TELECOM Digest     Sat, 18 Jun 2005 2:03:00 EDT    Volume 24 : Issue 275

Inside This Issue:                            Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Security Breach Could Expose _40 Million Users_ to Fraud (Monty Solomon)
    Marketers Seek To Make Cookies More Palatable (Monty Solomon)
    Review of the Firefly Mobile Phone for Kids (Monty Solomon)
    Blackberry Network Down for Hours (Monty Solomon)
    DittyBot (Monty Solomon)
    700-555-4141 Does Not Work (Ted Klugman)
    Invitation to Venice, Slovenia, and New York Conferences (IPSI Conf)
    40 Million Credit Card Holders Exposed to Fraud (Lisa Minter)
    Cell Phones Now Playing Role of Wallet (Monty Solomon)
    Re: Bell Divestiture (Robert Bonomi)
    Re: Monitor/Recorder For Power Line Outages (Robert Bonomi)
    Re: For a Brief Shining Moment: The Lorimer Brothers (Kenneth P. Stox)

Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the
Internet.  All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and
the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other
journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are
included in the fair use quote.  By using -any name or email address-
included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article
herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the
email.

               ===========================

Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be
sold or given away without explicit written consent.  Chain letters,
viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome.

We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we
are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because
we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands
against crime.   Geoffrey Welsh

               ===========================

See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details
and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest.  

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 18:53:39 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Security Breach Could Expose _40 Million Users_  to Fraud


The worst phishing/hacking case ever to date! 

By JOE BEL BRUNO Associated Press Writer

NEW YORK (AP) -- A security breach of customer information at a credit
card-processing company could expose to fraud up to 40 million
cardholders of multiple brands, MasterCard International Inc. said
Friday.

The credit card giant said its security division detected multiple
instances of fraud that tracked back to CardSystems Solutions Inc. of
Tucson, Ariz., which processes transactions for banks and merchants.

MasterCard said in a news release late Friday afternoon that it was
notifying its card-issuing banks of the problem.

CardSystems was hit by a computer virus that captured customer data
for the purpose of fraud, said company spokeswoman Sharon Gamsin. The
FBI was investigating.

      - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=49937208


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I asked Lisa Minter to scan our news
wires for a full report on this, the largest phishing/hacking fraud
to date anywhere ... 40 million credit card users. Her report appears
elsewhere in this issue.   PAT]

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 22:32:46 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Marketers Seek To Make Cookies More Palatable


By DAVID KESMODEL
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ONLINE

Online marketers are scrambling to protect one of the key tools of
their trade: the cookie.

Faced with reports showing that more and more computer users regularly
delete the tracking files automatically downloaded by Web browsers,
marketers and Web site publishers are launching a "cookies can be good
for you" campaign. They argue that cookies -- small files that Web
sites use to identify users and to serve up targeted ads -- don't
deserve their bad reputation and shouldn't be lumped together with
such Web scourges as spyware and viruses.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/0,,SB111896105917661957-CnY_WkjgYkrL6ky6y9Idi079ZPE_20060617,00.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 23:00:15 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Review of the Firefly Mobile Phone For Kids


Review by Michael Oryl
June 16, 2005
Mobile Burn

We first spoke of the Firefly mobile phone for kids back in February
when Firefly Mobile, the company, first introduced the device. The
Firefly is a device that has been designed from the ground up for kids
aged 8 to 12. It lacks a lot of traditional mobile phone features,
including a numeric keypad, in the name of cost control and
safety. For more background on the Firefly, and its intended purposes,
check out our original news story.

http://www.mobileburn.com/review.jsp?Id=1431
http://www.mobileburn.com/news.jsp?Id=1110

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 21:01:04 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Blackberry Network Down for Hours


By BRUCE MEYERSON AP Business Writer

NEW YORK (AP) -- The BlackBerry e-mail service suffered a nationwide
outage Friday morning, but the nearly four-hour disruption only
appeared to affect devices connected to certain types of cellular
networks.

Research in Motion Ltd., which makes the popular mobile devices and
provides a service connecting them to corporate networks, did not
respond to phone calls seeking comment.

But three of the nation's biggest cellular carriers confirmed the outage.

Cingular Wireless said RIM's outage lasted for three hours and 49 
minutes. T-Mobile USA said service was restored by noon EDT.

Nextel Communication Inc. reported that only some customers
experienced trouble, and in those cases it was a delay in e-mails
rather than a full-fledged service disruption.

      - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=49935802

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 18:25:17 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: DittyBot


Excerpt from http://plasticbugs.com/index.php?p=267

What DittyBot Does:

You send a text message from your mobile phone to your POP email
account. Your text message should contain the keywords of a song title
(and possibly an artist name) that you want to hear. DittyBot finds
that email (he checks Mail every 45 seconds) and copies the song name
into a text file. The song name is then copied into iTunes and a
playlist is created from your search. Next, DittyBot loads Skype (the
internet telephony app) and begins calling your mobile phone. Your
mobile phone rings and when you pick it up, you should hear your song
start playing in all its compressed glory. DittyBot will play your
selection to you over your phone until you hang up.  Mind you, this
all should happen within 1 minute of sending your song request
(depending on the speed of your POP server). Sometimes it's even
quicker!

http://plasticbugs.com/index.php?p=267

------------------------------

From: Ted Klugman <tedklugman@yahoo.no.spam.com.lga.highwinds-media.com>
Subject: 700-555-4141 Does Not Work
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 19:41:39 -0400
Organization: Optimum Online


Recently, my long distance carrier (TTI National, somehow a subsidary
of MCI) informed me that they're going to start charging a "monthly
fee" of $1.99. So I decided it was time to switch.

My new carrier's website instructs new users to call 700-555-4141 to
verify when the LD carrier has been changed. I hadn't dialed the
number in quite a while, so for kicks, I dialed it.

"We're sorry, your call can not be completed as dialed." This didn't
happen the last time I tried it (more than a year ago)

(Yes, I tried it with a "1" in front of the number)

So, any thoughts on  how I can check who my LD carrier is?

TIA


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It seems to work here, but in a sort
of half-baked way. Prairie Stream is at present getting their long
distance service through Qwest Communications. When I dialed
1-700-555-4141, a recording answered and said two things (but sort
of like one long sentence): "Thank you for using Qwest Communications,
your call cannot be completed as dialed" with the second part of that
being more emphasized than the first part. So it could be you did not
have the phone to your ear listeing _closely_ when the first two or
three words were stated. At least, that was my experience just now
trying it. PAT]

------------------------------

Subject: Invitation to Venice, Slovenia, and New York;
From: IPSI Conferences <bled2005@ipsiconferences.org>
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 03:40:07 +0200


Dear potential Speaker:

On behalf of the organizing committee, I would like to extend a
cordial invitation for you to attend one of the upcoming IPSI BgD
multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary
conferences.

      ---------------------------------------

The first one will take place in the Venice, Italy:

IPSI-2005 VENICE
Hotel Luna Baglioni (arrival: 9 November 05 / departure: 14 November 05)
New Deadlines: 25 June 05 (abstract) / 1 August 05 (full paper)

      ----------------------------------------

The second one will take place on the Bled lake, Slovenia:

IPSI-2005 SLOVENIA
Hotel Toplice (arrival: 8 December 05 / departure: 11 December 05)
New Deadlines: 10 July 05 (abstract) & 1 September 05 (full paper)

      ------------------------------------------

The third one will take place in New York City, NY, USA:

IPSI-2005 NEW YORK
Hotel Beacon (arrival: 5 January 06 / departure: 8 January 06)
New Deadlines: 1 August 05 (abstract) & 1 October 05 (full paper) 

      --------------------------------------------

All IPSI BgD conferences are non-profit. They bring together the elite
of the world science; so far, we have had seven Nobel Laureates
speaking at the opening ceremonies. The conferences always take place
in some of the most attractive places of the world. All those who come
to IPSI conferences once, always love to come back (because of the
unique professional quality and the extremely creative atmosphere);
lists of past participants are on the web, as well as details of
future conferences.

These conferences are in line with the newest recommendations of the
US National Science Foundation and of the EU research sponsoring
agencies, to stress multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and
transdisciplinary research (M+I+T++ research). The speakers and
activities at the conferences truly support this type of scientific
interaction.

One of the main topics of this conference is "E-education and
E-business with Special Emphasis on Semantic Web and Web Datamining"

Other topics of interest include, but are not limited to:

* Internet
* Computer Science and Engineering
* Mobile Communications/Computing for Science and Business
* Management and Business Administration
* Education
* e-Medicine
* e-Oriented Bio Engineering/Science and Molecular Engineering/Science
* Environmental Protection
* e-Economy
* e-Law
* Technology Based Art and Art to Inspire Technology Developments
* Internet Psychology

If you would like more information on either conference, please reply
to this e-mail message.

If you plan to submit an abstract and paper, please let us know
immediately for planning purposes. Note that you can submit your paper
also to the IPSI Transactions journal.

