connected to employees through one phone number; Leverage their investments in web sites and back-end databases; Deploy a single speech recognition platform for auto attendant and customer service capabilities; Launch new services more rapidly than ever before by configuring pre-packaged applications; Create a broader revenue stream by opening the doors to automated commerce every hour of the day; Create a customized corporate 'welcome mat' with a unique audio personality. Major Partners Support SpeechSite SpeechWorks has garnered tremendous support for SpeechSite from over twenty platform, technology, service and e-business partners. Companies that have enthusiastically embraced the new offering, include: Artisoft, Aspect Telecommunications, Automated Financial Systems, Comverse Network Services, Dialogic Corporation, digiTRADE (owned by Thomson Financial Services), Gold Systems, Intel Corporation, InterVoice, LexiTech, Maxxar, MicroLog, NEXTLINK Interactive, Open Market, Inc., PriceInteractive, Stratus Computer Systems, Systems Solutions Group, Talk2.com, TALX, Telemanagement, Vicinity Corporation, VoiceMate.com and WebOnPhone. What it Takes to Run a SpeechSite SpeechSite provisioning tools and wizards make it easy to set up a SpeechSite that leverages existing web-based infrastructure and data. These tools allow common information to be shared between the SpeechSite and the corporate web site and allow the SpeechSite specific data and audio recordings to be easily added. In the SpeechSite architecture, a speech server a telephony platform with SpeechWorks speech recognition capabilities will typically run alongside a web server, both of which sit in front of corporate databases. SpeechSite can obtain data directly from the corporate databases, or can be served via XML from the web server. Try the SpeechWorks SpeechSite and Learn More You can access SpeechWorks own SpeechSite by calling 617.428.4444. At the SpeechSite, you can: Ask to be connected to a SpeechWorks employee (Say Leah Lesser in company directory for example, to be connected to our Public Relations Manager); Hear about our company; Get driving directions to our headquarters in Boston; Get a fax about what partners and customers are saying about SpeechSite; Learn about our products, our job opportunities and recent news. At any time during the SpeechSite call, you can move around the site to a new area simply by 'barging in' to the automated prompts. You can also say things like 'find it,' 'fax it' or 'help' which make the interaction both familiar and enjoyable. Demonstrating the parallel of the phone and the web, you can also hear samples of what is available today and in the future for SpeechSite, as well as obtain complete product information at http://www.speechworks.com. In addition, you can join a live phone and web-based seminar on Wednesday, July 21st at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time to hear Stuart R. Patterson, SpeechWorks CEO, discuss SpeechSite and the promise it holds for customer self-service over the phone. You may register for the free seminar at http://www.speechworks.com/institute/seminars.html. Pricing and Availability SpeechSite will be available in Q4 1999 directly through SpeechWorks and through selected value-added resellers. Pricing will vary according to installation size and application requirements but typical configurations will range in price from $50,000 to $150,000 (U.S.). "Thirty years ago today, the world realized the dream of walking on the moon because we first stated it as an achievable goal and then did what was necessary to fulfill it," said Patterson. "We are convinced that the web model can and will be applied to the phone and we are making our vision a reality with the launch of SpeechSite. SpeechSite is the first product ever to give people the power to contact company employees by saying their name, access corporate information by just asking for it and conduct automated transactions from any phone at anytime of day or night. Think about what you expect when you log on to a web site, then imagine how exciting it would be if those same functions were mapped to a speech-activated interface accessible from any phone and you'll understand what SpeechSite is." Also visit www.speechworks.com for more information. SpeechWorks, DialogModules, SMARTRecognizer and SpeechSite are either trademarks or registered trademarks of SpeechWorks International, Inc. in the United States and other countries. All other names are used for identification purposes only and may be trademarks of their respective owners. Lisa Jacobson Schwartz Communications 781-684-6628 / phone ljacobson@schwartz-pr.com ------------------------------ From: Bob Goudreau Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 09:44 EDT Subject: Re: Century 21 > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: >> AD 1 is the *first* year after the epoch point ... > The first FULLY COMPLETED year. Which, since the epoch point is defined as the instantaneous moment between 31 December 1 BC and 1 January AD 1, is exactly the same. > What do you plan to do about the 365 > days prior to the completion of the first year? By definition, that is the year 1 BC. > If you believe as you apparently do that he was born on the date > 1/1/1 then you are correct that we have to reach 12/31/2001 for > two thousand years. But I don't believe that was necessarily the exact birth date. As I mentioned in the earlier method, the exact date and year are lost to history, and are not even important anymore. The important point is that *some* year is assumed to be the first year of the era, and that this therefore defines an arbitary epoch point (a point, not an interval, mind you) right at the beginning of that year. The years after that epoch point are numbered the "first", "second", "third", ... "nineteen hundred ninety-ninth", "two thousandth", etc. of that AD era. The years preceding that point are similarly numbered, though in the opposite direction. > If you believe as I do that he was > born on 1/1/(for-lack-of-a-better-name)'zero' There is no year zero. There is no lack of a better name for the year in which Christ is alleged to have been born, since we already have a perfectly good name for that year: AD 1. That was the first calendrical year in which he was supposed to be alive, so it is the first "year of our lord". It doesn't even matter if the birth didn't really take place until part way through the year, since it's still the first year containing any part of his life. It's the same reason why 1993 could be labeled as the first calendar year of the Bill Clinton