From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Mar 6 15:02:07 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.3/NSCS-1.0S) id PAA26960; Wed, 6 Mar 1996 15:02:07 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 15:02:07 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199603062002.PAA26960@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #101 TELECOM Digest Wed, 6 Mar 96 15:02:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 101 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: 800 / 888 Replication Madness (Art Kamlet) Re: Idea For Additional Telemarketing Restrictions (Peter Ilieve) Re: Unadvertised MCI Deal During March (Richard Spall) Re: Telstra Telecard (an Australian Calling Card) (Kevin McConnaughey) Re: Booming Telecom Market in the Netherlands (Gary Novosielski) Re: Misuse of the Internet? (Mark Crispin) Re: Misuse of the Internet? (Stuart Zimmerman) Re: AT&T Worldnet for Macintosh Real Soon Now? (Dan O'Conor) Re: A New RBOC Media Offensive For a "Modem Tax" (Garrett A. Wollman) Re: Bellsouth Position on Bill and Keep (Cliff McGlamry) Voice Processing Industry Dynamics and Network Services (Tara D. Mahon) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: kamlet@infinet.com (Art Kamlet) Subject: Re: 800 / 888 Replication Madness Date: 6 Mar 1996 18:35:07 GMT Organization: InfiNet In article , TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Ken Weaverling (weave@hopi.dtcc.edu): > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The proponents of replication seem to > feel that it will be harder for consumers to discern the difference > between '888' and '800' than it is for the same consumer to discern > the difference between computers and phonograph records. They believe > that since the public is being told that 800 and 888 are 'the same > thing' (for the purpose of instilling confidence in persons who dial > an 888 number) that therefore the same people are likely to think > that 888-anything will reach the same business as 800-anything. Another problem: Since these are toll free calls, if you know the toll free number is BIG-GUNS but don't know if it's 800 or 888, you can dial either. If you dial the wrong number, you don;'t pay anything, but the poor guy you just called does. So if I were to get just a plain, no mnemonic 888 number, I'd want one that can't spell out anything! > Now whose interests should come first? That of large businesses who > seek to preserve the purity of their vanity number or that of the > telephone network and its rapidly depleting stock of available numbers? What is the extent of the Vanity number problem? If 1/2 of 1% of all 800 numbers are vanity numbers, it might be cheaper to just live with duplication of vanity numbers in 800 and 888. But if 40% are vanity numbers, that isn't acceptable. In my personal experience, almost all 800 numbers I call are not (to my knoweldge) vanity numbers. So I'd guess it's closer to 1% than to 40%, but that's strictly a guess. Art Kamlet Columbus, Ohio kamlet@infinet.com ------------------------------ From: peter@memex.co.uk (Peter Ilieve) Subject: Re: Idea For Additional Telemarketing Restrictions Date: 6 Mar 1996 13:27:49 -0000 Organization: MR-Memex Ltd, East Kilbride, Scotland In article , Tom Allebrandi wrote: > So, my idea is this: > Telemarketers should be barred from calling unlisted and non published > phone numbers. > What do you think of the idea? > Are there any states that have already instituted such restrictions? > I'd love an example when I send a letter suggesting this idea to my > state and federal representatives. It is a very good idea, and entirely practical. Here in the UK we already have such a thing. In the back of every phone book there is printed a set of guidelines from the Office of Fair Trading (a government body) on selling by telephone. It specifically says that telesales people should not call unlisted numbers. Over here we have various kinds of status for listing. You can be unlisted, which means you aren't in the phone book but you can be found via directory enquiries (assistance for you USA folk), or you can be ex-directory, where you can't be found from either. The code of practice says `unlisted' but I am sure it applies to both. Basically, telesales people can only use the phone book. We also have a separate prohibition on anything that calls someone and then plays them a recording, but I don't know exactly what these regulations are. There are also moves afoot at a European Union level to restrict telesales even further, so calls can only be made to people who have given their explicit consent in advance. This is at some sort of draft directive stage (the EU directive setting process is very longwinded) and the telesales industry is, not surprisingly, dead set against it, so I don't know how this will turn out. If it does eventually pass, expect to see very small print added to all sorts of things like finance contracts giving this explicit consent. Peter Ilieve peter@aldie.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 13:38:54 +0000 From: richard spall Subject: Re: Unadvertised MCI Deal During March Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Richardson, TX Jeremy Schertzinger (jeremyps@eskimo.com) wrote: > MCI has a deal for their customers that is not publicized anywhere (at > least that I've found). Residential customers can make up to $75.00 > of free calls on Saturdays in March for *free*. This is all 24 hours > on Saturdays, not just certain hours. If you don't believe me, call > MCI Customer Service yourself at 800-444-1616 and ask about it. I > also understand they are going to have another unadvertised deal in > April. I believe April's promotion is up to $50 free calls on Mondays ... Richard [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You know if a person has several lines and is willing to default at least one of them to each of the major carriers then by carefully scheduling your calling patterns and which phones you use on which days, your long distance bill could be almost zero. For example one phone defaulted to Sprint for use on Friday; one to MCI for whatever days of the month they plan to run these special offers; one to AT&T to pack with calls so you get their thirty percent discount each month; one to Frontier that you use for the thirty dollars or so in free calls they give you first sign up and after that point you don't use it it all but keep it on record so you are eligible for their inexpensive cellular resale service, etc. It may be about time for someone to get the most recent edition of the book 'Long Distance For Less' by Dr. Robert Self and review it here. Does anyone have a copy? A really sophisticated user could use that as a general guide and combine it with all the special offers from month to month to cut his phone bill to an absolute minimum. By the way, AT&T is still allowing the transfer of True Reward points between accounts. Anyone not using theirs is encouraged to transfer them as a gift to the Digest. I have another humongous phone bill to pay and only a few of those 'Pay to the order of the Telephone Company' checks left. Please help! PAT] ------------------------------ From: Kevin McConnaughey Subject: Re: Telstra Telecard (an Australian Calling Card) Date: Wed, 06 Mar 1996 10:45:59 -0800 Nawal Aggarwal wrote: > I made lot of International calls using the Telstra Telecard assuming > that calls were charged at the NORMAL rate. I discovered when I got > the bill that international calls made from outside Australia cost > more than three times the normal international rates. > For example: Australia to India - $1.92 peak time > Belguim to India thru' Telstra - $5.90 off-peak > This basically means that Telstra is charging for two international > destinations e.g. Belguim-Australia, Australia-Belguim. I wouldn't be too quick lay ALL the blame at Telstra's feet for the level of these third country calling charges. Offering third country calling to customers in a country other than the one in which the carrier operates AND making the charges acceptable AND abiding by local telecom laws as well as the carrier's existing interconnection agreements can be difficult. Third Country Service via the Carrier's "Country Direct" Calling Platform One big issue that any international carrier has with using its "Country Direct" calling platform for calls to destinations other than the home country is that the originating country may be "cheated" of its legally defined revenues for certain international calls. Telstra (and most other carriers with longstanding, direct interconnection agreements) need to be somewhat diplomatic and negotiate an acceptable arrangement with the "host" country PTT. Frequently these arrangements mean that the carrier, like Telsta perhaps in this case, must pay full settlements to both the originating country (to compensate for lost revenues) as well as the normal settlements to the terminating country as well as the network costs associated with call taking two "hops" (originating country to Australia to terminating country). This effects can easily more than double the cost the carrier. Also, according to ITU recommendations - as I understand them, authorization from both the originating country and the terminating country is always required. Otherwise the "middleman" carrier is engaged in unauthorized transit or refile -- both of which are frowned upon. > Ironically it's cheaper to call from Belguim to India directly. I > won't be surprised if it's cheaper to call thru' local carrier to > anywhere in the world. What IS interesting to me is that there is room for international carriers to squeeze into this business at all. <> The thought that a call from one European destination to another (or India in this case) might be cheaper via Australia is pretty counter intuitive. On the one hand is the high cost of facilities to/from Australia, and on the other are the high settlement costs mentioned above. I should note that time of day differences might allow Australian (and other) carriers to use their offpeak capacity and therefore not charge for the "fixed network" costs. > Also they take 45 days to process the billing for calls made thru' > Telecard. Which means you'll never know how you've spent in the last > 45 days thru' this card. Another Possibility - Telecard is just the Billing Mechanism Another alternative that carriers such as Telsta can use is to arrange with other carriers to carry their third country calls directly and to "bill" Telsta. Telstra would then need to get the billing information from the originating PTT and then re-bill the call to the customer. This might be an explanation for such a lag as mentioned above. The originating carrier views the use of the Telstra card something like they might the use of any credit card -- just a billing mechanism. I don't know if this is how Telsta handles these calls or not, but it is a possibility. > As far as calls to Australia are concerend, OPTUS is cheaper any time. Competition is A Good Thing. (Does OPTUS offer third country calling?) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Mar 1996 12:29:30 -0500 From: Gary Novosielski Subject: Re: Booming Telecom Market in the Netherlands In TELECOM Digest V16 #95, aveller@vnet3.vub.ac.be (A. Veller) wrote: > Regarding the buzzers, there has indeed been a huge advertising > campaign, by PTT Telecom, the incumbent operator, and to a lesser > extent Motorola. The buzzers are no longer the boring drab grey or > black pagers used to be, but they are produced in flashy colours. The > ads range from hip to funny e.g. featuring codes you could use for > buzzing: > 12 = I love you > 23 = Help, the baby is coming! > 34 = Come home, dinner is served. > 45 = Come home, dinner is cold! > 56 = Drink up that glass and come home immediately! > 67 = Don't bother to come home, I've found myself a more reliable boyfriend. If "buzzers" catch on in the New York area, we might want to add these to the list: 70 = You have a half hour to move your car. 73 = Your car has been towed away. 77 = Your car has been crushed into a cube of scrap metal. 80 = You have a half hour to move your cube. [credit to "The Simpsons" TV show.] Gary Novosielski GPN Consulting PGPinfo: keyID A172089 gpn@village.ios.com 2C 5C 32 94 F4 FF 08 10 finger for public key B6 E0 DE 4F A2 43 79 92 ------------------------------ From: Mark Crispin Subject: Re: Misuse of the Internet? Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 18:07:51 -0800 Organization: Networks & Distributed Computing Reply-To: Mark Crispin This sounds like the same sort of whine that the PTTs in foreign countries used to make against "rate arbitrage", used to justify their retention of monopoly control over the market. It's interesting that they phrase it as potentially causing "significant reduction of the Internet's ability to transport its ever enlarging amount of data traffic" instead of what's really on their mind -- low cost competition to their exhorbitant rates. Not that the current crop of Internet voice products are what I'd want to use for long-distance/international voice communications... ;-) Mark DoD #0105, R90/6 pilot, FAX: (206) 685-4045 ICBM: N 47 39'35" W 122 18'39" Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Mar 96 13:55 EST From: Stuart Zimmerman <0007382020@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Misuse of the Internet? Pat - In v.16 #98 of TELECOM Digest I forwarded a press release complaining about products which allow voice communications over the Internet. I have received some e-mail suggesting that long distance carriers (Interexchange Carriers - IXCs) had a problem with this. Let me clarify that this press release and the petition to the FCC was made by a group of local telephone companies (Local Exchange Carriers - LECs). Their beef is that they do not get to charge the access fees for voice internet calls, that they get to charge for long distance calls via IXCs. It does seem unfair that if I use the local telephone network to place a call via an IXC, I have to indirectly pay access fees, but if I use the local telephone network to place a call via the Internet, I do not have to pay the access fees. These fees are approximately three cents per minute for each side of the conversation. Pat, to your points, > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well let me ask you this Stuart ... > Since your business is 'helping consumers save on long distance' do > you ever recommend I-Phone as one way for them to do so, or do you > recommend only the traditional types of carriers? We are following the technology for several reasons, but we have not yet recommended this as a solution to any customer. It currently has limited application for consumers. Since almost all consumers have only dial up access to the Internet, calls have to be prearranged. Given that, it is mostly for lengthy conversations that can be pre-planned where both sides have access to the appropriate equipment. > Does it seem odd that ISP's whine about having the giants like AT&T > and MCI getting into the business of selling Internet services while > thinking nothing of computer users having I-Phone as an inexpensive > way to communicate voice? I believe that many ISP's are afraid of I-Phone, etc. It may put into jeopardy their exemption from having to pay for access from the local telephone network. > It seems like everyone is getting into each other's business these > days. Maybe someone should write to the FCC and petition them about > 'misuse of the telephone network' whenever telco decides to try and > cut in on the cableco or the local ISP. Coincidentally, SNET (the LEC for most of Connecticut) recently went into the ISP business. They told me over the phone that I have to be a local telephone customer of theirs to use them as an ISP. If I sign up for local telephone service from AT&T (as I should be able to do here in a few months), I cannot use them as an ISP. My complaint to the state public utility commission should go out soon. > A sign on the wall in a local tavern comes to mind. Although the > intent of the message is a bit different, it discusses businesses > getting into venues which traditionally 'belong' elsewhere. "We have > an understanding with the local bank. They do not sell Booze, and we > do not extend credit." Yes, I know what the tavern was saying, but > it is an interesting thought. But, Ma Bell really has been extending credit for its entire existence. Not having to pre-pay calls, the calling card system, and more recently billing for other carriers and information providers (900,976) is not much different. > If AT&T can be in the credit card business, why shouldn't Visa operate a > telephone company? Because no one would pay what the inefficient banks would charge for telephone service. Remember these are the same people who bring us 21% interest for credit cards and fees to take out our own money they have been using. > But if they tried, you know the telcos would be angry. Personally I > see the ISPs of today as the telcos in the early twentieth century; > making more money than they know what to do with. Just as telephones > earned billions and gazillions of dollars for their stockholders in > the first half of this century I think ISPs are going to be very > wealthy in twenty years. PAT] Unfortunately, change is coming so fast, I doubt that ISPs in their current form will be around that long. Stuart Zimmerman 7382020@mcimail.com Fone Saver, LLC http://www.wp.com/Fone_Saver "Helping Consumers Save on Long Distance" 1(800)313-6631 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Just one note about your message. You said 'Ma Bell has been extending credit for its entire existence ...' This is not really true. Invoicing someone on thirty day terms is not the same as an extension of credit (i.e. here is money, or the right to spend our money, pay us back with interest over a few years). To go back to the tavern analogy, do you pay for each drink as it is placed in front of you or do you pay your tab at the end of the evening when you are leaving as a matter of mutual convenience to both yourself and the bartender? In any event, it is not 'credit' being extended. It is true perhaps a business will do a 'credit check' on you prior to even allowing open account invoicing with timely payment terms, but that really is not 'credit' either. Credit is when money is created in your account which did not previously exist, and you are allowed to spend it and pay it back. PAT] ------------------------------ From: doconor@winternet.com (Dan O'Conor) Subject: Re: AT&T Worldnet for Macintosh Real Soon Now? Date: Wed, 06 Mar 1996 18:36:33 GMT Organization: StarNet Communications, Inc Reply-To: doconor@winternet.com On Tue, 5 Mar 1996 09:51:09 +0800, johnb@bird.Printrak.Com (John Bredehoft) wrote: > (1) Has anyone heard an *authoritative* timetable for Macintosh support for > Worldnet? > I called the (800) 967-5363 number and was told that Mac support > should be available in June, but the woman was obviously reading a > scripted response. By the way, she was ready to take my software order > anyway (I declined). If the AT&T WorldNet service is TCP/IP compliant any TCP/IP dialer and application should work from any platform once you have received a log-in and password string. > (2) In their current Windows software offer, why are they providing a > "special" version of Netscape Navigator for Windows? What are the > differences between this version and a "standard" version? Their version of Netscape may have be "special", but I doubt it. The only thing special about it will be the default "home page" on load. Every ISP in the world (it seems) is distributing some version of Netscape and Eudora in their Windows software package. There is nothing special about AT&T's offer in that respect > I'm somewhat leery of placing "custom" software on my computer, and > I'm wondering whether there is some technical reason that I can't use > my own software, or if there's something else going on. (I have > paranoid visions of the AT&T software "cleaning up" drivers from other > applications, or of seeing a Prodigy-esque AT&T advertisement on the > bottom of every Netscape screen ...) I have no intention of using AT&T's package software, as I have spent a lot of time tweaking my dialer and TCP/IP applications to work well on my machine. You can expect to see a "Prodigy-esque" advertisement on the default home page of the AT&T browser as the home page default on load will be the AT&T home page; that is easily changed, however. Regards, Dan O'Conor ------------------------------ From: wollman@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu (Garrett A. Wollman) Subject: Re: A New RBOC Media Offensive For a "Modem Tax" Date: 6 Mar 1996 10:52:11 -0500 Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science In article , John R. Grout wrote: > Now that IXCs like AT&T are getting into the ISP business, it seems > inevitable that the RBOCs will eventually succeed in imposing such > charges ... I hope they won't end up being a tollbooth across the > whole information superhighway. It wouldn't bother me. Indeed, it would probably hasten the demise of this dial-up brokenness. People have to remember that, despite the current hype, the model of using the analogue telephone network to connect one's computer to someone else's computer, where that someone else is connected to the Internet, is broken. Or rather, it is just a transitory stage which small-time users have to tolerate until such time as they get an "Internet wire" into their homes to go along with (or hopefully supplant) the telephone, cable, and electric wires. (Alternatively, someone might build a wireless service to do the same thing.) This is the model that those of us working on building an integrated services Internet are working in anticipation of. I wonder how long it is before new condo complexes come with 10BASE-T drops in every home? Garrett A. Wollman wollman@lcs.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: 06 Mar 96 13:40:06 EST From: Cliff McGlamry <102073.1425@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Bellsouth Position on Bill and Keep > "In the 1996 Act, Congress has adopted a single, uniform > interconnection policy that is equally applicable to wireless and > wire-based telecommunications carriers. In light of this new statute, > there is no legal basis for the Commission to adopt its proposed 'bill > and keep' policy," BellSouth said. The new law requires parties be > given freedom to negotiate such interconnection under state > jurisdiction as the primary oversight authority, not by federal > mandate. > Wireless calls completed to telephones on the wired network far > outnumber calls completed going from wireline to wireless phones. > BellSouth is negotiating voluntary interconnection agreements with > potential competitors, as the new law requires. I find BellSouth's position to be a blazing example of exactly why the FCC MUST hold the line on the bill and keep policy. BellSouth has been gouging wireless service providers for years on this. The WSP's have no choice but to pay what BellSouth demands, at present there are very few, if any, alternatives to using BellSouth. By any definition, the hold market power and have used this to beat WSP's into submission if they want to continue to operate. BellSouth can operate just fine without the WSP's. The reverse just isn't so. Isn't it interesting that while BellSouth cries about the number of cellular calls orginated as opposed to received they are strangely silent on the subject of pagers (which generate NO outgoing calls)? And isn't it interesting they talk about negotiating with WSP's? I can tell you from experience that the way BellSouth negotiates is as follows: WSP: We really need to change this provision in this contract. BS: Why? WSP: It really hurts us. The cost is unreasonable and not competitive. BS: We know it isn't competitive, but it works for us just fine. So if you want service you are going to have to live with it. That is a real life example of what BellSouth does (it happened to me). I can't think of a single good reason to allow BellSouth to scrap the Bill and Keep provisions. They have demonstrated repeatedly an attitude that what they think should be the way it is, regardless of how their actions affect others. It's about time they had to give up what they are gouging everyone else for. It's time for the monopoly mindset to go. Cliff McGlamry Robin Hood Telecommunications Tucker, GA ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Mar 96 15:13:21 -0400 From: Tara D. Mahon Subject: Voice Processing Industry Dynamics and Network Services Telcos Will Soon Be Pushing Integrated Messaging Services, Says Insight Research LIVINGSTON, NJ. Passage of the Communications Act of 1996 means increasing competition for all the telephone companies, so the industry is pushing hard to develop new revenue opportunities, and integrated messaging services could be at the forefront of a new telecom marketing blitz, says a new report from Insight Research. Integrated messaging services allow a telephone subscriber to combine all her messaging needs -- voice, fax, e-mail, pager, data, and even video into one access form -- and for the phone companies, this bundled service could become a way to create customer loyalty in a marketplace full of competing communications services. According to Voice Processing Industry Dynamics and Network Services, a major trend in the voice processing industry is the convergence of voice messaging and voice response capabilities within a single platform. This integration favors an open architecture environment, with software applications winning out over hardware driven products with closed, proprietary systems. These new software applications will incorporate a multitude of features, from interactive voice response to multimedia messaging. The report expects a restructuring of the voice processing industry to occur, producing business alliances and ventures that are sensitive and adaptable to the integration of computer, telephony, and data networking capabilities. "Opportunities will abound for the companies presenting open-systems messaging solutions," explains Insight's president Robert Rosenberg. "Systems that allow transportability of software from one vendor's hardware platform to another will sell extremely well." Voice Processing Industry Dynamics and Network Services posits that the greatest demand within the voice messaging equipment segment will be for multimedia applications -- a mix of video, audio, and document messaging capabilities. A mere $124 million market in 1995, the report expects the revenue for multimedia messaging equipment to top $1 billion by the year 2000, a 52% compound annual growth rate over the next five years. Extensive projections and analyses are published in Voice Processing Industry Dynamics and Network Services, available from Insight Research for $3,495. Insight Research, based in Livingston, NJ, is a leading provider of telecom market research and analysis. Visit Insight on the World Wide Web at http://www.wcom.com/Insight/insight.html. For more information on this study, please contact: Tara D. Mahon, The Insight Research Corporation, 354 Eisenhower Parkway, Livingston, NJ 07039-1023, (201) 605-1400 tel, (201) 605-1440 fax ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #101 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Mar 6 18:53:04 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id SAA20883; Wed, 6 Mar 1996 18:53:04 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 18:53:04 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199603062353.SAA20883@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #103 TELECOM Digest Wed, 6 Mar 96 18:53:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 103 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Free Modems! With a Slight Catch (Jody Kravitz) Re: Where is the Smallest NPA? (Fredrick T. Cordle, Jr.) Re: Where is the Smallest NPA? (Randy Finder) Re: Where is the Smallest NPA? (David H. Close) Re: Sprint Employees Still Bitter About Office Closing (Sehlene Hart) Re: US Cross-Subsidies (Wes Leatherock) Re: 800 Number Assigned to Two Subscribers in Error (Carl Moore) Re: Distinctive Ringing Unavailable from Pac Bell? (Ray D. Harrison) Diagram of Sound Card/Telephone Interface (Robert J. Gleeman) Information Needed on USOC Codes (Edward Shuck) Re: AT&T's International Directory Assistance Pricing (Steve Cogorno) Re: AT&T's International Directory Assistance Pricing (Kingsley G. Morse) Re: Booming Telecom Market in the Netherlands (wombat@xs4all.nl) Re: Booming Telecom Market in the Netherlands (Sam Spens Clason) Re: Booming Telecom Market in the Netherlands (Hendrik Rood) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 6 Mar 96 12:53:43 PST From: kravitz@foxtail.com (Jody Kravitz) Subject: Free Modems! With a Slight Catch ... I'm forwarding this for a friend. Please snip below: - - - - Snip Here - - - - - Date: Tue, 27 Feb 96 14:50:41 PST From: holl@priacc.com (Chris Holl) Subject: V.fc modem trade-in Hello, I am in need of a few V.fc modems. The modems must be V.fc compliant only (no V.34 implementation should be on the modem). If you are in possession of such a modem and would like to upgrade, I will trade your V.fc modem for a brand new V.34 modem. Your V.fc modem must be in good working order, complete with all accessories and documentation. This is a limited offer (I only need a few modems and they must be of different type). Please send all inquiries to holl@priacc.com. Thanks, Chris Holl [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Jody Kravitz has been a known and trusted user here for many years, and through his vouching for the person who submitted the above I agreed to print it. As always, readers should be cautious in sending things of value to persons with whom they are not aquainted. I am sure the above is legitimate, but *you* need to assure yourself of that also. PAT] ------------------------------ From: fredc@magicnet.net (Fredrick T. Cordle, Jr.) Subject: Re: Where is the Smallest NPA? Date: 6 Mar 1996 20:31:22 GMT Organization: MagicNet, Inc. Reply-To: fredc@rockwellcomm.com In article , Greg Monti says: > Area code 212, which serves the island (and nothing else), is now > nearing "that gassy, fullish feeling" (as the stomach remedy TV > commercials used to say), and has, perhaps 600 active prefixes in it. > That's an average of 38.46 prefixes per square mile. Assuming 10,000 > numbers per prefix, that's an incredible 384,615 phone numbers per > square mile. Assuming a square city block (which Manhattan doesn't > have) is about 1/100 square mile, that's 3,800 phone numbers per > block. Just as a short note ralating to this subject, we own 9000 numbers in the 212 area code. We have a callback company. Our platform takes up about three square feet of floor space at the Western Union Building at 60 Hudson St. I personally know that there are over 100 other platforms, some much MUCH larger than ours in this same building. I guess this kinda throws off your 3,800 numbers per block. Sorry. Fred Cordle, Jr. fredc@rockwellcomm.com MIS Director Rockwell Communications USA ------------------------------ From: naraht@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu (Randy Finder) Subject: Re: Where is the Smallest NPA? Date: 06 Mar 96 15:53:34 -0400 Organization: Carnegie Mellon Computer Club In article , Greg Monti writes: > On 21 Feb 96, rlm@netcom.com (Robert McMillin) wrote: >>- If 213 split along the lines described earlier, would that >> make it the smallest NPA in the country? >>- Geographically, what's the smallest NPA now? > Manhattan Island is about 3/4 of a mile wide near the north and about 1.5 > miles wide near the south end. Let's say the average width is 1.2 miles. > It's 13 miles long north to south. That's 15.6 square miles. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What about DC/202? Wouldn't it come > pretty close also to being smallest? PAT] DC is in the running (compared to things like 907 :) but is about four times larger than Manhattan. The District of Columbia is 62 square miles. (About 2/3 of the original ten miles on a side diamond.) DC is not all that cramped exchange-wise. Seven digit permissive dialing to the DC suburbs only ended four or five years ago and the DC population hasn't really increased. There has been some growth due to FAX and cellular usage, but not enough to really make them even consider a split. The most logical way to split DC would be to go to the overlay idea, that is put all federal government phones on area code 666 ... :) Randy Finder Arlington, VA native [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You devil, you! That's a terrible thing to say about your president and her husband and all the congress critters and all the public masters -- ooops, I mean public serpents -- oops, I mean servants. PAT] ------------------------------ From: dhclose@alumnae.caltech.edu (David H. Close) Subject: Re: Where is the Smallest NPA? Date: 06 Mar 1996 07:08:39 GMT Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What about DC/202? Wouldn't it come > pretty close also to being smallest? PAT] DC was originally exactly ten miles square, 100 square miles. After ceding a little more than half back to Virginia, it's still quite a bit larger than Manhattan. Dave Close, Compata, Costa Mesa CA "Politics is the business of getting dave@compata.com, +1 714 434 7359 power and privilege without dhclose@alumni.caltech.edu possessing merit." - P. J. O'Rourke ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Mar 1996 12:21:09 EST From: sehlene@e-universe.com (Sehlene Hart) Subject: Re: Sprint Employees Still Bitter About Office Closing > Imagine if you had a job where you had to raise your hand to get > permission to go to the bathroom. Suppose your employer did not > allow water or other beverages at your desk, to make it easier > for you to avoid bathroom breaks during the work day. What if > your employer promised you commissions on your sales then later > cheated you out of those commissions making bogus excuses of > one kind or another ... I have no doubt that many of the allegations made by the employees against Sprint at this particular location are true. And, while slow, the disagreement is being handled through the legal system of this country. However, the intercession of NAFTA, an international trade agreement organization, into the legal system and the affairs of this country should set off HUGE