Sincerely Yours,

Prof. V. Milutinovic, Chairman,
IPSI BgD Conferences

------------------------------

From: Lisa Minter <lisa_minter2001@yahoo.com>
Subject: Worst Phishing Fraud Attack Ever! 40 Million Card Holders Affected
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 19:23:34 -0500


Security Breach Could Expose 40 Million Card Holders to Fraud
By JOE BEL BRUNO, Associated Press Writer

A security breach of customer information at a credit card transaction
company could expose to fraud up to 40 million cardholders of multiple
brands, MasterCard International Inc. said Friday.

The credit card giant said its security division detected multiple
instances of fraud that tracked back to CardSystems Solutions Inc.,
which processes credit card and other payments for banks and
merchants.

The compromised data included names, banks and account numbers - not
addresses or Social Security numbers, said MasterCard spokeswoman
Sharon Gamsin. Such data could be used to steal funds but not
identities.

It was the latest in a series of security breaches affecting valuable
consumer data at major financial institutions and data brokers in an
increasingly database-driven world.

The breach appears to be the largest yet involving financial data,
said David Sobel, general counsel at the Electronic Privacy
Information Center.

"The steady stream of these disclosures shows the pressing need for
regulation of the industry both in terms of limitation in the amount
of personal information that companies collect and also liability when
these kinds of disclosures occur," Sobel said.

A flurry of disclosures of breaches affecting high-profile companies
including Citigroup Inc., Bank of America Corp. and DSW Shoe Warehouse
has prompted federal lawmakers to draw up legislation designed to
better protect consumer privacy.

CardSystems was hit by a virus-like computer script that captured
customer data for the purpose of fraud, Gamsin said. She said she did
not know how the script got into the system. The FBI was
investigating.

MasterCard, which said about 14 million of its own cards were exposed,
first announced the breach in a news release late Friday afternoon,
saying it was notifying its card-issuing banks of the problem.

Under federal law, credit card holders are liable for no more than $50
of unauthorized charges, and many card issuers including MasterCard
will even waive the $50.

Reached on his cell phone, CardSystems' chief financial officer,
Michael A.  Brady, said: "We were absolutely blindsided by a press
release by the association."

He refused to answer any questions and referred calls to the company's
chief executive, John M. Perry, and its senior vice president of
marketing, Bill N. Reeves. A message left for Perry and Reeves at the
company's Atlanta offices was not immediately returned.

CardSystems processes less than 0.5 percent of American Express'
domestic transactions, said company spokeswoman Judy Tenzer. She said
a small number of its cardholders were affected, though she did not
have an exact figure.

"We are aware of the situation, we're closely monitoring it and we do
have an investigation under way," Tenzer said.

Discover Financial Services Inc. said it was aware of the situation
and would not say whether any of its cards were involved. Visa USA and
a large issuer of cards, MBNA Corp., did not immediately calls seeking
comment.

CardSystems, which has a processing center in Tuscon, Ariz., has been
in business for more than 15 years and handles transactions for more
than 115,000 small to mid-sized businesses, according to the company's
Web site.  The company says it processes transactions worth more than
$15 billion annually.

Sobel said the fact that the latest breach involved a third party
"indicates that this is a shadowy industry where the consumer never
really knows who is going to be handling and using their personal
information," he added.  "Presumably, the affected consumers thought
they were dealing with MasterCard."

Earlier this month, Citigroup said United Parcel Service lost computer
tapes with sensitive information from 3.9 million customers of
CitiFinancial, a unit that provides personal and home loans.

There have also been breaches involving other kinds of sensitive data.

ChoicePoint Inc. said in February that thieves using stolen identities
had created 50 dummy businesses that pulled data including names,
addresses and Social Security numbers on as many as 145,000 people.

In March, LexisNexis Inc. disclosed that hackers had commandeered a
database and gained access to the personal files of as many as 32,000
people.

The company has since increased its estimate of the people affected to
310,000. Information accessed included names, addresses and Social
Security and driver's license numbers, but not credit history, medical
records or financial information, corporate parent Reed Elsevier Group
PLC said in a statement.

"Hardly a week goes by without startling new examples of breaches of
sensitive personal data, reminding us how important it is to pass a
comprehensive identity theft prevention bill in Congress quickly,"
said Sen.  Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y.

AP writers Anick Jesdanun, Adam Geller, Harry Weber, Ted Bridis, Arthur
Rotstein and Marcy Gordon contributed to this report.