era, even though he did not assume the presidency until January 20th of that year. Note that the whole "'th year of " convention itself actually antedates the whole Christian calendar system, before which years were often labeled as "the Nth year of the reign of Caesar Augustus" (or whatever monarch of whatever nation was relevant to the speaker or listeners). A similar system is still in use in Japan today, alongside the western calendar. People had to go out and buy new calendars, stationery, etc. when Emperor Hirohito died ten years ago, thus ending the years of the "Showa" era, and beginning the years of the "Heisei" era of the new Emperor Akihito. > We say his date of birth > occurred 1999 years ago, and as of 1/1/2000 we will say his birth > occurred two thousand years ago. Doesn't this all come down to whether > or not you can rightfully claim to be one year old on the day you > were born? PAT] Exactly. I maintain that you cannot rightfully make such a claim. Since our calendrical system by definition says that the year in which Christ was supposed to have been born was the 0001st "anno domini", then we have to wait until the 2001st "anno domino" to celebrate the 2000th birthday. Bob Goudreau Data General Corporation goudreau@rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive +1 919 248 6231 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA ------------------------------ From: larb0@aol.com (LARB0) Date: 20 Jul 1999 12:31:28 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Century 21 The BC/AD milestones are no longer politically correct -- awhile back it became more generically correct to use BCE (Before Common Era) and CS (Common Era). But -- that aside -- regarding the debate over when the 21st century begins ... who really really cares? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well obviously some people care; look at how they have been arguing with me for the past couple days about this point. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 10:02 EST From: FGOLDSTEIN@wn1.wn.net (Fred R. Goldstein) Subject: Re: Century 21 Stick to your guns Pat, you're right. The calendar is like a decimal counter; each column gives rise to a name. There's the units, the decades, the centures, and the millenia. Roll over a digit and the measurement-index changes. Thus the decade of the '90s technically began in 1990 (although socially it was more like late '87). And the millenium is in 2000, not 2001. However, there is a small self-proclaimed (erroneously) elite of pseudo-intellectuals who think that they're smarter than everyone else by insisting that the millenium rollover is in 2001. This is the same crowd who probably thinks that a preposition is a bad word to end a sentence with. (Hint: It's not. The sentence "A preposition is a bad word to end a sentence with." is a joke, since it ends with a preposition. Some humorless people didn't get the joke and though that a preposition was a bad word with which to end a sentence, which is isn't, and as you can see that sounds a little odd too when you follow that non-rule.) It's more like the people who proclaim, "between you and I". That's horrible terrible no good very bad grammar, which no ordinary public school (US meaning) fifth grader would ever say (twice!), but "educated" people say it because they remember being told that it's bad to begin a sentence with "Me an' Julio". So they use the subjective "I" after a preposition, where "me" is correct. It's called, I'm told, "hyperurbanization". The hyperurbanized millenium begins in 2001. In the meantime, the hoi polloi and those of us who get the joke will all recognize that it's the rollover to 2000 that counts. Even if the First Decade (1-9 CE) was only nine years long. Programmers call it a fencepost error. ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 21:22:33 -0600 Reply-To: Joey Lindstrom Subject: 2000 Silliness On Mon, 19 Jul 1999 19:39:10 -0400 (EDT), editor@telecom-digest.org wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: People are entitled to celebrate > anything they please on any day they please. There were many people > who celebrated on 1/1/1901 but there were an equal or larger number > who celebrated on 1/1/1900 as well. Some probably used both dates as > an excuse for drunken, rowdy and profane excesses in their behavior > as I am sure will happen this time as well. See my answer to Bob G. > above. If you claim credit for a year at the time of his birth now > you get to 'pay back' that year and wait seventeen months. If you > instead say he was born 1/1/sometime and as of a year later we were > at 1 (complete year) AD then you go with the end of this year. PAT] But under the system ol' Dennis set up, the assumption is that Jesus was born in the year A.D. 1, not 0. Whether or not Jesus was actually born in that year is, today, not really that meaningful -- the date Dennis picked is arbitrary and we're stuck with it, so let's ignore the possibility that he was actually born in 4 B.C. or some such. Dennis does not claim that Jesus was 1 year old at the time of his birth. Jesus turned "1" sometime in the year A.D. 2. Think of it this way: the year A.D. 1 was "the first year of Jesus' life", while A.D. 2 was "the second year of Jesus' life", etc. Similarly, I'm 32, but I'm in my 33rd year of life. I do not get to celebrate being a century old until I've completed my 100th year of life. I was born on February 13th 1967, so I get to make that claim, and begin staking a claim on my second century, starting on February 13th 2067. Not February 12th, February 13th. Similarly, if we accept Dennis' calendar, Jesus' birthdate is (hypothetically) 1/1/0001, and thus he has not completed two millenia until 1/1/2001. The year 2000, assuming Jesus was really long lived, would be "the 2000th year of Jesus' life" but he doesn't get to claim to actually be 2000 until he begins the 2001th year. What disappoints me about your argument is that you're doing what a lot of people have been doing. First, you assert that you're right. Then, as evidence mounts that puts your position in question, instead of acknowledging that you may not be right, you say it doesn't matter and that people are entitled to celebrate any event in any way they please. In fact, I agree: this New Year's Eve is psychologically significant because it marks the changing of all four digits of the year. And I don't have a problem with that at all -- instead of working this New Year's Eve, I'm taking two weeks off and having a good time. But ONLY because of the digit change, NOT because it's the start of a new millenium or a new century. Those things happen one year later. 