alarm bells to those in this country who support our Constitutional form of government. Such Big Brother from foreign lands is exactly why the unions opposed NAFTA as did a large number of the public of this country. Just because NAFTA appears to be taking the side of the employees in their case against the company, and that is a position with which you apparently agree, I would remind you that ANY interference in the legal processes of this country by an international organization is against the precepts of the U.S. Constitution. Be careful who and what you support in the heat of the moment -- you could spend a very long time rueing the day you heard of NAFTA. Sehlene ------------------------------ From: wes.leatherock@hotelcal.com (Wes Leatherock) Date: Wed, 06 Mar 1996 14:50:00 GMT Subject: Re: US Cross-Subsidies (was: The Modem Tax if Back, Folks) Jeremy Parsons wrote: [ ... much useful text deleted ... ] > Personally, I would think there could be real benefits in the US > following suit by dropping 'free' calls. Whilst there is apparently > no incremental cost for such calls (certainly where they are truly > intra-switch), neither is it the case that the fixed cost is fixed! > As LECs well know, there are semi-fixed costs based on average and > peak usage criteria -- and so where these levels are jacked up by > Internet etc the LEC will recover the difference from all its > customers. Definitively a misplaced cross-subsidy, operating from > light local call users to heavy local call users. I have my doubts > about the effects of optional local usage charging packages here - the > way they have been implemented pushes the problem from the bottom up > and so the most massive users remain untouched. > The important point to bear in mind here is that beginning to charge > for local calls should not represent net new customer charges - it > should obviously operate fairly neutrally. Economic and social > considerations can be applied to dealing with the reallocation of > funds (lowered line rentals for all or for special needs, lowered toll > or/and access charges etc) to the greatest benefit. This point always > seems to be missed in the hue and cry whenever universal call charging > is discussed -- people talk as if it will be the poor and > disadvantaged most, while the reality is that it can and should work to > their advantage and it is the heavy users who will pay more. Everything you say is absolutely true. The only thing is that the public hates any kind of usage sensitive pricing for local calls with a passion that it hard to accept unless you've been in a state where regulatory approval was attempted. In Oklahoma, Southwestern Bell tried to get regulator approval of usage sensitive pricing. They had all kinds of surveys showing that customers agreed it would be "fairer." And there is no reason to think this is not true. But the public outcry was by far the worst I have ever seen (I was working for Southwestern Bell at the time). Nothing else the company has ever proposed caused so resentment ... or, for that matter, such long-lingering distrust of the company as still exists. The opposition was just as strong among people that you could demonstrate would save money under the proposed plan as those who would pay more. Bills were introduced in the legislature to prevent any telephone company from ever requiring usage sensitive pricing or for the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (the regulatory body) ever to approve such a plan. The proposal was withdrawn and clearly the Corporation Commission would never have approved it. The experience in most states has been very similar, and I believe one or two may have actually passed similar bills into law. Most parts of the United States, at least, have flat rate local calling service and clearly the public is willing to pay for it that way. Banks have had somewhat a similar experience. Their plans where "you pay only $5 a month" and no other charges are real money makers for the banks, since a great many of the customers who sign up under this plan would pay less than $5 a month on the traditional plans. For that matter, the same thing applies to appliance service contracts, where every study shows the average customer would save money by paying for service calls on a pay-per-service basis but prefers to have a fixed amount. So this is a very lucrative business for the appliance service companies. Wes Leatherock wes.leatherock@hotelcal.com wes.leatherock@baremetl.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Mar 96 16:58:24 EST From: Carl Moore Subject: Re: 800 Number Assigned to Two Subscribers in Error I wrote to the Digest very recently about people trying to call 800-VISIT-NJ (tourist information for New Jersey) and getting a gay men's party line at 800-847-HUNK. I heard of this on KYW news-radio in Philadelphia. Not as closely related (and the digest can leave the following off even if it uses the above): -Here in Maryland, I had the earlier cases of a call intended for Marilyn in Beverly Hills on 310-278 being received in area code 301 OR 410 (that was not for Marilyn Monroe, already dead 30 years by then). -I used to be in an office which had (among others) extension 3029, and that extension occasionally received calls intended for 3209, which was **GYNECOLOGY**. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Quite a few years ago I worked in an office where my phone extension was 7261. The carry-out restaurant on the first floor of the building had the phone number 726-1xxx. Day after day about 11:45 AM at the start of the first lunch hour, my phone would ring. I would answer and a voice on the other end would say, 'oh, $##@^' and hang up. They were calling downstairs to get their lunch order started and had forgotten to dial '9' to get an outside line before dialing the rest of the number. PAT] ------------------------------ From: rdh@apci.net (rdh) Subject: Re: Distinctive Ringing Unavailable from Pac Bell? Date: 6 Mar 1996 22:03:37 GMT Organization: APCI In article , mike@sandman.com says: > It's funny, I called Ameritech and asked them to put distinctive > ringing on a line. They said they no longer offer distinctive ringing. > Not believing what I was hearing, I asked for a supervisor who told me > the same thing. I was sure I was in the Twilight Zone -- how could they > be discontinuing a popular new service? Actually, Ameritech has discontinued connecting new customers to what they refer to as Distinctive Ringing (and what Pat called "Priority Ringing"). This is the service in which up to ten listed phone numbers can cause your phone to ring a distinctive pattern when one of the ten calls in. The Ameritech service which provides up to three phone numbers (with differing ring patterns) on one line is called Multi-Ring. In Illinois Ameritech charges $2.50 for the first Multi-Ring number and $2.00 for the second Multi-Ring number. Ray Harrison rdh@apci.net [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Did they give you any reason *why* they were discontinuing the service? I'd have thought with the number shortage they would have done it the other way around and eliminated Multi-Ring service. PAT] ------------------------------ From: vmb60@best.com (Robert J. Gleeman) Subject: Diagram of Sound Card/Telephone Interface Date: Wed, 06 Mar 1996 18:42:41 GMT Organization: A&B Design Reply-To: vmb60@best.com Please go to this address for diagram and applications: http://www.best.com/~vmb60/ftel-app.htm ------------------------------ From: edshuck@visual-traffic.com (Edward Shuck) Subject: Information Needed on USOC Codes Date: Tue, 05 Mar 1996 22:30:06 GMT Organization: visual traffic Reply-To: edshuck@vosial-traffic.com I want to include a section in a book I am writing that covers USOC codes. Does anyone have a current copy or a source I can go to? Thanks, Ed ------------------------------ From: cogorno@netcom.com (Steve Cogorno) Subject: Re: AT&T's International Directory Assistance Pricing Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 07:47:09 PST David Jensen said: > luck. Apparently, AT&T is the only Int' DA provider in the US, so > they feel they can charge what they want. Not true. MCI and Sprint both offer International DA as well. Sprint charges $4.95 as well and MCI, in keeping in it's policy of being less than AT&T charges $4.94. The charge used to be around $3.00 on AT&T, but I can understand why they raised it. It takes a huge amount of operator time. They don't just transfer you to an overseas DA operator. The US operator stays on the line, often for several minutes before the numbers is obtained. I used to call Italy regularly, and it would take at least five minutes to get a number. Steve cogorno@netcom.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Sometimes this gets to be ridiculous. I noticed a few years ago in France they had installed a machine to hold the calls in a queue until the operators got around to them. That might be okay except that the message it gave out would make any operator go insane after a few minutes. Although for calls into France from abroad, it answered with a very crisp British man's voice saying, "Tel-eee-com! We're trying to extend your call; please stand by." This was followed by five or six bars of some jolly music and then the entire thing would repeat. The entire cycle took about 10-15 seconds, and the same message would be repeated along with the same bars of music. Therefore if you waited on hold three minutes for an operator in France, you got to hear that message and music a dozen or so times repeating itself endlessly. Five minutes on hold brought you 20-25 times around. Whoever sold that piece of worthless junk to France also sold one to Singapore; a few weeks later I had occassion to call over there and got the same man's voice and the same idiot music waiting on hold for the operator. As soon as it answered, I could sense the USA operator's eyes rolling backward in her head and her silent prayer, "Why me, Lord?" Chatting with one operator while waiting on hold, she commented to me she liked it better in the old days when it would just ring and ring for five minutes. I think most of the European counties have somewhat improved their response time. It used to be it was *always* five to ten minutes of ringing/waiting until they got around to answering. Is the USA better? An aquaintence once went to visit Cuba. This would have been about 1956 or 1957. While down there he decided to call back to Chicago and his family. The operator in Cuba got on the circuit to the USA and waited patiently for Miami to answer while it rang and rang for several minutes. Finally the Cuban operator's response was, "I am sorry sir, the United States is not answering." PAT] ------------------------------ From: change@nas.com (Kingsley G. Morse Jr.) Subject: Re: AT&T's International Directory Assistance Pricing Date: 6 Mar 1996 13:16:54 -0800 Organization: Network Access Services, Inc. David Jensen writes: > Yesterday when I got my phone bill, I saw that it had an international > directory assistance charge on it. The call had been made, but the > $4.95 charge puts COCOTs and AOSs to shame in market gouging. I called > AT&T in the forlorn hope that there was an error in the bill (maybe > the bill should have been in Pesos or French Francs, even DM). No such > luck. Apparently, AT&T is the only Int' DA provider in the US, so > they feel they can charge what they want. Sprint sells international directory assistance too, but they also charge $4.95. Maybe I should go into business providing international directory assistance. It seems easy enough; just ask the caller where they need directory assistance to and conference them in with that number! Kingsley G. Morse Jr. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If you know *what numbers* the USA operators dial in other countries to get directory service, I guess you could do that, but unlike 555-1212 in this country for a long time, foreign directory assistance always did supervise, and you did get charged if you called it direct, which was frowned upon anyway for various reasons including language barriers, etc. I don't see how you could make any money at it without marking up the cost even higher than what the big three charge; do you want *your line* tied up on an international call for three or four minutes and only get two or three dollars for it? By the way, I notice now that AT&T is competing on directory assist- ance with the various other proprietors of 555-1212. In my new AT&T phone bill I got yesterday, I was told I can now give all my directory inquiry business to AT&T by dialing 900-555-1212; they will search a national database. They did not say what they are charging for it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: wombat@xs4all.nl (wombat) Subject: Re: Booming Telecom Market in the Netherlands Date: 06 Mar 1996 18:48:22 GMT Organization: The Trailing Edge of Technology According to Alex van Es : > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What precisely is a 'buzzer' as opposed > to a pager? Would this be like the old fashioned pagers here which > only beeped when called, without delivering any actual message, the > implication being when it beeped you called a preset number? PAT] 'Buzzers' are pagers which display can display a number, e.g. Motorola Bravo. The only difference is in the rate structure. Generally, pagers are rented and you pay a monthly fee. Also, for each page the caller pays a certain amount (pagers are accessible through a 900-like number). 'Buzzers' are pagers with no monthly fee, however, the paging costs are (far) higher than the paging costs for normal pagers. ------------------------------ From: sam@nada.kth.se (Sam Spens Clason) Subject: Re: Booming Telecom Market in the Netherlands Date: 06 Mar 96 13:14:36 GMT > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What precisely is a 'buzzer' > as opposed to a pager? Would this be like the old fashioned > pagers here which only beeped when called, without delivering > any actual message, the implication being when it beeped you > called a preset number? PAT] No they're numeric all right. I *think* the Dutch PTT runs the same concept as we have in Sweden. Telia Mobitel (the former PTT and only one pager company at present, Ermes is on its way...) has two kinds of pager services: monthly per page (caller pays) "Minicall Privat" 0 (0) 2.00 (~0.30) "Minicall" 67 (~10) 0.60 (~0.09) Numerical pagers cost between 700 and 1500 SEK (~100 - ~200). [prizes are in SEK and (~USD)] Technically they are equivalent (no alphanumerical Privats though), but the costs are distributed differently. Buying a "Privat" is like buying a cheap FM-radio; loose it and it's lost, someone else will find it and use it (unless you scratch away the number). You don't have to sign up for the Privat service, the pager is activated when manifactured. If you want all the fancy stuff you have to buy a Privat. The "real" Minicalls can also be alphanumeric, you can change your number, you can barr the pager if it's stolen, you can have a voicemail number (calling it allerts the pager) etc. Several hundred thousands Minicall Privats have been sold over the last 2 1/2 years. Sam http://www.nada.kth.se/~sam sam@nada.kth.se, +46 701234567 ------------------------------ From: hrood@xs4all.nl (Hendrik Rood) Subject: Re: Booming Telecom Market in the Netherlands Date: Wed, 06 Mar 96 03:19:26 GMT Organization: Elephantiasis > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What precisely is a 'buzzer' as opposed > to a pager? Would this be like the old fashioned pagers here which > only beeped when called, without delivering any actual message, the > implication being when it beeped you called a preset number? PAT] The "buzzer" is a numeric pager painted in fancy colors that suits a skateboard user or the like. The whole invention is that you do not have to pay any subscription anymore. But your buzzer number is more expensive (but that is the price people pays who want to page you). The main other differences with standard numeric pagers are: You do not need to show an ID card for a "buzzer". The buzzer has one paging-number built in (not changeable). If you do not use the buzzer during one year the number is withdrawn and the buzzer does not work anymore. The advantage for the operator are: No risks for subscription-fraud. Easier selling, it is bought, up and active in a few minutes. So a very cheap administration issue. Two groups are very fond of this gadget: privacy lovers and criminals. The buzzer is the first telecommunications device that is completely anonymous. No police is able to tap your number because they do not know it. You also do not have to leave ID-data when you bought it. The latter fact is not mentioned by the marketeers. But I have heard from several sources this reason declares the huge sales in the first weeks. Buzzers are still outselling Internet subscriptions here! BTW. The Netherlands already did have the highest penetration of pagers in Europe before the new marketing storm started. Now it is used as a test-market for other types of pagers. We can also buy the Seiko Message Watch (which works on paging via extra signals on FM-radio networks) and the "Maxer" from a company called CallMax, which