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My thanks to Lisa for rounding up this
item. So what do we do now? Discontinue any/all shopping on the
web where Card Systems is the processor? What information _is_ safe
to give over the net any longer? Any at all?  PAT]  

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 00:11:34 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Cell Phones Now Playing Role of Wallet


By BRUCE MEYERSON AP Business Writer

NEW YORK (AP) -- Already a device of multiple disguises, from camera
to music player and mini-TV, the cell phone's next trick may be the
disappearing wallet.

After all, since more than a quarter of the people on the planet 
already carry around cell phones, and hundreds of millions are 
joining them every year, why should they bring along credit and debit 
cards when a mobile device can make payments just as well?

At the simplest level, all that's needed is to embed phones with a
short-range radio chip to beam credit card information to a terminal
at a store register. It's not unlike the wireless system used to pay
tolls on many highways or the SpeedPass keychain wand used to buy gas
at Exxon Mobile Corp. pumps.

This is already a reality in Japan, where NTT DoCoMo Inc. says 3 
million cell phone subscribers use its Mobile Wallet service to buy 
things at 20,000 stores and vending machines.

Similar services may be on the way in the United States and Europe.
MasterCard International Inc. has been testing phone-based versions of
its PayPass contactless payment technology since 2003, and may conduct
a significant market trial next year.

But there also are more ambitious visions brewing that contemplate the
cell phone as a new focal point for managing your personal
finances. The phone would supplant not only credit and debit cards,
but wallets, checkbooks, Web sites, computer programs like Quicken,
and online bill payment services such as PayPal or CheckFree.

While the mightiest players in Western banking have yet to embrace
that notion, and some are dubious of the appeal, the concept has drawn
interest in other regions and may get a tryout here soon.

      - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=49940191

------------------------------

From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
Subject: Re: Bell Divestiture
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 03:57:09 -0000
Organization: Widgets, Inc.


In article <telecom24.273.8@telecom-digest.org>,
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:

> Fred Goldstein wrote:

>> Monopolies in LD transmission?  That
>> would have held up the price of data transmission, slowing down all
>> sorts of datacomm.  Ma Bell viewed leased lines, so necessary for
>> data, as a substitute for profitable long distance minutes of use, so
>> they overpriced them.  The RBOCs still do the same thing with their
>> Special Access tariffs!

> But long distance rates for both switched and private line service
> were both on the way down well before actual divesture.  Also, faster
> and faster digital lines were being installed before divesture.

I _guarantee_ that AT&T and the Bells were not 'voluntarily' reducing the
prices just because of a decrease in costs.

There were precisely *two* possible reasons for a price reduction:

  1) pressure from competition.

  2) enough 'pent up demand' that the price reduction brought in 'more
     than enough additional volume' to make up for the reduction in
     profitability.  

>> I maintain it was mostly technology -- cheaper
   terminal equipment and >carrier media followed by higher call
   volume and greater economies of >scale -- that caused and still
   cause long distance rates to fall.

The _rate_ of deployment, however, was driven by the competition _doing_it_
FIRST.

> As Pat noted in his comments, in the early days MCI had a big advanage
> serving only the high profit markets with no obligation to handle the
> expensive stuff or provide support services.  Any time a phone call
> had trouble they dump it into AT&T's lap.

"In the early days"  all Internet connectivity was between those 'high
profit markets' -- making the 'alternative' carriers an excellent fit
for delivering such service  at a lower cost than AT&T/Bell/WEco could 
possibly offer.

>> Let's say digital leased line rates were, instead, regulated at
>> cost-based levels.

> Are you sure they weren't?  I'm not that familiar with private line
> tarrifs,

In Chicago, in the early 80s a 'dry pair' for data service between
point A and point B cost several *hundred* dollars a month.  This was
for renting the bare wire-pair between 'point A' and the C.O. a cross-
connect in the C.O., and the bare wire-pair out to 'point B'.  Yet,
you could rent those same two sets of wire-pairs, *and* the use of
C.O.  switching equipment connecting to the PSTN, for less than
$40/month.

Interestingly they would rent those _same_ dry pairs, for 'alarm
service' signalling at a fraction of the "data service" price.

'DDS' service was priced even higher.

> but as mentioned my own employer's network went down in price
> and up in speed before divesture.  Private networks, such as owned and
> run by railroads, were shifted over to AT&T since it was cheaper for
> AT&T to provide it than doing it themselves.

Can you name a single railroad that had a developed long-haul telecom
network that _voluntarily_ converted to AT&T service?  The one that I
am aware of where that happened did it _because_ the railroad was
*sold*, but the prior owner _kept_ the telecom operation *(including
R-O-W on all that railroad's trackage) rather than including it in the
sale.