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 had some eyeglasses. I was walking down the street when suddenly the prescription ran out. --Steven Wright ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 10:18:15 EDT From: Carl Moore Subject: Specifics on Romans' "Screw-Up" (was Re: Century 21) PAT wrote that the Romans had gotten things all screwed up regarding the calendar, which was indeed corrected by advancing the date 10 days in (Oct.?) 1582. However, the screw-up wasn't very bad. The calendar from the Romans is what we call the Julian calendar, and it assumed the year to be exactly 365 1/4 days long (which is still close enough to be taught to, say, an elementary school student). The year is actually a little shorter (by about 11 minutes plus about 14 seconds), and the discrepancy added up to about 1 day every 128 years, and a result was that natural events were occurring earlier and earlier in the calendar. This error accumulated over many centuries and had grown to 10 days by 1582. The pope would at least have been concerned about the Easter date, which is based on the spring equinox (which should occur about March 21 and would have occurred about March 11 under the Julian calendar in 1582). I'll lay out three leap year rules: a. Every year divisible by 4 is a leap year. This was done in the above- mentioned Julian calendar. b. Have leap year only 97 times (not 100) in 400 year period. This is done in the Gregorian calendar, which we use and which provides that years divisible by 100 and not by 400 are not leap years. Accordingly: 1600 is leap year; 1700,1800,1900 are not leap years; 2000 is leap year. c. Omit leap year every 128 years. This is even more accurate than what we have in the Gregorian calendar, but it takes 3200 years for the Gregorian calendar to be off even 1 day from this. ------------------------------ From: aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) Subject: Re: The Crisis at Pacifica Radio Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 23:42:39 -0400 In article , TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: > The board of directors for Pacifica Foundation has been attempting > to change the format of its radio stations for quite awhile now. Its > station in Texas, KPFT changed from a very politically left-wing > commentary type of programming to an mostly-music format several months > ago. Some have suggested the reason for the change is that Pacifica > wants to more closely emulate National Public Radio, and get some of > the money for itself that major corporations routinely toss at NPR. > A story making the rounds is that one day members of the board at > Pacifica said in essence, 'we have had enough of this hippie shit ...' > and they decided to pull the plug on it. ... > At other Pacifica-owned stations around the country, including WBAI in > New York City, KPFT in Texas and KPFK in Los Angeles, on-air employees > have been sternly warned against *any* discussion regards the dispute > in Berkeley. How long or how well that will hold up I do not know. In > fact back in April when the dispute at Berkeley's station first began > heating up, on-air staffers at KPFA were warned to keep their mouths > shut about it, at least on company time, that there was to be > *nothing* said about the change in direction Pacifica was taking.... I think this is GREAT. Pacifica is finally getting a taste of their own medicine after virtually shooting their mouth off about about. I just wish Steve Post could be there to get a taste of it, too. ------------------------------ From: sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net (Steven J Sobol) Subject: Re: You've Got Mail. You're Being Watched. Date: 20 Jul 1999 01:57:48 GMT Organization: North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.4NET On Mon, 19 Jul 1999 01:12:44 -0400, monty@roscom.com allegedly said: > THE RIGHT THING > You've Got Mail. You're Being Watched. Yes, and? No one who has e-mail through work should *ever* consider their company e-mail boxes private. North Shore Technologies Corporation http://www.NorthShoreTechnologies.net We don't just build websites; we build relationships! 815 Superior Ave. #610, Cleveland, OH 44114-2702 216.619.2NET 888.480.4NET Host of the Forum for Responsible & Ethical E-mail http://www.spamfree.org ------------------------------ From: aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Dead Cow DOA Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 23:27:14 -0400 In article , Monty Solomon wrote: > Hackers Admit Virus in "Trojan Horse" Disk > http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,39272,00.html?st.ne.fd.gif.e > Back Orifice CDs Infected with CIH Virus > http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2294628,00.html > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If it was not 'their plan' to > distribute the virus in this sneaky way, then *who's plan* was it? Perhaps someone who might profit from selling the "cure?" Did it ever occur to you that the motive for spreading computer virii may not fit the profile of a "true" hacker? Even a deliberate attempt to embarass the authors would be more likely than making the assumption that authors wanted to be exposed by a simple virus scanner. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #235 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Jul 20 21:59:06 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id VAA01131; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 21:59:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 21:59:06 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199907210159.VAA01131@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #236 TELECOM Digest Tue, 20 Jul 99 21:59:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 236 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Yahoo - Local Phone Companies Say 'Hello' To Speech Recognition (M Pollock) Re: Who Sells 800? Ask the Expert (Judith Oppenheimer) Re: DSL vs Cable Modems (Kevin DeMartino) Re: DSL vs Cable Modems (Isaac Wingfield) Re: www. Prefixes (Christopher Wolf) Re: Bell Atlantic Brings DSL Services to the Big Apple (Thor L. Simon) Re: No PIC Selection Question (Michael P. Deignan) Re: Any 10D Dialing of Toll-Free Numbers? (Fred Atkinson) Re: Any 10D Dialing of Toll-Free Numbers? (Stanley Cline) Seeking Telecom Employment (Dave Schultz) 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 about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! 