combines different types of pagers with all kind of Personal Numbering Services. Can anybody else give an example of selling telecommunications services and devices with advertisements using "steamy" house music, dance hall video-clips and other life-style elements directed at the 16 to 25 years old? ir. Hendrik Rood Stratix Consulting Group BV, Schiphol NL tel: +31 20 44 66 555 fax: +31 20 44 66 560 e-mail: Hendrik.Rood@stratix.nl ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #103 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Mar 6 20:50:55 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id UAA02352; Wed, 6 Mar 1996 20:50:55 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 20:50:55 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199603070150.UAA02352@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #103 TELECOM Digest Wed, 6 Mar 96 19:30:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 102 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson NANP Dialing Plans - Issue 5 (Marty Nelson via alt.dcom.telecom) ISP Profitability (was Re: Misuse of the Internet?) (Keith Jarett) Re: Misuse of the Internet? (Jack Decker) GATS and Negotiations on Basic Telecommunications (David Ujimoto) Easiest Access to the U.S. (David B. Horvath) Cyberspace Monitor (David B. Horvath) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: mwnelson@ix.netcom.com (Marty Nelson) Subject: NANP Dialing Plans - Issue 5 Date: Wed, 06 Mar 1996 16:04:57 GMT Organization: Netcom The following information is taken from a Bellcore document that discusses the current status of the North American Numbering Plan. The following table contains dialing plans for the area served by the North American Numbering Plan (NANP). The information entered in the matrix is the predominant method of dialing at each location. There may be instances where the dialing plan of a community within the Numbering Plan Area (NPA) may be different than the general dialing procedure for that NPA. The following are definitions of headings and abbreviations used in the table: LOCATION: The state, province, country, or territory served by the North American Numbering Plan for which the dialing plan is being provided. NPA CODE: The Numbering Plan Area code (area code) for the LOCATION. ****STANDARD PROCEDURES***** HNPA LOCAL: The procedure for dialing local calls (generally calls that do not incur a charge) within the (home) NPA CODE. HNPA TOLL: The procedure for dialing toll calls (generally calls that incur a charge) within the (home) NPA CODE. FNPA LOCAL: The procedure for dialing local calls (generally calls that do not incur a charge) outside of (foreign) NPA CODE. FNPA TOLL: The procedure for dialing toll calls (generally calls that incur a charge) outside of (foreign) NPA CODE. OPER. ASSISTED: The procedure for dialing all operator assisted calls including credit card calls, collect, and third party calls. ****PERMISSIBLE PROCEDURES**** PERMISS. Although the procedure for dialing a HNPA LOCAL call is HNPA LOCAL: shown under the column of HNPA LOCAL, it is also "permissible" for the dialer to place the call using the method under this column. PERMISS. Although the procedure for dialing a HNPA TOLL call is HNPA TOLL: shown under the column of HNPA TOLL, it is also "permissible" for the dialer to place the call using the method under this column. PERMISS. Although the procedure for dialing a FNPA LOCAL call is FNPA LOCAL: shown under the column of FNPA LOCAL, it is also "permissible" for the dialer to place the call using the method under this column. NA: An entry of NA indicates that this option is not available for the LOCATION. |----- STANDARD PROCEDURES -----| |-- PERMISSIBLE --| NPA HNPA HNPA FNPA FNPA OPER HNPA HNPA FNPA LOCATION CODE LOCAL TOLL LOCAL TOLL ASSIST LOCAL TOLL TOLL ------------- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ------ ----- ----- ----- Alabama 205 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Alabama 334 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Alaska 907 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Alberta 403 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Anguilla 809 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D 4D NA NA Antigua 809 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Arizona 520 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Arizona 602 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Arkansas 501 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Bahamas 242(1) 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Barbados 246(2) 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Bermuda 441 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA British Col 250(3) 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA British Col 604 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA British VI 809 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Cayman Islands 809 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA California 209 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA California 213 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA California 310 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA California 408 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA California 415 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA California 510 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA California 562(4) 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA California 619 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA California 707 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA California 714 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA California 805 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA California 818 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA California 909 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA California 916 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA Colorado 303 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Colorado 719 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Colorado 970 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Connecticut 203(5) 7D 1+10D 7/1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Connecticut 860(5) 7D 1+10D 7/1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Delaware 302 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D NA NA Dist of Colum 202 7D NONE 10D 1+10D 0+10D 10/1+10D NA 1+10D Dominica 809 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Dominican Rep 809 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Florida 305 7D 1+10D 7D/10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Florida 352 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Florida 407 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Florida 561(6) 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Florida 813 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Florida 904 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Florida 941 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Florida 954 7D 1+10D 7D/10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Georgia 404 7D NONE 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Georgia 706 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Georgia 770 7D NONE 10D 1+10D 0+10D 10D NA NA Georgia 912 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Grenada 809 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Hawaii 808 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Idaho 208 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Illinois 217 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Illinois 309 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Illinois 312 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Illinois 618 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Illinois 630(7) 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Illinois 708 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Illinois 773(8) 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Illinois 815 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Illinois 847 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Indiana 219 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Indiana 317 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Indiana 812 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Iowa 319 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Iowa 515 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Iowa 712 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Jamica 809 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Kansas 316 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Kansas 913 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Kentucky 502 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Kentucky 606 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Louisiana 318 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Louisiana 504 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Maine 207 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA 1+10D NA Manitoba 204 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Maryland 301 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D 10/1+10D NA 1+10D Maryland 410 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D 10/1+10D NA 1+10D Massachusetts 413 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Massachusetts 508 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Massachusetts 617 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Michigan 313 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D NA NA Michigan 517 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D NA NA Michigan 616 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D NA NA Michigan 810 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D NA NA Michigan 906 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D NA NA Minnesota 218 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Minnesota 320(9) 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Minnesota 507 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Minnesota 612 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Mississippi 601 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Missouri 314 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Missouri 417 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Missouri 573 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Missouri 816 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Montana 406 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Monserrat 809 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D 4D NA NA Nebraska 308 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Nebraska 402 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Nevada 702 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D NA NA New Brunswick 506 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA New Hampshire 603 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA 1+10D NA New Jersey 201 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA New Jersey 609 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA New Jersey 908 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA New Mexico 505 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA New York 212 7D NONE 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA New York 315 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA 1+10D NA New York 516 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA New York 518 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA 1+10D NA New York 607 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA 1+10D NA New York 716 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA 1+10D NA New York 718 7D NONE 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA New York 914 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA New York 917 7D NONE 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Newfoundland 709 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA North Carolina 704 7D 1+10D 7/10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA North Carolina 910 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA North Carolina 919 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA North Dakota 701 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA N.W Territory 403 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA N.W Territory 604 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Nova Scotia 902 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Ohio 216 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D NA NA Ohio 330(10) 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D NA NA Ohio 419 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D NA NA Ohio 513 7D 1+10D 1+10D* 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Ohio 614 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D NA NA Oklahoma 405 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Oklahoma 918 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Ontario 416 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Ontario 519 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Ontario 613 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Ontario 705 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Ontario 807 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Ontario 905 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Oregon 503 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Oregon 541 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Pennsylvania 215 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA Pennsylvania 412 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA Pennsylvania 610 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA Pennsylvania 717 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA Pennsylvania 814 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA Prince Edw Is 902 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Puerto Rico 787(11) 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Quebec 418 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Quebec 514 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Quebec 819 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Rhode Island 401 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA 1+10D NA Saskatchewan 306 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA South Carolina 803 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA South Carolina 864 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA South Dakota 605 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA St Kitts/Nevis 809 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA St Lucia 809 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA St Vincent 809 7D 0+1+10D NONE 1+10D 115+10D NA NA NA Tennessee 423 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Tennessee 615 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Tennessee 901 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Texas 210 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Texas 214 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Texas 281 10D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Texas 409 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Texas 512 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Texas 713 10D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Texas 806 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Texas 817 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Texas 903 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Texas 915 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Texas 972 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD Trinidad/Tobago809 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Turks & Caicos 809 7D 0+1+10D NONE 1+10D 115+10D 5D NA NA US Virgin Is 809 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Utah 801 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Vermont 802 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Virginia 540 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D 10/1+10D NA 10/1+10D Virginia(WMEA) 703 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D 10/1+10D NA 1+10D Virginia 703 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D 10/1+10D NA 10/1+10D Virginia 804 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D 10/1+10D NA 10/1+10D Washington 206 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Washington 360 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Washington 509 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA West Virginia 304 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D NA 1+10D Wisconsin 414 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Wisconsin 608 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Wisconsin 715 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Wyoming 307 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Yukon 403 7D 1+10D NA 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA *7 digit dialing for FNPA local calling in Cincinnati Bell Area (1) The 809 NPA must be used prior to the start of permissive dialing on 10-01-96 when the 242 NPA is introduced (2) The 809 NPA must be used prior to the start of permissive dialing on 07-01-96 when the 246 NPA is introduced (3) Permissive dialing for the 250 NPA begins on 10-19-96 (4) Permissive dialing for the 562 NPA begins on 01-27-97 (5) Local calls across the 203/860 NPA boundary will be dialed on a 7-digit basis (6) Permissive dialing for the 561 NPA begins on 05-13-96 (7) Permissive dialing for the 630 NPA begins on 08-03-96 (8) Permissive dialing for the 773 NPA begins on 10-12-96 (9) Permissive dialing for the 320 NPA begins on 03-17-96 (10) Permissive dialing for the 330 NPA begins on 03-09-96 (11) The 809 NPA must be used prior to the start of permissive dialing on 03-01-96 when the 787 NPA is introduced ------------------------------ From: keith@tcs.com Subject: ISP Profitability (was: Re: Misuse of the Internet?) Date: 6 Mar 1996 23:14:55 GMT Organization: TCSI > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Personally I see the ISPs of today > as the telcos in the early twentieth century; making more money than > they know what to do with. Just as telephones earned billions and > gazillions of dollars for their stockholders in the first half of > this century I think ISPs are going to be very wealthy in twenty > years. PAT] Patrick, the early telcos had large capital requirements, which constituted a substantial barrier to new entrants. In fact, many economissts called them natural monopolies. While it is true that the ISP market is exploding, the barriers to entry are practically nonexistent now. Unless ISPs work together with the government to create some barriers, those gazillions of earnings will not materialize. Instead, this will be a low-margin high-volume business, having more in common with gasoline stations than with today's utility companies. The same trends are apparent in the long distance resale market, although there are at least some barriers to entry there. Who would have thought 15 years ago that carriers would be offering service at todays rates, let alone having Free Fridays and similar outrageous promotions? keith@tcs.com Keith Jarett ------------------------------ From: Jack Decker Subject: Re: Misuse of the Internet? Date: Wed, 06 Mar 1996 18:47:54 -0500 Organization: AltNet - Affordable Usenet Access - http://www.alt.net > FCC PETITIONED TO STOP MISUSE OF THE INTERNET! > WASHINGTON, March 4 /PRNewswire/ -- The America's Carriers > Telecommunication Association (ACTA), a trade association of > competitive, long distance carriers today petitioned the Federal > Communications Commission (FCC) to stop companies from selling > software and hardware products that enable use of the Internet to > voice long distance services.