> Considering they already had a network in place, there must be have
> been good cost savings to dump it for AT&T.

>> But without local competition in 1996, and with the Internet going
>> public when it did in 1992, I suggest that the BOC networks would have
>> collapsed in 1996!  The RBOC networks came within months of doing so.
>> Dial-up Internet traffic was exploding.  Bell System culture bought
>> switches on a 5-year planning schedule, so they could not react
>> quickly.  CLECs were authorized in February, 1996, and by the end of
>> the year they were carrying substantial dial-up ISP traffic. ...
>> AOL did not use CLECs in 1996, and the RBOCs could
>> not provide circuits fast enough (I know; I was working on AOLnet at
>> the time).  Other ISPs did, and that prevented more RBOC switches from
>> melting down under the load.

> I'm not sure "months of collapse" is an accurate characterization.

It is not inaccurate. Demand ramped up *far*faster* than the Bell system
projections indicated.

There were numerous big-city locations where you _could_not_get_ RBOC
phone lines in quantity, when you wanted them. 'Rationing' _was_ in
effect.  For a variety of reasons -- lack of field workers to do
physical interconnects, lack of C.O. capacity, among the big ones.

When you're down to the last few thousand numbers available out of a
C.O.  that serves 100,000 numbers, and the new switch isn't due for
delivery for another 18 months, you _don't_ have many choices.

> The Internet boom did not happen suddenly overnight.  Remember that
> since the 1960s people used dial-up to communicate with computers and
> this traffic continued to grow.  Hobbyists with early home computers
> began to talk to each other then BBS's came along.  

Home computers didn't *exist* until the mid 1970s.  The Altair 8800
plans ran in PE's Jan 1975 issue. The APPLE-II didn't exist until
late 1977.

The first BBS went online in Feb 1978.  Within two years, the operator
of that system had crossed swords with the local telco
_at_least_three_times_, where they refused to install the additional
residential lines he wanted.  Claiming he "had" to be running a
business.  Public-utility commission complaints ensued, and the telco
did, in each case, end up installing the additional lines.

Other large-scale "hobby BBSs" across the country reported similar
problems.

There were telco capacity problems in the mid 80s, and in the mid 90s.
The first one was _not_ (at least directly) Internet related.  That
one gets blamed on the public packet-data networks.  The fireworks
started when Telenet announced a program to let hobbiests take
advantage of the (tremendous amount of) excess capacity they had
'after business hours', This program was called "PC Pursuit", and
allowed one to dial into the Telenet network, and then dial *out* to a
BBS (or "whatever") in a remote location -- as long as that
destination was a 'local' call from the Telenet 'portal' in that area.

Telenet found that they couldn't build on capacity _fast_enough_ to
keep up with the demand.  And most telco 'usage projections' went in
the trashcan.  In some areas, it took less than 5 months to reach
levels that had not been predicted to be reached in 2 years.

The mid-90's debacle _was_ Internet driven.  dial-up usage was ramping
up much faster than projections had called for.  'last mile' service
was forcibly opened to the CLECs DSL was being pushed.  Those who
weren't interested in DSL itself, _still_ got curious about "what's
all the excitement about", which contributed to the dial-up demand.

In many places ILECs _didn't_have_ the manpower to keep up with the
demand.  Install dates -- even for additional _voice_ service -- were
running 8-10 weeks behind.  It took me thirteen weeks(!) to get a DSL
line in, over 12 of that was ILEC problems.

> The RBOC were serving this growing traffic all along; and it was
> well recognized and expected it would increase greatly.  There were
> the early services such as Compuserve and Prodigy.

Which were a drop in the bucket, compared to the public packet-data
networks that let you connect to any of a myriad of host systems.

> Remember too that many users got a second telephone line for their
> computer use.  At the same time, the real (inflation adjusted) cost of
> local phone service went down and more people got second lines for
> their kids.  The phone companies were planning and responding to this
> all along -- expanding switch and local loop capacity.

It is a fact, nonetheless, that the growth outstripped *all*
expectations.  Line availability _was_ 'rationed' in some areas, due
to inadequate C.O.  service availability.  Number availability was
rationed in some areas, due to 'near exhaustion' of space in the NPA
 -- there are several 'splits' that were implemented on _very_short_
time-lines.

>> America will, as a result, fall even farther behind the rest of the
>> world in most matters of telecom.

> Is the U.S. really "behind" the rest of the world?  Ironically, prior
> to divesture the U.S. was by far the leader in telecom service.
> Indicators like cost, lines per person, etc. all were best for the
> U.S.