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 Subject: Yahoo - Local Phone Companies Say 'Hello' To Speech Recognition Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 13:41:22 -0400 Organization: It's A Mike! http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/990720/tx_philips_1.html Tuesday July 20, 10:37 am Eastern Time Company Press Release SOURCE: Philips Speech Processing Local Phone Companies Say 'Hello' To Speech Recognition Philips and Preferred Voice to Joint Market Speech Recognition Technology to Enable Businesses and Residents Nationwide to Talk To Their Phone or 'Virtual Operator' DALLAS, July 20 /PRNewswire/ -- Residents and businesses nationwide will soon be able to use their voice to retrieve telephone directory service information, dial numbers by speaking a caller's name and have incoming calls automatically answered and routed via advanced speech recognition technology made available through their local phone companies. Preferred Voice, Inc. has agreed to joint market the new services with Philips Speech Processing. The new services, based on natural language understanding technology from Philips, will be made available to incumbent and competitive local exchange carriers (ILECs and CLECs) in the United States, enabling them to deliver value added services to local business and residential customers. Highlighting the services is a new application called Use Your Voice(SM), an electronic speech recognition phone directory for small and medium sized cities, allowing users to dial a phone number simply by speaking a person's name. Use Your Voice will be marketed primarily by ILECs to their local access business and residential customers including wireless, cellular, Internet and payphone users. The unique services have been adapted to the Preferred Voice proprietary Voice Integrated Platform (VIP) technology and include a central office ``voice auto attendant'' and an ``electronic speech recognition phone directory.'' These services will enable callers to use their voice to connect with an extension or request information quickly and easily. ``Speech recognition is a natural step in the revolution to make existing local phone services more powerful, expandable and value added,'' said Ron van den Bos, president and CEO of Philips Speech Processing. ``Our speech recognition solution is robust enough to handle a small business or a small city. Our technology generates a natural dialog between the caller and the system, greatly improving local phone service features and functionality.'' Recently, KMC Telecom Holdings, Inc. became the first CLEC to agree to offer the Philips And Preferred Voice speech recognition services to local phone customers when it signed a $12 million multi-year licensing agreement with Preferred Voice. The agreement allows KMC to market the Preferred Voice EMMA Line of Services to 39 markets initially, and possibly extend the offering to a total of 120 markets. The EMMA Line of Service applications is an enhancement to local telephone company's existing standard central office telephone services. EMMA answers incoming calls and routes them to the correct destination, locating a call recipient at any phone, anywhere in the U.S. Additionally, EMMA enables callers using a corporate and personal telephone directory, to dial a number simply by saying the name of the person they are calling while using any phone, including cellular. The Preferred Voice electronic speech recognition phone directory allows virtually every business and resident in a city to be accessed by callers simply by speaking the name of the business or resident, eliminating the need to look up or dial the number. In addition, the capacity of the Preferred Voice server engine is large enough that most businesses and residential voice directories can be provided simultaneously. ``Philips' speech recognition technology enables us to provide enhanced services and revenue streams to local phone companies that, six months ago, were not even feasible,'' said G. Ray Miller, COB of Preferred Voice. ``The Philips speech recognition accuracy and understanding has progressed beyond the ordinary capabilities of touch tone dialing to make it highly productive and extremely simple to use. This exciting new technology enables Preferred Voice to offer a turnkey system, which includes all hardware, software and installation, to telephone companies in the form of a revenue sharing plan, with no up front investment required on their part.'' Philips currently provides Omnitel Pronto Italia, Italy's second largest mobile phone operator, approximately 300 services using its SpeechMania speech recognition platform. The new service for Omnitel is the world's largest telecommunications installation and deployment of natural speech recognition. The services offered to Omnitel customers include yellow pages, travel information, headline news, stock reports, restaurant, movie and concert guides, etc. The Voice Integrated Platform (VIP) developed by Preferred Voice is a specialized applications processor providing unique and superior call processing along with a number of enhanced speech recognition services, including: Voice Dialing, a service that can be offered to residential or business customers which allows the person placing the call to access the dial tone, dial ``**'' on the keypad and speak with EMMA who prompts the caller to speak a name from their directory. EMMA Telephone Receptionist is the first central office based remote accessed, automated attendant service. Utilizing natural dialog speech recognition technology. TR answers your phone and listens as the caller speaks a name, and department or location from the directory, then routes the call to the person, department or location requested. There is no equipment, costly software to purchase and most important, no maintenance. EMMA Smart Business Line gives any businessperson the competitive edge by offering a portable, on the go business line that rings you at any phone no matter where you go, locally or anywhere in the United States. The automatic selective call screening allows customers to work from their office, home, or cellular phone, never missing an important phone call again. EMMA 1 Special Number -- In order to find their parents, children today may have to remember a list of multiple area codes and phone numbers. With 1SN children are able to find their parents, quickly, at anytime, and anywhere. About Preferred Voice Preferred Voice (OTC Bulletin Board: PFVI - news) has developed the Voice Integrated Platform (VIP) to deliver an expanding menu of natural dialog speech recognition products and services directly from a central office facility. The company has previously announced co-location