[...remainder deleted for brevity...] In my opinion, this is a pretty serious threat to the Internet. Data is data and there will never be any way to assure that voice data is not being transmitted instead of something else. Granted, you could block the use of the ports that existing products use, but what happens when some bright person decides to configure a phone-type product to look like, say, an FTP client and server exchanging files? If this goes through, the hackers will have a field day figuring out ways around it. So what happens then? Are ISP's going to be expected to play policeman and examine all data and try to make sure no audio is flowing through? Will this also ban one-way radio streams, or .wav and .au files containing recorded audio? And of course, this comes on the heels of that other threat to the Internet as we know it -- the new so-called "Modem Tax" proposal that would require ISP's to collect a per-minute-of-use charge from Internet users, even those who currently have flat rate (untimed) service. Those who care about these should start thinking about reasonable responses to some of these threats -- persuasive arguments, as it were. Here is one thing to think about. It is unfair to tax (or place limitations on) one industry to subsidize another, competing industry. Suppose that many years ago, every phone call had been taxed at a high rate and then the taxes given to Western Union to subsidize telegraph service. While this certainly would have had the effect of keeping Western Union alive, it would have inhibited the growth of the newer, more modern technology -- the telephone! I see the Internet as a possible replacement for the telephone system of today -- certainly not this year, and perhaps not for many years, but a possible replacement nonetheless -- and not just a replacement per se, but something that can provide far more than what telephones of today are capable of, and at far lower prices. Even though telephone lines are used extensively now, that may not always be the case (it's worth remembering that in the early days of telephony, telegraph circuits were sometimes pressed into service to carry telephone calls, but they ultimately proved unsuitable for voice traffic. Quite similar, perhaps, to today's situation, where standard voice grade lines are proving to be unsuitable for Internet traffic due to bandwidth demands). I also see that the phone companies, who have a considerable investment in the older technology, don't wish to lose their investment, and they have certainly proven by their past actions that they are not above lobbying the federal and state governments to try and protect their income flow. And it's now becoming obvious that they see the Internet as a threat. They are already tilting over the idea that people are actually daring to send voice over the net. My question is, why is it fair for the government to take away an advanced technology from people in order to protect the investment of those who have a stake in the older technology? By this logic, we should have placed a tax on automobiles and given that money to the horse drawn carriage makers -- or perhaps we should require every driver to carry a buggy whip, so that buggy whips can be kept affordable for everyone. At the present time, Voice over the Net is not advanced enough to be any real threat to the income level of the phone companies. It is very likely true that most domestic VON calls would not even be made if there were a toll charge -- mostly it is still just computer hobbyists talking to each other. The network delays and packet loss make VON products pretty much unsuitable for most business communications. As the products improve, they will doubtless become a greater threat. But here is the point -- instead of asking for government intervention and protection, the phone companies should be reading the handwriting on the wall and developing the services that people will want and need, and then sell those on the open marketplace. They have a HUGE advantage going in -- a copper wire pair to almost every home in America. I daresay that there are probably a lot of ISP's that only wish they could have that kind of advantage! It's kind of ironic that the phone companies already have huge advantages (and now nothing to stop them from competing with ISP's on an even footing) and yet they want to beat up on the folks that are enjoying a little free, albeit substandard communication. What are they going to do next, propose taxes on ham radio and CB radio operators? I think the big reason the phone companies are having a fit is that they can't stand it that the average person just might have access to a less expensive way to spend voice traffic than a standard phone call. They don't really complain as long as they can offer the same thing cheaper ... for example, you don't hear them asking for a cut of point to point satellite audio that is used by some large businesses, because that service is far too expensive for the average person to afford. But now that inexpensive communication is coming down to the level that real people might be able to afford it, they want to take it away. The one thing the the phone companies seem to fear most is true competition. So far they have been able to forestall true competition by putting so many requirements and hinderances upon would-be competitiors that it will be years until any true competition for local service arrives (in most of the country). Then along comes the Internet, which has the potential to provide everything the phone company provides and more, and do it CHEAPER (not necessarily better or faster at this point -- what really galls them is that it's CHEAPER to the end user), and they can't stand it that some college kid might be able to hold a real conversation with mom and dad and still be able to afford to eat dinner the next day, or that someone can actually SEE how grandma is looking in a nursing home somewhere without buying an expensive specialty phone with a postage stamp size picture that updates about once a second (and is good for nothing else except talking to another unit of its own kind). If the FCC thinks it is so fair for the ISP's to pay off the phone companies and protect their business, then perhaps the phone companies ought to be required to pay tribute to Western Union (and Western Union would in turn be required to pay off the descendants of Pony Express riders, and so on)! If the truth be known, I think all the "access charges" ought to be eliminated. The reason is that it allows the phone companies to in effect charge for a service that they are not providing. Even with a conventional long distance voice call, if the carrier has a POP in the same local community where the call originates, then the phone company is in fact only responsible for completing a local link from the originator's phone to the carrier's switch. This is really no different from any other local call, except for the necessity to collect data for billing (which the phone company charges the carriers for anyway). If the phone company is not collecting billing information (as in a modem call to an ISP), they are providing NO service at all other than extending a local call. So why should they be paid any more for those calls than for any other local call? If you are a socialist, of course, you'll whine about "universal service" and how some should pay more so others can pay less. Karl Marx would have loved it. But in my opinion, if the phone company is not providing any additional service, they should not be able to charge anything extra. And in particular, if another company (voice carrier or ISP) is offering (or desires to offer) a flat rate, untimed service, the phone companies most certainly ought not be able to force them to collect a tax based on minutes of use (the other proposal they are attempting to float these days for ISP's). I felt the same way back when, here in Michigan, the phone company thought they ought to be able to charge about 60 cents a month extra for a _customer provided_ extension phone (this was in the tariffs for a few years right after it became legal for customers to own their own phones). My argument then, as now, is that the phone company was providing no additional service whatsoever for that 60 cents (they weren't offering to maintain the customer's phone or anything); therefore they ought not to be able to charge anything extra. It would be the same situation here. The ISP buys standard business grade lines and receives phone calls on them, in a manner no different from that of a private BBS operator or a private modem-to-modem connection between two users. The line connects to a modem in either of those cases. The fact that some modems are connected to the Internet, while some are connected to a BBS that is on Fidonet and others to a standalone BBS (and still others to someone's personal computer) should not really be any of the phone company's concern. When we put a modem on a phone line, should we really have to declare whether someone might send anything over it that might eventually wind up on the Internet? The fact is that this is not a cut and dried situation by any means. For example, if I dial up my Internet Service Provider, I could connect to a BBS at the local POP and never send any traffic outside the local area. By the same token, I could dial up a Fidonet BBS and leave an e-mail message that would go out onto the Internet. So how are they going to determine who's subject to these regulations and who isn't? As I say, these are just a few thoughts -- talking points, if you will -- for discussion. Some may be better than others, but they may inspire others to think of reasons that these proposals are bad ideas. One final note: There is a short article about the FCC petition to ban the use of phone-type products at this URL: http://www.zdnet.com/intweek/daily/960305a.html Jack ------------------------------ From: ab261@torfree.net (David Ujimoto) Subject: GATS and Negotiations on Basic Telecommunications Organization: Toronto Free-Net Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 00:07:53 GMT Is there a WWW site that has information dealing with the current status of the negotiations on Basic Telecoms that are presently underway in Geneva? Any information/pointers would be greatly appreciated! David Ujimoto Toronto, Ontario, CANADA ab261@freenet.toronto.on.ca ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 19:32:19 EST From: David B. Horvath, CDP Subject: Easiest Access to the U.S. I was in Vancouver B.C. for the DECUS Canada annual symposium and picked up a copy of the "Province" newspaper. On pages A26 and A27 was an ad from BCTEL: Frustrated by 1-800 lines that don't connect south of this one? [running along the US-Canada border] 880 _Easiest access to the U.S._ Crossing the border is now easier than ever. Thanks to BC TEL's new South of the 49(tm) service. It lets our customers get through to more than 1.5 million previously inaccessible numbers in the U.S. And it's only 18cents (CDN) a minute. So next time you dial a U.S. 1-800 number that doesn't connect, replace the 800 with 880 and try again. Fpr more information on this and other innovative services, dial 1-800-554-2551. Then call the land of the free. Hassle free. [Any typos are my fault] David B. Horvath, CCP dhorvath@goldey.gbc.edu Consultant, Adjunct Professor, International Lecturer ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 19:37:48 EST From: David B. Horvath, CDP Subject: Cyberspace Monitor The things you find when looking through magazines piled on the desk ... From NewMedia, May 1995: Cyberspace Monitor: What are people saying about you on the Internet? EWatch will keep an eye out for company mentions and other criteria in over 3,000 newsgroups so you can find out about rumors or inaccurate information -- or about glowing testimonials. They will also help you draft and place appropriate responses. For a weekly report, the fee is $295 a month plus $2 per hit. Contact eWorks at (612)288-XXXX or at info@XXXXXX.XXX. I could see someone finding out who a client is and making hundreds of posts with the company name in their .sig to boost the number of hits with a very high noise level :-( This reminds me of a net.god who claims to have read every mention of his name on the net (notice that I'm not adding to the volume). David B. Horvath, CCP dhorvath@goldey.gbc.edu Consultant, Adjunct Professor, International Lecturer [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: For a hundred years, these same services operated utilitzing the print media. They were called 'press clipping services'. A large service employed a couple dozen newspaper readers who sat there all day reading every last word in every single newspaper they received looking for mention of their clients. When they found something, they clipped it out of the newspaper and sent it to the client, and were paid some sum of money -- usually 25 cents -- for each such clipping. If you wanted, you could pay them to look for mention of *someone else*; they didn't care what they looked for. It was very common for politicians to have the press clipping services look for news about other politicians so they could use it to show how their opponent was inconsistent, a liar or just plain immoral. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #102 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Mar 6 20:58:56 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id UAA03242; Wed, 6 Mar 1996 20:58:56 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 20:58:56 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199603070158.UAA03242@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #102 TELECOM Digest Wed, 6 Mar 96 19:30:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 102 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson NANP Dialing Plans - Issue 5 (Marty Nelson via alt.dcom.telecom) ISP Profitability (was Re: Misuse of the Internet?) (Keith Jarett) Re: Misuse of the Internet? (Jack Decker) GATS and Negotiations on Basic Telecommunications (David Ujimoto) Easiest Access to the U.S. (David B. Horvath) Cyberspace Monitor (David B. Horvath) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: mwnelson@ix.netcom.com (Marty Nelson) Subject: NANP Dialing Plans - Issue 5 Date: Wed, 06 Mar 1996 16:04:57 GMT Organization: Netcom The following information is taken from a Bellcore document that discusses the current status of the North American Numbering Plan. The following table contains dialing plans for the area served by the North American Numbering Plan (NANP). The information entered in the matrix is the predominant method of dialing at each location. There may be instances where the dialing plan of a community within the Numbering Plan Area (NPA) may be different than the general dialing procedure for that NPA. The following are definitions of headings and abbreviations used in the table: LOCATION: The state, province, country, or territory served by the North American Numbering Plan for which the dialing plan is being provided. NPA CODE: The Numbering Plan Area code (area code) for the LOCATION. ****STANDARD PROCEDURES***** HNPA LOCAL: The procedure for dialing local calls (generally calls that do not incur a charge) within the (home) NPA CODE. HNPA TOLL: The procedure for dialing toll calls (generally calls that incur a charge) within the (home) NPA CODE. FNPA LOCAL: The procedure for dialing local calls (generally calls that do not incur a charge) outside of (foreign) NPA CODE. FNPA TOLL: The procedure for dialing toll calls (generally calls that incur a charge) outside of (foreign) NPA CODE. OPER. ASSISTED: The procedure for dialing all operator assisted calls including credit card calls, collect, and third party calls. ****PERMISSIBLE PROCEDURES**** PERMISS. Although the procedure for dialing a HNPA LOCAL call is HNPA LOCAL: shown under the column of HNPA LOCAL, it is also "permissible" for the dialer to place the call using the method under this column. PERMISS. Although the procedure for dialing a HNPA TOLL call is HNPA TOLL: shown under the column of HNPA TOLL, it is also "permissible" for the dialer to place the call using the method under this column. PERMISS. Although the procedure for dialing a FNPA LOCAL call is FNPA LOCAL: shown under the column of FNPA LOCAL, it is also "permissible" for the dialer to place the call using the method under this column. NA: An entry of NA indicates that this option is not available for the LOCATION. |----- STANDARD PROCEDURES -----| |-- PERMISSIBLE --| NPA HNPA HNPA FNPA FNPA OPER HNPA HNPA FNPA LOCATION CODE LOCAL TOLL LOCAL TOLL ASSIST LOCAL TOLL TOLL ------------- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ------ ----- ----- ----- Alabama 205 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Alabama 334 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Alaska 907 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Alberta 403 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Anguilla 809 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D 4D NA NA Antigua 809 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Arizona 520 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Arizona 602 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Arkansas 501 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Bahamas 242(1) 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Barbados 246(2) 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Bermuda 441 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA British Col 250(3) 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA British Col 604 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA British VI 809 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Cayman Islands 809 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA California 209 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA California 213 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA California 310 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA California 408 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA California 415 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA California 510 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA California 562(4) 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA California 619 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA California 707 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA California 714 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA California 805 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA California 818 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA California 909 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA California 916 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA Colorado 303 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Colorado 719 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Colorado 970 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Connecticut 203(5) 7D 1+10D 7/1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Connecticut 860(5) 7D 1+10D 7/1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Delaware 302 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D NA NA Dist of Colum 202 7D NONE 10D 1+10D 0+10D 10/1+10D NA 1+10D Dominica 809 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Dominican Rep 809 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Florida 305 7D 1+10D 7D/10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Florida 352 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Florida 407 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Florida 561(6) 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Florida 813 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Florida 904 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Florida 941 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Florida 954 7D 1+10D 7D/10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Georgia 404 7D NONE 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Georgia 706 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Georgia 770 7D NONE 10D 1+10D 0+10D 10D NA NA Georgia 912 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Grenada 809 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Hawaii 808 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Idaho 208 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Illinois 217 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Illinois 309 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Illinois 312 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Illinois 618 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Illinois 630(7) 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Illinois 708 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Illinois 773(8) 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Illinois 815 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Illinois 847 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Indiana 219 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Indiana 317 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Indiana 812 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Iowa 319 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Iowa 515 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Iowa 712 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Jamica 809 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Kansas 316 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Kansas 913 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Kentucky 502 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Kentucky 606 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Louisiana 318 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Louisiana 504 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Maine 207 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA 1+10D NA Manitoba 204 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Maryland 301 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D 10/1+10D NA 1+10D Maryland 410 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D 10/1+10D NA 1+10D Massachusetts 413 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Massachusetts 508 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Massachusetts 617 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Michigan 313 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D NA NA Michigan 517 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D NA NA Michigan 616 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D NA NA Michigan 810 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D NA NA Michigan 906 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D NA NA Minnesota 218 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Minnesota 320(9) 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Minnesota 507 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Minnesota 612 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Mississippi 601 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Missouri 314 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Missouri 417 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Missouri 573 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Missouri 816 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Montana 406 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Monserrat 809 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D 4D NA NA Nebraska 308 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Nebraska 402 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Nevada 702 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D NA NA New Brunswick 506 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA New Hampshire 603 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA 1+10D NA New Jersey 201 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA New Jersey 609 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA New Jersey 908 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA New Mexico 505 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA New York 212 7D NONE 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA New York 315 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA 1+10D NA New York 516 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA New York 518 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA 1+10D NA New York 607 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA 1+10D NA New York 716 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA 1+10D NA New York 718 7D NONE 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA New York 914 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA New York 917 7D NONE 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Newfoundland 709 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA North Carolina 704 7D 1+10D 7/10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA North Carolina 910 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA North Carolina 919 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA North Dakota 701 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA N.W Territory 403 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA N.W Territory 604 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Nova Scotia 902 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Ohio 216 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D NA NA Ohio 330(10) 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D NA NA Ohio 419 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D NA NA Ohio 513 7D 1+10D 1+10D* 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Ohio 614 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D NA NA Oklahoma 405 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Oklahoma 918 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Ontario 416 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Ontario 519 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Ontario 613 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Ontario 705 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Ontario 807 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Ontario 905 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Oregon 503 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Oregon 541 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Pennsylvania 215 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA Pennsylvania 412 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA Pennsylvania 610 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA Pennsylvania 717 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA Pennsylvania 814 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA Prince Edw Is 902 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Puerto Rico 787(11) 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Quebec 418 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Quebec 514 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Quebec 819 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Rhode Island 401 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA 1+10D NA Saskatchewan 306 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA South Carolina 803 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA South Carolina 864 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA South Dakota 605 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA St Kitts/Nevis 809 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA St Lucia 809 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA St Vincent 809 7D 0+1+10D NONE 1+10D 115+10D NA NA NA Tennessee 423 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Tennessee 615 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Tennessee 901 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Texas 210 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Texas 214 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Texas 281 10D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Texas 409 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Texas 512 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Texas 713 10D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Texas 806 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Texas 817 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Texas 903 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Texas 915 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Texas 972 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD Trinidad/Tobago809 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Turks & Caicos 809 7D 0+1+10D NONE 1+10D 115+10D 5D NA NA US Virgin Is 809 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Utah 801 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Vermont 802 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Virginia 540 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D 10/1+10D NA 10/1+10D Virginia(WMEA) 703 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D 10/1+10D NA 1+10D Virginia 703 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D 10/1+10D NA 10/1+10D Virginia 804 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D 10/1+10D NA 10/1+10D Washington 206 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Washington 360 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Washington 509 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA West Virginia 304 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D NA 1+10D Wisconsin 414 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Wisconsin 608 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Wisconsin 715 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Wyoming 307 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Yukon 403 7D 1+10D NA 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA *7 digit dialing for FNPA local calling in Cincinnati Bell Area (1) The 809 NPA must be used prior to the start of permissive dialing on 10-01-96 when the 242 NPA is introduced (2) The 809 NPA must be used prior to the start of permissive dialing on 07-01-96 when the 246 NPA is introduced (3) Permissive dialing for the 250 NPA begins on 10-19-96 (4) Permissive dialing for the 562 NPA begins on 01-27-97 (5) Local calls across the 203/860 NPA boundary will be dialed on a 7-digit basis (6) Permissive dialing for the 561 NPA begins on 05-13-96 (7) Permissive dialing for the 630 NPA begins on 08-03-96 (8) Permissive dialing for the 773 NPA begins on 10-12-96 (9) Permissive dialing for the 320 NPA begins on 03-17-96 (10) Permissive dialing for the 330 NPA begins on 03-09-96 (11) The 809 NPA must be used prior to the start of permissive dialing on 03-01-96 when the 787 NPA is introduced ------------------------------ From: keith@tcs.com Subject: ISP Profitability (was: Re: Misuse of the Internet?) Date: 6 Mar 1996 23:14:55 GMT Organization: TCSI > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Personally I see the ISPs of today > as the telcos in the early twentieth century; making more money than > they know what to do with. Just as telephones earned billions and > gazillions of dollars for their stockholders in the first half of > this century I think ISPs are going to be very wealthy in twenty > years. PAT] Patrick, the early telcos had large capital requirements, which constituted a substantial barrier to new entrants. In fact, many economissts called them natural monopolies. While it is true that the ISP market is exploding, the barriers to entry are practically nonexistent now. Unless ISPs work together with the government to create some barriers, those gazillions of earnings will not materialize. Instead, this will be a low-margin high-volume business, having more in common with gasoline stations than with today's utility companies. The same trends are apparent in the long distance resale market, although there are at least some barriers to entry there. Who would have thought 15 years ago that carriers would be offering service at todays rates, let alone having Free Fridays and similar outrageous promotions? keith@tcs.com Keith Jarett ------------------------------ From: Jack Decker Subject: Re: Misuse of the Internet? Date: Wed, 06 Mar 1996 18:47:54 -0500 Organization: AltNet - Affordable Usenet Access - http://www.alt.net > FCC PETITIONED TO STOP MISUSE OF THE INTERNET! > WASHINGTON, March 4 /PRNewswire/ -- The America's Carriers > Telecommunication Association (ACTA), a trade association of > competitive, long distance carriers today petitioned the Federal > Communications Commission (FCC) to stop companies from selling > software and hardware products that enable use of the Internet to > voice long distance services.