"Was" is not "is".  <wry grin>

Even prior to divestiture, the 'road signs' were there for anyone to
read.  "Measurements" for quality of U.S. service were flat-lining,
and in some cases, actually declining.  While other in areas,
particularly Europe, and the more developed areas of the Pac. Rim,
service 'quality' was approaching that of traditional U.S. levels,
*and* showing no signs of leveling out.

The most common dial-tone (residential or small business) in most of
the developed world is ISDN, at cost roughly equivalent to POTS in the
U.S.

ISDN, except for hi-cap service, is moribund, if not entirely dead in
the U.S.

ISDN calls for less equipment in the CO than POTS (so it -should-
price lower), provides better voice quality, and offers a flock of
capabilities that are simply 'not available' on a POTS line.

> Tim@Backhome.org wrote:

>> The No. 1ESS was basically a No 5XBAR with stored program control
>> (SPC).  The real motivator was to cut labor cost and secondarily to be
>> able to market special calling features.

> Well, basically every switch was an advancement on the basic Strowger
> unit which itself was to eliminate manual operators.

> But I suspect the ESS offered more benefits than you suggest.  I
> believe it took up less floor space and operated faster, so it could
> handle more calls in the same building.  I believe it was more
> reliable and more flexible.

Space was not an issue, generally.  Possibly in a few central-city
facilities in a few of the largest cities.

"Speed" is not related to call-handling capacity.

The reliability benefit was mostly to the telco -- less service
personnel on the payroll.

> Also, since the Bell System's rates were based partly on cost, cost
> savings would be passed along to the customer which they were.  In a
> time of great inflation local rates remain nearly level.

The Bell system, like any regulated monopoly was _guaranteed_ a
certain minimum rate-of-return on investments.  Very, *very* rarely
was 'how' that money was spent questioned.  If there was a way that
was 90% as good, but only cost 10% as much, they *still* got to use
the 'expensive' way that they did things as the base for their
'profit' margin.

Oh, yeah, there wasn't any "cap" on the profits either.  If they were
making 'excessive' profits, there wasn't any 'price reduction'
program.  Of course, rate increases would not be approved while the
profit margin was above the required level.  when phone rates "didn't
go up" for many years, it was because the telco was making more than
their 'fair, guaranteed, profit' for all those many years.

> [Telecom Editor's Note]

>> Bell got hit so bad for a few years, they finally decided they had
>> to rebuild the entire phone system from the ground up, and the answer
>> to that was ESS. So as you stated, Bell did not develop ESS in order
>> to make a few dollars selling 'custom calling features' to users; ESS
>> was developed so the telephone company could regain control of a
>> network which was rapidly getting out of control.

> Another major reason for the system rebuild was to protect the network
> itself.  The "phone phreaks" were using 'blue boxes' to take control
> of the network and lock up long distance trunks.  While mostly used to
> save money, it was potentially very dangerous.

All that 'non revenue' traffic was the real killer.  It was so easy to
do, and becoming *so*widespread* that it was having a measurable
impact on over-all revenues, and the ability to deliver revenue
services.

> As to the issue of not interested in providing the customer with
> advanced features, I'm not sure I agree.  According to Bell Labs
> Record and the history books, advanced service features (especially
> for business users) were important.

Can you name a feature/capability introduced by the Bell System after
1970 that was not present in third-party-provided, customer-owned, PBX
equipment first?  The only one I can think of is the "picturephone".

Even "caller id" (for internal calls) was available on a Rolm CBX
years before the telco's offered it.

3-way calling, conference calling, call waiting, speed-dial, call
'camping', etc.  Standard features on PBXs years before there was
Centrex availability.  And even longer before they were offered on
plain-jane POTS service.

> The Bell System did not have to retrofit Step-by-step exchanges with
> Touch Tone converters -- it didn't save them any money.  But they
> still developed four models for various SxS situations.

'Native touch-tone' was far less expensive for the telco than native pulse 
dialing.

"Pre-converting" end-users to touch-tone was some expense 'now', for
less expense 'later'.

Pulse converters in front of native touch-tone was _still_ a cost win,
albeit not as much as pure touch-tone.  the pulse converter, and the
touch-tone decodes could now be multiplexed across many lines.  You
only needed as many sets of those devices as there were calls being
_dialed_ at any given time, not one for each line through the switch.

The reduction is several orders of magnitude.

> The Bell System didn't have to develop the Princess or Trimline
> telephone sets.  But they did.  And we know they put a heck of a lot
> of effort into optimizing the design for user comfort.