agreements with Time Warner Telecom and Nextlink Communications covering approximately 65% of tier 1 markets throughout the United States. About Philips Philips Speech Processing is a pioneer and one of the global market leaders in speech recognition, natural dialogue and language understanding technologies. A developer of voice enabled telephony applications, Philips has a large installed base of speech recognition and natural dialogue systems in Europe and is a major speech technology provider in North America. Its natural dialogue platform SpeechMania and SpeechPearl(TM) speech recognition engines are used for banking, travel, auto attendants speech portals and white and yellow pages automation. Philips has more than 40 years experience in the development and marketing of speech products and developed the first commercially available PC based natural, continuous speech recognition engine for speech to text applications in 1993. Philips' line of end user software (FreeSpeech 98 and FreeSpeech 2000 for SoHo and consumer markets, and SpeechPro for the professional dictation users) is available in 13 languages and its VoCon speech recognizer for embedded systems has been successfully integrated in consumer electronics products and devices. Philips has set up SpeechSolutions Design Centers around the globe, supporting R&D and the establishment of industry standards, and is a member in various standardization bodies such as ECTF, SAPI, HAVi, HomeAPI, VXML, W3C and VoiceTIMES. Internet: www.speech.philips.com . Royal Philips Electronics (NYSE: PHG - news) of the Netherlands is one of the world's biggest electronics companies and Europe's largest, with sales of US$ 33.9 billion in 1998. It is a global leader in color television sets, lighting, electric shavers, color picture tubes for televisions and monitors, and one-chip TV products. Its 228,800 employees in more than 60 countries are active in the areas of lighting, consumer electronics, domestic appliances, components, semiconductors, medical systems, business electronics, and IT services (Origin). Philips is quoted on the NYSE (PHG), London, Frankfurt, Amsterdam and other stock exchanges. News from Philips is located at www.news.philips.com . SOURCE: Philips Speech Processing ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 13:25:10 -0400 From: Judith Oppenheimer Organization: ICB Toll Free News / WhoSells800.com Subject: Re: Who Sells 800? Ask the Expert NEW YORK, July 20 /PRNewswire/ -- A new service offers advice about toll- free numbers and service, 800, 888 and 877 number marketing; and toll free carrier and vendor choices. WhoSells800.com, the only directory of toll free service providers online or in print, today announced a new link at its web site, called ``Ask the Expert'', which is modeled after the successful link of the same name at its parent site, ICB Toll Free News and Consultancy. With nearly 24 million 800, 888 and 877 numbers in use, competition among service providers is fierce. WhoSells800.com's detailed listings of local and long distance phone companies, discount rate aggregators, enhanced service providers, and shared-use vanity number companies, helps end users comparison shop. What's more, by clicking on ``Ask the Expert'', visitors at WhoSells800.com can ask for advice about toll-free numbers and service, 800, 888 and 877 number marketing applications; and carrier and vendor choices. About WhoSells800.com WhoSells800.com is the 'yellow pages' directory of toll free service providers, offering customers detailed listings of companies that sell toll free numbers and service: local and long distance phone companies, discount rate aggregators and resellers, enhanced service providers, and shared-use vanity number companies. The service directory is free to users. The listed providers get qualified leads. WhoSells800.com can be found at http://whosells800.com. WhoSells800.com is published by ICB Toll Free News, the online news service of the toll free industry located at http://icbtollfree.com, and ICB Toll Free Consultancy, located at http://800consulting.com. With a watchful eye on industry standards forums, FCC proposals, carrier maneuvers, and civil court proceedings over toll-free brand and trademark disputes, ICB Toll Free delivers strategic intelligence well in advance of public distribution. ICB is the premier source of toll-free information and support, advising corporate users and small businesses, call centers, marketing firms and trade associations, on applicable marketing, regulatory and legislative issues, since 1993. ``Ask the Expert'' inquirers from WhoSells800.com and from ICB Toll Free, can also call 1 800 THE EXPERT, or email editor@icbtollfree.com, subject heading: Ask the Expert. ------------------------------ From: Kevin DeMartino Subject: Re: DSL vs Cable Modems Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 13:50:04 -0400 Paul Berens wrote: > The technical discussions of which technology, XDSL or Cable Modems, > will carry the most bits is interesting, but follow the money. The > consumer wants one bill ( and the concomitant savings this should > produce due to lowered overhead) for his telephone, his ISP, and his > television/movies. XDSL isn't going to carry "content" such as > television, right? As long as that's true, seems to me we should bet > on the cable providers. They can provide everything XDSL can provide > -- plus content. It is true that digital subscriber line (DSL) systems cannot currently support broadcast video, and that cable TV systems can provide one stop shopping, with video, voice, and Internet access charges on a single bill. However, it is possible to support broadcast video with asymmetric DSL (ADSL). This could be accomplished if ADSL is used in conjunction with the digital loop carrier (DLC) approach to reduce the length of twisted pair access lines. With DLC, a feeder cable containing hundreds of twisted pair would be replaced by a single fiber, and the average twisted pair length can be reduced to approximately 2000 ft (see Shumate and Snelling's paper in the March 1991 issue of IEEE Communications). For most subscribers, ADSL with DLC could provide data rates in excess of 20 Mb/s in the downstream direction, which could support a dozen or more MPEG-1 (VCR quality) video channels or four or more MPEG-2 (high quality) video channels. For this approach to be competitive with cable TV and satellite TV, access to a much larger number of video channels would need to be provided, which implies the requirement to switch selected broadcast video signals onto subscriber lines at the central office. Some mechanism that