[...remainder deleted for brevity...] In my opinion, this is a pretty serious threat to the Internet. Data is data and there will never be any way to assure that voice data is not being transmitted instead of something else. Granted, you could block the use of the ports that existing products use, but what happens when some bright person decides to configure a phone-type product to look like, say, an FTP client and server exchanging files? If this goes through, the hackers will have a field day figuring out ways around it. So what happens then? Are ISP's going to be expected to play policeman and examine all data and try to make sure no audio is flowing through? Will this also ban one-way radio streams, or .wav and .au files containing recorded audio? And of course, this comes on the heels of that other threat to the Internet as we know it -- the new so-called "Modem Tax" proposal that would require ISP's to collect a per-minute-of-use charge from Internet users, even those who currently have flat rate (untimed) service. Those who care about these should start thinking about reasonable responses to some of these threats -- persuasive arguments, as it were. Here is one thing to think about. It is unfair to tax (or place limitations on) one industry to subsidize another, competing industry. Suppose that many years ago, every phone call had been taxed at a high rate and then the taxes given to Western Union to subsidize telegraph service. While this certainly would have had the effect of keeping Western Union alive, it would have inhibited the growth of the newer, more modern technology -- the telephone! I see the Internet as a possible replacement for the telephone system of today -- certainly not this year, and perhaps not for many years, but a possible replacement nonetheless -- and not just a replacement per se, but something that can provide far more than what telephones of today are capable of, and at far lower prices. Even though telephone lines are used extensively now, that may not always be the case (it's worth remembering that in the early days of telephony, telegraph circuits were sometimes pressed into service to carry telephone calls, but they ultimately proved unsuitable for voice traffic. Quite similar, perhaps, to today's situation, where standard voice grade lines are proving to be unsuitable for Internet traffic due to bandwidth demands). I also see that the phone companies, who have a considerable investment in the older technology, don't wish to lose their investment, and they have certainly proven by their past actions that they are not above lobbying the federal and state governments to try and protect their income flow. And it's now becoming obvious that they see the Internet as a threat. They are already tilting over the idea that people are actually daring to send voice over the net. My question is, why is it fair for the government to take away an advanced technology from people in order to protect the investment of those who have a stake in the older technology? By this logic, we should have placed a tax on automobiles and given that money to the horse drawn carriage makers -- or perhaps we should require every driver to carry a buggy whip, so that buggy whips can be kept affordable for everyone. At the present time, Voice over the Net is not advanced enough to be any real threat to the income level of the phone companies. It is very likely true that most domestic VON calls would not even be made if there were a toll charge -- mostly it is still just computer hobbyists talking to each other. The network delays and packet loss make VON products pretty much unsuitable for most business communications. As the products improve, they will doubtless become a greater threat. But here is the point -- instead of asking for government intervention and protection, the phone companies should be reading the handwriting on the wall and developing the services that people will want and need, and then sell those on the open marketplace. They have a HUGE advantage going in -- a copper wire pair to almost every home in America. I daresay that there are probably a lot of ISP's that only wish they could have that kind of advantage! It's kind of ironic that the phone companies already have huge advantages (and now nothing to stop them from competing with ISP's on an even footing) and yet they want to beat up on the folks that are enjoying a little free, albeit substandard communication. What are they going to do next, propose taxes on ham radio and CB radio operators? I think the big reason the phone companies are having a fit is that they can't stand it that the average person just might have access to a less expensive way to spend voice traffic than a standard phone call. They don't really complain as long as they can offer the same thing cheaper ... for example, you don't hear them asking for a cut of point to point satellite audio that is used by some large businesses, because that service is far too expensive for the average person to afford. But now that inexpensive communication is coming down to the level that real people might be able to afford it, they want to take it away. The one thing the the phone companies seem to fear most is true competition. So far they have been able to forestall true competition by putting so many requirements and hinderances upon would-be competitiors that it will be years until any true competition for local service arrives (in most of the country). Then along comes the Internet, which has the potential to provide everything the phone company provides and more, and do it CHEAPER (not necessarily better or faster at this point -- what really galls them is that it's CHEAPER to the end user), and they can't stand it that some college kid might be able to hold a real conversation with mom and dad and still be able to afford to eat dinner the next day, or that someone can actually SEE how grandma is looking in a nursing home somewhere without buying an expensive specialty phone with a postage stamp size picture that updates about once a second (and is good for nothing else except talking to another unit of its own kind). If the FCC thinks it is so fair for the ISP's to pay off the phone companies and protect their business, then perhaps the phone companies ought to be required to pay tribute to Western Union (and Western Union would in turn be required to pay off the descendants of Pony Express riders, and so on)! If the truth be known, I think all the "access charges" ought to be eliminated. The reason is that it allows the phone companies to in effect charge for a service that they are not providing. Even with a conventional long distance voice call, if the carrier has a POP in the same local community where the call originates, then the phone company is in fact only responsible for completing a local link from the originator's phone to the carrier's switch. This is really no different from any other local call, except for the necessity to collect data for billing (which the phone company charges the carriers for anyway). If the phone company is not collecting billing information (as in a modem call to an ISP), they are providing NO service at all other than extending a local call. So why should they be paid any more for those calls than for any other local call? If you are a socialist, of course, you'll whine about "universal service" and how some should pay more so others can pay less. Karl Marx would have loved it. But in my opinion, if the phone company is not providing any additional service, they should not be able to charge anything extra. And in particular, if another company (voice carrier or ISP) is offering (or desires to offer) a flat rate, untimed service, the phone companies most certainly ought not be able to force them to collect a tax based on minutes of use (the other proposal they are attempting to float these days for ISP's). I felt the same way back when, here in Michigan, the phone company thought they ought to be able to charge about 60 cents a month extra for a _customer provided_ extension phone (this was in the tariffs for a few years right after it became legal for customers to own their own phones). My argument then, as now, is that the phone company was providing no additional service whatsoever for that 60 cents (they weren't offering to maintain the customer's phone or anything); therefore they ought not to be able to charge anything extra. It would be the same situation here. The ISP buys standard business grade lines and receives phone calls on them, in a manner no different from that of a private BBS operator or a private modem-to-modem connection between two users. The line connects to a modem in either of those cases. The fact that some modems are connected to the Internet, while some are connected to a BBS that is on Fidonet and others to a standalone BBS (and still others to someone's personal computer) should not really be any of the phone company's concern. When we put a modem on a phone line, should we really have to declare whether someone might send anything over it that might eventually wind up on the Internet? The fact is that this is not a cut and dried situation by any means. For example, if I dial up my Internet Service Provider, I could connect to a BBS at the local POP and never send any traffic outside the local area. By the same token, I could dial up a Fidonet BBS and leave an e-mail message that would go out onto the Internet. So how are they going to determine who's subject to these regulations and who isn't? As I say, these are just a few thoughts -- talking points, if you will -- for discussion. Some may be better than others, but they may inspire others to think of reasons that these proposals are bad ideas. One final note: There is a short article about the FCC petition to ban the use of phone-type products at this URL: http://www.zdnet.com/intweek/daily/960305a.html Jack ------------------------------ From: ab261@torfree.net (David Ujimoto) Subject: GATS and Negotiations on Basic Telecommunications Organization: Toronto Free-Net Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 00:07:53 GMT Is there a WWW site that has information dealing with the current status of the negotiations on Basic Telecoms that are presently underway in Geneva? Any information/pointers would be greatly appreciated! David Ujimoto Toronto, Ontario, CANADA ab261@freenet.toronto.on.ca ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 19:32:19 EST From: David B. Horvath, CDP Subject: Easiest Access to the U.S. I was in Vancouver B.C. for the DECUS Canada annual symposium and picked up a copy of the "Province" newspaper. On pages A26 and A27 was an ad from BCTEL: Frustrated by 1-800 lines that don't connect south of this one? [running along the US-Canada border] 880 _Easiest access to the U.S._ Crossing the border is now easier than ever. Thanks to BC TEL's new South of the 49(tm) service. It lets our customers get through to more than 1.5 million previously inaccessible numbers in the U.S. And it's only 18cents (CDN) a minute. So next time you dial a U.S. 1-800 number that doesn't connect, replace the 800 with 880 and try again. Fpr more information on this and other innovative services, dial 1-800-554-2551. Then call the land of the free. Hassle free. [Any typos are my fault] David B. Horvath, CCP dhorvath@goldey.gbc.edu Consultant, Adjunct Professor, International Lecturer ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 19:37:48 EST From: David B. Horvath, CDP Subject: Cyberspace Monitor The things you find when looking through magazines piled on the desk ... From NewMedia, May 1995: Cyberspace Monitor: What are people saying about you on the Internet? EWatch will keep an eye out for company mentions and other criteria in over 3,000 newsgroups so you can find out about rumors or inaccurate information -- or about glowing testimonials. They will also help you draft and place appropriate responses. For a weekly report, the fee is $295 a month plus $2 per hit. Contact eWorks at (612)288-XXXX or at info@XXXXXX.XXX. I could see someone finding out who a client is and making hundreds of posts with the company name in their .sig to boost the number of hits with a very high noise level :-( This reminds me of a net.god who claims to have read every mention of his name on the net (notice that I'm not adding to the volume). David B. Horvath, CCP dhorvath@goldey.gbc.edu Consultant, Adjunct Professor, International Lecturer [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: For a hundred years, these same services operated utilitzing the print media. They were called 'press clipping services'. A large service employed a couple dozen newspaper readers who sat there all day reading every last word in every single newspaper they received looking for mention of their clients. When they found something, they clipped it out of the newspaper and sent it to the client, and were paid some sum of money -- usually 25 cents -- for each such clipping. If you wanted, you could pay them to look for mention of *someone else*; they didn't care what they looked for. It was very common for politicians to have the press clipping services look for news about other politicians so they could use it to show how their opponent was inconsistent, a liar or just plain immoral. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #102 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Mar 7 11:36:18 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id LAA24185; Thu, 7 Mar 1996 11:36:18 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 11:36:18 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199603071636.LAA24185@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #104 TELECOM Digest Thu, 7 Mar 96 11:36:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 104 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Sprint Promotion Makes 888 Toll-Free Numbers Ring Sweeter (Mike Pollock) Teens Accused of Credit Scam (Tad Cook) Directory Assistance Without Knowing City? (Ben Parker) Area Code/NNX Database Updates? (Ben Parker) Purchasing AT&T Gift Certificates From Abroad (Scott Montague) Tariffs For Leased Lines (Reinhard Burkert) CMIS HL API C++ Specification (John Harris) Re: PCS Phones Disrupting Hearing Aids (Dan Pock) Re: PCS Phones Disrupting Hearing Aids (Tom Lager) Re: Here's What Happens With 1-888-555-1212 (David Leibold) Re: Here's What Happens With 1-888-555-1212 (Alex Klaus) Re: Misuse of the Internet (Jonathan Edelson) Re: Misuse of the Internet? (Barry Margolin) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike Pollock Subject: Sprint Promotion Makes 888 Toll-Free Numbers Ring Sweeter Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 02:06:55 -0500 KANSAS CITY, Mo.