Do you know *why* those phones were developed?

Telephone _line_ sales had reached the 'saturation' point, Nearly
everybody that was likely to buy telephone service *had* service. The
only place for 'revenue growth' was in "add-on sales".  'Additional
extensions' was the big-money item in this class.  extra jacks were
one-time revenue item.  'Long cords' (set to wall, or handset to base)
couldn't justify much of a recurring charge.  Additional sets, on the
other hand, were almost pure gravy. With only one line there was, in
general, only one phone in use at a time, so the wear-and-tear on the
second phone was mostly covered by the increased life-expectancy of
the first one.

Bell was trying to sell the idea that you needed more than one phone
at home -- Ideally, 'one in every room'.  But they only had about
three phones to offer -- the standard desk set or two types of wall
set.  Those alternatives were fine for the workplace, but woefully
inadequate -- from a marketing standpoint -- for the residential
market.  If it clashed with the decor, the lady of the house was *not*
going to permit it.

So, if Bell wanted to "make money faster", they had to "sell" more
extension phones.

To "sell" more extensions, they _had_ to have something that was
'acceptable' decor-wise to the decision-maker in the household.

So, the "Princess" phone was expressly designed for the bedroom.
Compact, a rounded 'blend in anywhere" shape, a lighted dial, to
facilitate use in the dark, etc. etc.

And the "TrimLine" for other places where you didn't want something
that "looked like a business phone".  e.g. the parlor, or a 'family
room'.

The Bell System *did* have to develop those phones -- or something of
a similar nature -- *IF* they wanted to sell 'additional phones' to
the then- existing customer base.

Those phones were not intended as 'replacement' for the existing
office-type phone in the residence, but as _additions_ to it.

> The entire history of the Bell System has been one of improving the
> economies of scale to lower the cost to get more traffic and make more
> money.

Disproof by counter-example: the practices and policies leading up to
the Carterphone decision.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Before Charlie Brown became Chairman of
AT&T, he was President and CEO of Illinois Bell. At that time, he 
lived about two blocks from me in Rogers Park, a north side
neighborhood in Chicago. In chatting with him at his home one day, he
said to me basically what Robert Bonomi claims above. I specifically
recall one conversation we had: I had business service in downtown
Chicago (office was WEbster 9-4600 and my recorded message lines were
on HARrison-7-1234 (and upward in number). Both sets of lines were
served from the real old, clunky, stepping switches out of Wabash CO.
All the lines were just dreadful sometimes, in terms of noise and
crosstalk. Normally of course, I just dealt with the Business Office
like anyone would do; it wasn't and still isn't my thing to drop names
or appeal to the Chairman's office unless absolutely required. 

But one day, attempting to make a call from my office phone, the
dialing and setup of the call sounded just like the nickname telco
guys had for the central office: The Wabash Cannonball. (Chicago-Wabash
was the central office, at Congress Blvd. and Wabash Avenue.) It was
called the 'Wabash Cannonball' because of the amount of noise those
relays would make when a bunch were setting or resetting within a
couple seconds of each other; very noisy to be in the frames
anytime. I called repair service and asked them "please, are you doing
_any_ routine these days there, or just letting it all go to hell
since you plan to have the ESS up and running in about three months?"

The repair clerk said to me, "Sir, we do _not_ just allow our
equipment to 'go to hell' as you put it. We maintain it regularly, and
I will put in a service request for your lines."  A night or two
later, I walked past Charlie Brown's home (he was getting ready to
move up to Wilmette because the RP neighborhood was getting so bad)
and I mentioned that experience to him. His somewhat guarded response
was that the techs had been told to 'do what was absolutely needed' to
keep the old system up and running, but not a lot more. 

Then came the weekend it was all cut over to ESS (Wabash did not go
through several years of crossbar stuff first, just straight from
stepping switches to ESS) and ah ... the blessed _quiet_ during the
call setups. And the speed! If you did not know better, you would have
thought you dialed an extra digit or two in error and were going to
get an intercept or a wrong number; under ESS the instant your finger
came off the dial, the other end started ringing. No more of the
Wabash Cannonball chugging down the tracks and about half the time the
switch train getting derailed by accident.  PAT]

------------------------------

From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
Subject: Re: Monitor/Recorder for Residential Power Line Outages?
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 04:15:58 -0000
Organization: Widgets, Inc.


In article <telecom24.273.5@telecom-digest.org>, AES
<siegman@stanford.edu> wrote: 

> Any have pointers to a gadget that will monitor and log power outages
> or glitches on 110V or 220V residential electrical service?