is more efficient than channel surfing needs to be provided to allow subscribers to select video channels. Will the telcos take the path described above? I don't know. In any case, we should be encouraged that there are two viable options for providing subscribers with data rates that are high enough to support a full range of communication functions. This opens up the possibility of real competition in the local loop. Kevin DeMartino Dynamics Research Corporation ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 09:07:33 -0700 From: Isaac Wingfield Subject: Re: DSL vrs. Cable Modems Paul Berens writes: > XDSL isn't going to carry "content" such as > television, right? As long as that's true, seems to me we should bet > on the cable providers. They can provide everything XDSL can provide > -- plus content. Well, I was involved with Video-on-Demand-over-ADSL trials at Bell Atlantic more than five years ago. That's "content". Bits is bits; it doesn't matter how they are delivered. And content is provided by third parties to whoever bellies up with the money. TV stations and cable operators buy it, and so could xDSL providers. MPEG video servers are getting to be a dime-a-dozen, too. MPEG can provide DVD-quality at three to four megabits/second; well within xDSL's capabilities, and I have no doubt that, in some areas, that will be the delivery method of choice. You're right to "follow the money", but it seems clear that "the money" will dictate different delivery methods in different places. For example only: FTTC in heavily built-up urban areas, HFC and/or xDSL in the 'burbs, satellite way out beyond the wires. I think they will all "win" to some extent; that's the beauty of digital delivery, whether of telephony, video, computer data, or whatnot. The same data streams can be carried on all the above physical plants. A lot of the choice depends on infrastructure in a given area -- whether the telco plant or the cable plant is in better shape to handle digital streams. Take where I live, for example. The cable plant was rebuilt to HFC for broadband about six years ago, while we don't even have a *real* telephone company -- we're misserved by GTE with a noisy old analog switch that can't even pass 28.8K most days. That's why I have a cable modem and no possibility of DSL. Up the street in Pac Bell land, DSL is available in many places where the cable plant can't support two-way data. Isaac Wingfield Project Director isw@ictv.com ICTV Vox: 408-364-9201 14600 Winchester Blvd. Fax: 408-364-9300 Los Gatos, CA 95030 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 11:15:54 -0500 From: Christopher Wolf Organization: Texas Instruments Subject: Re: www. Prefixes Derek J. Balling wrote: >> Until then we can have the root named machines handle http. >> I came from a school of programming where the programmer had to >> anticipate the errors of the user and the program must 1) not crash on >> bad data and 2) use bad data to the best of its ability. Browsers >> have embraced this school of thought. Just look at all the garbage >> one can type in the GO TO line and still get a site! A far cry from >> Lynx where (last time I checked) one still had to type http:// . > Funny, my CS professors ingrained into ME the concept of GIGO, Garbage > In Garbage Out ... if you got bad data, you'd end up giving out bad > data. In fact, I can't think of a CompSci professor who DIDN'T mention > it at some point in time. I believe that's a warning, not a requirement. -W ------------------------------ From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic Brings DSL Services to the Big Apple Date: 20 Jul 1999 09:09:56 -0400 Organization: PANIX -- Public Access Networks Corp. Reply-To: tls@rek.tjls.com In article , Roy Smith wrote: > tls@rek.tjls.com wrote: >> Have you tried other DSL providers? They can typically deliver DSL >> service to everywhere Bell Atlantic can, and some places where they >> can't. > If BA owns the local loops, how can other providers get me service? Four words: "Telecommunications Act of 1996". Bell's own Internet provider has to buy access to those wires just like the competition does -- and the competition got there first. Part of the typical incumbent-carrier FUD is to pretend that somehow they're better because they own the wires. I'll take someone who knows what he's doing over someone who owns a lot of stuff any day. Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com "And where do all these highways go, now that we are free?" ------------------------------ From: Michael P. Deignan Subject: Re: No PIC Selection Question Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 10:19:08 -0400 In article , Evan L. Hill wrote: > What restrictions are placed on a line where no Long Distance Carrier > has been selected? > Are 1+800 and 1+888 calls allowed? > My long distance carrier now charges $3.00 per month. I normally do > not make over $15.00 worth of calls per YEAR. > I'm tired of hearing about everyone's 'calling plan' to save money. > How about the 'Zero Calls-Zero Dollars' calling plan? I'm with you! I have three lines in my house (one business, two residental) and I do not have a PIC on *any* of them. I'm lucky if I make *1* long distance call a month (I think the last long distance call I made was back in the winter ...) and could care less about all these "calling plans". I like the "zero-calls, zero-dollars" plan. I haven't had any problems without a PIC. When I do make the occasional long distance call, I use 10-10-whatever (whomever happens to have the cheapest rate today) and get billed 10 cents/minute. No minimum fees no plans, no nothing. Oh, and I've never had a problem calling an 800/888 number either. I think its the best of both worlds, quite frankly. I can have all the cake I want, and for less money! MD ------------------------------ From: Fred Atkinson Subject: Re: Any 10D Dialing of Toll-Free Numbers? Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 08:49:01 -0400 I live in Maryland. If the number is local, it is strictly '10 digit' dialing. If long distance, then it is 1 plus'. It is interesting to live in an area where four different area codes can be local calls (703, 202, 240, and 301). It keeps you guessing because with the exception of '202', you have to figure out whether a call is local or long distance. But, all '202' calls are local to this area. Fred ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 11:53:50 -0400 From: Stanley Cline Subject: Re: Any 10D Dialing of Toll-Free Numbers? Bob Goudreau wrote: > How about it, readers who live in Maryland, Atlanta, Denver, Dallas, > etc.: can you dial toll free numbers using just 10D, or does only > the 1+10D format work? From Atlanta, 10d dialing to 800/888/877 numbers (from BellSouth and MediaOne lines) fails; I get "you must first dial a one or zero..." [like 0+ works for toll-free numbers! :( ] recording. Stanley Cline -- sc1 at roamer1 dot org -- http://www.roamer1.org/ ------------------------------ From: Akasloots@aol.com (Dave Schultz) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 12:52:05 EDT Subject: Seeking Telecom Employment I've spent years in the contract precision sheet metal trade in the Silicon Valley and have been lightly exposed to some pretty high tech stuff. Now I am interested in getting into telecommunications. More specifically, I would like to be one of those guys who roams around in rural areas and maintains mountain top equipment. I have the ability to travel, and invite miserable work conditions/times. I've poked around locally online to find a place to break into this industry but so far have understandably ran into dead ends that seek those with experience. Can you suggest learning materials or places to gain experience in things like PBX, T1/T3, ATM, DSX-1/-3, Titan, OC-48 or any others that can help me get into a career I know I can lick with my eyes shut? I appreciate your valuable time and look forward to future correspondence. Regards, Dave Schultz ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #236 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Jul 20 23:17:14 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id XAA03981; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 23:17:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 23:17:14 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199907210317.XAA03981@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #237 TELECOM Digest Tue, 20 Jul 99 23:17:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 237 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Freedom From Spam at Last! (Jack Decker) More on Bright Light POP Spam Filtering (Lauren Weinstein) Re: "Bright Light" POP Spam Filtering: A Bad Idea (Jack Decker) Re: "Bright Light" POP Spam Filtering: A Bad Idea (Lauren Weinstein) Re: Any 10D Dialing of Toll-Free Numbers? (Mark J. Cuccia) Re: No More Late Fees (spamh8r) Re: DSL and Cable Modems (Bud Couch) Re: Last Laugh? Some People Don't Think it Was Funny (Steve Winter) 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 about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! 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, 20 Jul 1999 13:01:12 -0400 From: Jack Decker Subject: Freedom From Spam at Last! Now it appears that there are a couple of new ways to eliminate spam from your inbox. One is a service called BrightMail . The basic idea is that you register with them and then instead of going to your ISP's mail server directly to get your mail, you POP BrightMail. It knows who you are and immediately goes out to your actual e-mail server to get your mail, eliminates any spam, and passes any other messages on through to you transparently. They say they don't even save your password between sessions. It's all done in real time. Rather than try to further explain how it operates, I'll refer you to two articles that have just appeared that describe the service: http://www.wired.com/news/news/technology/story/20781.html http://www.pcworld.com/pcwtoday/article/0,1510,11837,00.html Also, there is a company (MsgTo.com at http://www.MsgTo.com/index.jsp) that figures that they can get you to use their spam-elimination service to eliminate ads you don't want, while "opting in" for those you do. An article about that service can be found at: http://www.upside.com/texis/mvm/opinion/story?id=378f6f960 To give credit where credit is due, ALL of the above articles were found via the TELECOM Digest news page. I don't know how you did it, Pat, but you've managed to put together a really great news resource here. Thank you for a really useful service! Jack [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks for your compliments about the Daily E-News, the service I operate at http://telecom-digest.org/news culled from various web sources. Something I do not understand about the Bright Mail service is what are they doing I cannot do for myself with various mail filters in place? Or are they aiming at a segment of the netizens who do not yet understand or wish to know how to filter their own mail? By filtering it myself, I think I have one less privacy concern to worry about, namely the people at Bright Mail snooping around into the mail. Jack's message is the first of four on the topic in this issue. Lauren will respond, then another rebuttal from Jack, and finally Lauren's response to Jack's rebuttal. Stay tuned! All in this issue. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jul 99 09:41 PDT From: lauren@vortex.com (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: More on Bright Light POP Spam Filtering Greetings. I received an e-mail from a TELECOM Digest reader who apparently misunderstood one aspect of my recent item regarding Bright Light Technologies' spam filtering services. I thought I was clear about this in my original message, but I'll take this opportunity to be even more explicit. Bright Light has (for quite sometime) had spam filtering services that work with ISPs, and let the ISPs filter out spam based on Bright Light filtering rules. Outside of the issues of making sure that only spam is deleted, this is relatively non-controversial. My concerns expressed in my previous item were not with those ISP-based services, but with the newly announced Bright Light offering that encourages *end-users* to route all of their inbound e-mail directly through Bright Light servers, by altering their POP server settings in their e-mail software. It is this flow of the full text of all incoming user e-mail through Bright Light that is where the range of potential privacy and other problems I discussed are applicable. --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: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 17:08:19 -0400 From: Jack Decker Subject: Re: "Bright Light" POP Spam Filtering: A Bad Idea > Greetings. Bright Light Technologies (http://www.brightlight.com), > which sports an impressive list of technology partners and investors, > has introduced a "free" service to end users (previously they have > apparently mainly worked with ISPs) that attempts to filter out most > unsolicited e-mail (SPAM) before it reaches the user. They do this > by trying to detect spam flowing around the net and then applying > filtering rules. Rejected messages