> Looking for a home or retail level gadget that will work either
> connected to a dedicated computer, or preferably free-standing with
> periodic read-out to a computer, logging time and duration of both
> longer outages and short glitches (anything long enough to cause
> digital clocks and appliance displays to reset). 

> Asking on this group because a lot of tech-savvy people seem to hang
> out on this group; glad to accept pointers to any other group.

> Any way to make the computer itself (e.g., Mac iBook) do the sensing
> and recording?

It should be obvious that any such device will need to be powered by 
some sort of UPS.  Whereupon you may as well use a UPS.  <grin>

Most modern "smart" UPS systems have a capability for signalling a
host computer about the state of the incoming power, and the state of
the UPS batteries.  Allowing, among other things, 'controlled'
shutdown of a UPS-protected device when the UPS batteries are about to
expire.

However, if you have a 'dumb' UPS, it is trivially easy to create a
sensor that can be monitored by a computer serial port.  A simple
120VAC relay does the job.  Wire it so that when power goes *off*, the
a "modem control" signal is asserted that indicates the serial port is
"usable".  When the power is on, and you try to "open" that port for
use, the operation will wait for the right modem-control signal.  The
power goes off, the signal appears, and 'whatever it is' your software
does after the 'open' on the port succeeds will happen.  Like logging
the fact that the power went off.  When power returns, that signal
will be dropped, and you'll get a status-change on that successfully
opened port.  Voila!  You can log that power returned.

*IF* the computer loses power, _and_ is set to automatically restart
when power returns, then you simply log the "power returned" when the
machine boots up.

------------------------------

From: Kenneth P. Stox <ken@stox.org>
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Subject: Re: For a Brief Shining Moment: The Lorimer Brothers
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 03:18:48 GMT


Lisa Minter wrote:

> Before the separation of Northern Telecom (then Northern Electric)
> from Western Electric following the Consent Decree between American
> Telephone & Telegraph (AT&T) and the Justice Department in 1956,

Has anyone ever done a "genealogy" of all the companies that have spun
off from AT&T at one point or another? Ma Bell sure had a lot of kids
in her time.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This would make a very interesting 
report for the Digest, if anyone feels like compiling it.  PAT]

------------------------------


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, Yahoo Groups, 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-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.

Contact information:    Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
                        Post Office Box 50
                        Independence, KS 67301
                        Phone: 620-402-0134
                        Fax 1: 775-255-9970
                        Fax 2: 530-309-7234
                        Fax 3: 208-692-5145         
                        Email: editor@telecom-digest.org

Subscribe:  telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org
Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@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 oldest e-zine/mailing list
on the internet in any category!

URL information:        http://telecom-digest.org

Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/
  (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)

RSS Syndication of TELECOM Digest: http://telecom-digest.org/rss.html
  For syndication examples see http://www.feedrollpro.com/syndicate.php?id=308
    and also http://feeds.feedburner.com/TelecomDigest

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from                  *
*   Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate  *
*   800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting.         *
*   http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com                    *
*   Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing      *
*   views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc.                             *
*************************************************************************

ICB Toll Free News.  Contact information is not sold, rented or leased.

One click a day feeds a person a meal.  Go to http://www.thehungersite.com

Copyright 2004 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.

              ************************

DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE JUST 65 CENTS ONE OR TWO INQUIRIES CHARGED TO
YOUR CREDIT CARD!  REAL TIME, UP TO DATE! SPONSORED BY TELECOM DIGEST
AND EASY411.COM   SIGN UP AT http://www.easy411.com/telecomdigest !

              ************************

Visit http://www.mstm.okstate.edu and take the next step in your
career with a Master of Science in Telecommunications Management
(MSTM) degree from Oklahoma State University (OSU). This 35
credit-hour interdisciplinary program is designed to give you the
skills necessary to manage telecommunications networks, including
data, video, and voice networks.

The MSTM degree draws on the expertise of the OSU's College
of Business Administration; the College of Arts and Sciences; and the
College of Engineering, Architecture and Technology. The program has
state-of-the-art lab facilities on the Stillwater and Tulsa campus
offering hands-on learning to enhance the program curriculum.  Classes
are available in Stillwater, Tulsa, or through distance learning.

Please contact Jay Boyington for additional information at
405-744-9000, mstm-osu@okstate.edu, or visit the MSTM web site at
http://www.mstm.okstate.edu

              ************************

   ---------------------------------------------------------------

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 fifty 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.

End of TELECOM Digest V24 #275
******************************