are pushed aside and can be > viewed later if the user wishes, and lists of rejected messages > are made available. Yes, I read about that this morning. To me, this was one of the best things I've read about since ICQ was introduced. :-) > I'm a long time spam-fighter myself -- I maintain a public spam > blocking list at http://www.vortex.com. I'm more than willing to > declare the concept of trying to filter out spam (so long as there > aren't too many false positives) to be a good one. Unfortunately, the > method chosen by Bright Light for end users' use is a potentially > major invasion of privacy -- ironic in light of Bright Light's written > statements that they want to "avoid the appearance of violating email > privacy" (exact quote). You allege a "potential" invasion of privacy. Well, Lauren, there are "potentials" to invade privacy all over the net. If you are going to worry about every "potential" invasion of privacy, I suggest you disconnect your computer, take it and all the associated components outside, pour gasoline over them, and toss in a lighted match. Then you will never have to worry about any "potential" invasion of privacy. When you can PROVE beyond the shadow of a doubt that the folks at Bright Light have actually invaded someone's privacy, then I may be willing to listen. Then again, I may not care. Granted, I'm not crazy about anyone else reading my e-mail but I know that if someone really wants to do it, they can do it at my ISP or any point along the way. And I *REALLY* hate spam. I guess in a way I have lower expectations than you do, I have never really assumed anything transmitted over the 'net is truly private. But then, I don't assume that about phone conversations either. I know that phone company employees can and sometimes do listen to phone calls for their own amusement. > The problem doesn't take a masters degree in Internet engineering to > understand. To use their service, you have to route ALL of your > inbound e-mail through Bright Light servers. Your POP account > accesses Bright Light, then they login to your ISP to pick up your > mail. It passes through Bright Light, and then to you. Right. And as I understand it, it doesn't get stored anywhere on their system, it's strictly "pass-thru". To me, that's a whole lot safer than a service that might store your mail on a hard drive somewhere. But in any case, I don't see where this presents any greater risk than using a large ISP. Mail has to be stored somewhere, mail has to pass through somewhere. What are you afraid of, that they might trap and temporarily store a piece of porno spam that was addressed to you? Well, what does that prove? The fact that I am using their service means that I DON'T WANT to receive such material (and I really don't!). > From both a Privacy and Risks standpoint, it's hard to imagine a > system more primed for potential trouble. Bright Light's talk of > highly scalable systems notwithstanding, ANY centralization of e-mail > handling systems in this manner, funneling in e-mail from numerous > ISPs, represents an immense target for all manner of mischief--even > more attractive to problems than the largest individual ISPs. Systems > failures and overloading can still happen. Hackers can target the > facilities. And why is that any more of a risk if you use Bright Light than if you have an account on one of the major ISP's? First of all, keep in mind that no one is forced to use Bright Light. The moment I get a whiff of something happening that makes me doubt that it is safe to use their service, I change two lines in my e-mail configuration and I am back to going directly to my ISP. And again, they aren't storing your mail on their system. If they go down, you don't lose any mail, and if you revert back to directly accessing your ISP's POP server you can be back in business in literally seconds. So you have a problem with how they do things -- very simple -- don't use their service! But until something happens to make me believe otherwise, I think this is one of the best free services to be offered on the 'net in many months! > And of course, the concentration of e-mail traffic could > make Bright Light the recipient of choice for legal actions, by those > seeking to track or access e-mail messages for any number of purposes > (an increasingly popular legal maneuver, as you probably know). The > requirement to provide such information could occur regardless of how > little (or how much) of users' e-mail is "normally" stored on disk at > the service (as opposed to passing through) in the course of routine > operations. And why would they target Bright Light before they'd go directly to the recipient's ISP? That would not make sense. First of all, Bright Light could easily make the case that they are simply acting as a filter for e-mail, and that they don't store e-mail on their system unless it appears to be spam. I don't think they can be required to rewrite their software to store messages of individual users. But in the second place, since the user can bypass Bright Light's service at any time and go directly to his ISP to pick up his mail, it simply would not make sense to involve Bright Light in this way. > If the spam filtering rules were only sent directly to the users' > "real" ISPs and the spam blocking applied at that level, the red flags > wouldn't be flying up this way. Well, sure, Lauren, if all ISP's would take an active role in spam blocking, we wouldn't need this kind of service. But many don't. Actually, this statement makes me wonder a little about your motives. You say that you have a public spam blocking list, and I'm sure you'd like it if more ISP's would use it. But they don't, so this gives the users a way to have spam blocking even if their ISP doesn't offer this feature. Could it be that perhaps you'd offer a similar service if you had the technical know-how, but since you don't, you're just throwing stones at a company that is essentially a competitor for the service you offer? Yes, I realize that neither of you are making any money from the respective services, but sometimes people or companies compete for other reasons known only to themselves. > The fundamental problem is having the > full text of users' total incoming e-mail passing through a > centralized third party e-mail service outside of the users' direct > control or affiliation. Since when did the average user have any "control or affiliation" over whatever part of the Internet their e-mail passes through now? Seems like if this is a "fundamental problem", it's a problem of the Internet as a whole, and many ISP's in particular. Of course, som