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--March 6, 1996--To celebrate the introduction of 888 toll-free numbers, Sprint announced Wednesday a unique, risk-free, money-back offer. Up to six months from the activation date, new Sprint 888 toll-free customers can obtain their money back, if they do not believe that their new toll-free number has been of value to their small business. The announcement comes on the heels of the March 1 introduction of the new 888 prefix for making toll-free calls. This prefix opens up an additional 7.6 million toll-free telephone numbers to supplement the nearly depleted supply of nearly 8 million 800 numbers. Through Sprint's money back offer, which is valid until Aug. 31, 1996, Sprint will refund customers the toll-free interstate usage charges and monthly recurring charges incurred up to $1,000 per month per toll-free number. The offer applies to new Business Sense, Sprint Clarity(R) or The Most for Business(SM) toll-free service numbers activated after March 1. "Sprint's money-back offer is further demonstration of our commitment to providing business solutions for our customers," said Robin Loyed, Sprint's director of small business market development. "We're confident we can demonstrate the business benefit of toll-free calling and help our customers do more business." As part of this commitment, Sprint is initiating an intensive campaign to educate toll-free small business prospects and customers on how they can use technology to enhance their productivity. Each new 800 or 888 customer will receive a Customer Tool Kit within ten days of ordering toll free service from Sprint. The kit contains: o Discount coupons to Kinko's to help reduce the cost of new business stationery and for other services. o Tips on advertising the new number. o Advice on avoiding abuse and fraud. o Suggested copy for letters that can be sent to customers introducing the new toll-free number for your business and explaining its many benefits. o Personalized self-inking stamp with company name, address and phone number. New Sprint 800 or 888 toll-free customers also receive 888 Callers' Plus Bonus Points each month for eight months. Callers' Plus is Sprint's unique frequent user program which enables small business owners to reward customers, employees and themselves by redeeming merchandise for points from Sprint. The 888 prefix offers the same benefits as existing 800 toll-free service. Consumers can make a call to get information or services 24 hours a day and the recipient, not the caller, pays for the phone call. For businesses, that can translate into significant increases in revenues through an expanded customer base as well as increased usage and enhanced satisfaction among current customers. Sprint is a global communications company -- at the forefront in integrating long distance, local and wireless communications services and the world's largest carrier of Internet traffic. Sprint is the leader in advanced data communications services and built the United States' only nationwide, all-digital, fiber-optic network, which provides the bandwidth necessary for today's sophisticated business applications. Sprint has $13.6 billion in annual revenues and services more than 15 million business and residential customers. CONTACT: Porter Novelli, New York Ann Mrkic, 212/872-8089 E-mail: amrkic@porternovelli.com or Juliet Glassroth, 212/872-8257 E-mail: Jglassroth@porternovelli.com ------------------------------ From: Tad Cook Subject: Teens Accused of Credit Scam Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 22:56:07 PST NEWPORT BEACH, Calif. (AP) -- Four teens, accused of tricking a computer user to give his credit-card number over the Internet and then charging telephone chat lines and computer service bills to the card, could face criminal charges, police said. The boys, all unidentified students at Corona del Mar High School, were taken into custody Feb. 20 for investigation of conspiracy to commit petty theft, Sgt. John Desmond said. The three 15-year-olds and one 17-year-old were released to their parents. They allegedly charged about $100 to the pilfered credit card number, Desmond said. The teens allegedly used a home computer to flash a message to a Vacaville user while he was connected to America Online Serice, telling him his system was down and that he had to re-enter his credit-card account number to restore his service, Desmond said. "The number was immediately visible to the boys," Desmond said. Soon after, the card's owner saw $60 worth of calls to a telephone chat line billed in September and July. The chat line led authorities to Newport Beach, where police Detective Rob Morton tracked down the teens. ------------------------------ From: bparker@interaccess.com (Ben Parker) Subject: Directory Assistance Without Knowing City? Date: Thu, 07 Mar 1996 01:34:46 GMT Organization: Best Effort Co. Reply-To: bparker@interaccess.com When you call Directory Assistance (esp long distance xxx-555-1212) to ask for a number of a business, the operator's first response is "What city, please?" If I don't know the city (and don't know anything about the area to even make a dumb guess) it seems impossible to get any help. I realize the answer may vary with each telco but aren't there alternate ways that operators can look up the needed info within that area code, especially if it's a business (as opposed to an individual name where there seems a greater chance for duplication)? Will we ever get to on-line (web page type) automated lookups? Ben Parker (Oak Park IL) bparker@interaccess.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: AT&T offers nationwide directory assistance on 900-555-1212. They say you do not need to have any area code; just the name and general location of the person. I do not know what they charge for the service. It appears to be intended as direct competition to the telcos offering 555-1212 in each area code. PAT] ------------------------------ From: bparker@interaccess.com (Ben Parker) Subject: Area Code/NNX Database Updates? Date: Thu, 07 Mar 1996 01:34:58 GMT Organization: Best Effort Co. Reply-To: bparker@interaccess.com With all the many new area codes coming into use this year, it is a special problem time for database administrators, in updating national scope data files with the correct new area codes. What I am wondering is there any one source for the information needed to automate these kind of updates. Specifically, a lookup by old area code + NNX exchange prefix with a return of the correct new area code#. Many lists I have seen give towns or other vague references, which are less than completely accurate. An on-line or on-disk/tape or CDROM form of the data would be nice. Obviously this data changes frequently, so on-going updates would be necessary. Does the Bellcore TRA dept provide this kind of info or is it up to each local telco to provide? Ben Parker (Oak Park IL) bparker@interaccess.com ------------------------------ From: Scott Montague <4sam3@qlink.queensu.ca> Organization: Queen's University at Kingston Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 23:45:24 -0500 Reply-To: 4sam3@qlink.queensu.ca Subject: Purchasing AT&T Gift Certificates From Abroad Today I tried to buy AT&T Long Distance Gift Certificates for a friend in the US. Unfortunately, from Canada, that's not as easy as it sounds. I called the USA direct number (1-800-CALL-ATT), and asked if I could purchase LD Gift Certificates using my calling card. Not surprisingly, I couldn't, but the operator said she'd connect me with the office which does sell the certificates using credit cards. The operator then asked "Could I have your calling card number?". Baffled, I asked why she would need that. "Well, there's a charge for calling 1-800 numbers through USA direct". A little stunned, I asked "I want to buy LD certificates from you ... why do I have to pay toll to do it?". She couldn't answer that, and hopped off to see her supervisor. Three minutes later, she came on the line and said "There's a number that you can call internationally to discuss ANY of AT&T's services, free of charge. Do you have a pen? Good, you can just call USA direct and dial 412-553-7458 for our World Connect Information Centre". She then connected me. Apparently, this is a AT&T switchboard that can connect you to any AT&T number. So, I asked to speak to the office where I could purchase LD Gift Certificates from Canada. Needless to say, I did not speak the "key word" and so was shuttled through five different ACD's (which, BTW, did not recognize '0' for an operator). I finally gave up, and called back. After convincing the USA direct operator that 412-553-7458 is free, I got the switchboard again. This time, however, the person actually listened to what I said. Finally, I got through to the AT&T Certificate Enterprises Centre. From there, they pretty much knew what they were doing. The only problem was, they forgot to mention until the very end of the call that there was a $2.95 charge to complete the order _on top_ of the price of the gift certificates. Begrudgingly, I accepted the surcharge, said "thank you kindly", and hung up. The next big hurdle will be seeing the LD Gift Certificates actually get delivered. So, if you want to dial an AT&T internal number internationally, call USA direct, and connect with 412-553-7458. If you are speaking with an operator, say it's a non-billable call to their "World Connect Info Centre". You can then ask for the department you want, for instance "AT&T Certificate Enterprises" for LD gift certificates. It's a long way from what we do here in Canada, which is calling the operator and asking for a calling card or LD gift certificates. Scott Montague / Apukwa of 4th \ Scouting: Improving tommorow 4sam3@qlink.queensu.ca \ Kingston Cubs / through the youth of today. ------------------------------ From: Reinhard Burkert <100705.2645@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Tariffs For Leased Lines Date: 7 Mar 1996 11:25:34 GMT Organization: reinhard.burkert@chnet.mail.abb.com Doe anybody know where I can find a neutral survey of leased-line tariffs in the internet? I am especially interested in international links and international service providers. Any comment highly appreciated. reinhard burkert ------------------------------ From: John Harris Subject: CMIS HL API C++ Specification Date: Thu, 07 Mar 1996 09:09:59 -0600 Organization: Alcatel Network Systems Hi, Has anyone heard of any vendors with products that approach the CMIS HL API C++ Specification proposed by NMF? The specs for TMN++, ASN.1++, GDMO++, and CMIP++ look really good, some using capabilities of the Standard Template Library. John K. Harris (jharris@aud.alcatel.com) Chief Architect (tel) (214) 996-7088 Network Mgmt. Product Development (fax) (214) 996-7362 Alcatel Network Systems M.S. 408-200 Richardson, TX 75081-2206 WWW: http://web2.airmail.net/jkharris ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 18:41:18 -0800 From: Dan Pock Subject: Re: PCS Phones Disrupting Hearing Aids Monty Solomon wrote: > Cellular phones that cause noise pollution should not be allowed to > ruin anyone's ability to hear when other technology is available that > does not cause noise pollution. > A full study is now underway by the FTC. Everyone who wears hearing > aids should write the Federal Trade Commission, attention digital > phones/hearing aids, Washington, D.C. 20015 and make their voice > heard. What would you have the FTC do, outlaw digital technology? It isn't going to happen. It is an interesting problem that few people with good hearing are aware of, and for that reason I applaude your zeal in pubicizing it. I realize that to a hearing impared person a sudden burst of static can seem like a rude assault by insensitive people with cellular phones, but that isn't the case. I think that if you succeed in making the problem known a solution will be found. However, don't be surprised if that solution turns out to be reengineered hearing aids that are sheilded or filtered so as to block the offensive signals. The Americans with Disabilities Act will come into play sooner or later on this. But I suspect it will take a civil suit to get things moving. If you think that such a law suit needs to be filed, my suggestion to you would be that you go after the hearing aid manufacturers. Because if you try go after every manufacturer of digital technology you are going to have to file alot of law suits. ------------------------------ From: pteng@postoffice.ptd.net (Palmerton Telephone Co. - Engineering) Subject: Re: PCS Phones Disrupting Hearing Aids? Date: 7 Mar 1996 14:04:53 GMT Organization: Pencor Services, Inc. Reply-To: pteng@postoffice.ptd.net In article , monty@roscom.COM says: > Please consider sending your own variation of this letter it to your > local newspaper before PCS 1900 digital phones end up causing > disruption to your aids when you are a bystander and make it > impossible for you to use an ALD. > Dear Editor, > If you have a hearing loss and wear an expensive hearing aid, new > digital pagers and digital phones used by others cause loud static > that makes your aid useless. > Cellular phones that cause noise pollution should not be allowed to > ruin anyone's ability to hear when other technology is available that > does not cause noise pollution. > A full study is now underway by the FTC. Everyone who wears hearing > aids should write the Federal Trade Commission, attention digital > phones/hearing aids, Washington, D.C. 20015 and make their voice > heard. WOAH!!! Before anybody goes off half cocked and starts a national furror over this lets get something straight. 1. According to the articles I have read in the trade magazines, it is only GSM handsets that cause interference with hearing aids. 2. Although they use somewhat similar technology, cellular phones are NOT PCS phones. They operate in an entirely different portion of the spectrum. Whoever you are and whatever your purpose in posting this article, get your facts straight first. Tom Lager Palmerton Telephone Company Serving the beautiful Blue Mountain Valley since 1900 ------------------------------ From: djcl@io.org (woody) Subject: Re: Here's What Happens With 1-888-555-1212 Date: 6 Mar 1996 22:59:26 -0500 Organization: Internex Online (shell.io.org), Toronto, Ontario, Canada In article , Scott Robert Dawson wrote: > Paul Robinson wrote: >> The industry decided that 1-888-555-1212 would not be placed into >> service, apparently because they felt it would set a bad precedent of >> encouraging people to duplicate their 800 numbers in 888. > ringing, six times. Then a polite male voice answered, 'Toll-free > Directory Assistance'. I said that I had dialed 1-888-555-1212, and he > said that the DA was shared between 800 and 888. I guess Bell Canada > is handling this better than AT&T or whatever in the States ... Been a bit busy to report this, but I tried the 1 888 555.1212 from Toronto last month and got Stentor's (i.e. Bell, BC Tel, et al) 800 DA ... it seemed to act the same way 1 800 555.1212 traditionally does, including the operator's request for the caller's area code to determine if the 800 number is reachable (despite all the CCS7/CID in Canada :-*). djcl@io.org ---> http://www.io.org/~djcl/ ------------------------------ From: aklaus@chat.carleton.ca (Alex Klaus) Subject: Re: Here's What Happens With 1-888-555-1212 Date: 7 Mar 1996 02:08:39 GMT Organization: Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada Scott Robert Dawson (srdawson@interlog.com) wrote: [other 888 service stuff snipped] > having trouble when dialing 1-888-555-1212 DA. So I tried it, at 1.15 > EST, (i. e. in the morning). There was a one-second silent pause, then > ringing, six times. Then a polite male voice answered, 'Toll-free > Directory Assistance'. I said that I had dialed 1-888-555-1212, and he > said that the DA was shared between 800 and 888. I guess Bell Canada > is handling this better than AT&T or whatever in the States ... I don't which area code (I'm in 613) you were using, but today I tried 1-888-555-1212 with Bell Canada, I got a recording directing me to 1-800-555-1212. I guess it depends on your location for Bell service. Alex Klaus Carleton University, Political Science IV Email address: aklaus@chat.carleton.ca or am676@freenet.carleton.ca (good until August 96) (no expiration date) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 07:44:13 PST From: Jonathan Edelson Subject: Re: Misuse of the Internet If (for the sake of argument) one takes the concept of Universal Service and applies it to the internet, then IMHO one should not be paying per-minute charges to the local telco for internet connectivity. Instead, one should be figuring out ways for 'high cost' internet users to pay for 'low cost' internet users, thereby allowing for universal access to the internet. It seems to me that the best way to deal with the universal access argument is to turn it around: universal access to internet information services. This argues directly against per-minute charges for the local connection to the ISP. Instead one looks at the things that people do which load down the internet, and charge people for such. For example: the internet is all about moving data from one place to another. It would seem reasonable to me that cheap flat rate service would provide some low bandwith, and if you want a guarentee of higher bandwidth, you should pay more. In other words, people who want to push video down the pipe, with a guarentee of service, would 'subsidise' people who simply want to move text, and can wait through a 0.5 second pause. I guess that this relates to the idea that 'internet phone will kill the internet'; it seems to me that the best way to insure that people don't overload the net is to make them pay for things that will overload the net. If a high bandwidth guarantee costs money, then people will either a)not use IP phone, b) use it at off peak times when one doesn't need the guarentee, c) pay the fee, d)push for the development of better compression, etc. Similarly, for FTP: people will push for products which allow them to take advantage of off peak ftp, or will pay the fee, or will simply wait if the amount of bandwidth available is not that high. Jon ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: Misuse of the Internet? Date: 7 Mar 1996 03:22:15 -0500 Organization: BBN Planet Corp., Cambridge, MA In article , Stuart Zimmerman <0007382020@mcimail.com> wrote: > A growing number of companies are selling software programs with > ancillary hardware options that enable a computer to transmit voice > conversations. This, in fact, creates the ability to "by-pass" local, > long distance and international carriers and allows for calls to be > made for virtually "no cost." For example, on-line service providers The interesting thing is that this (ab)use doesn't *really* bypass the traditional carriers, since much of the infrastructure of the Internet is provided by these very same carriers. For instance, BBN Planet makes extensive use of NYNEX and PacBell leased lines to connect our customers to our POPs, and we use MCI's Internet backbone as our default route out of our networks. So the phone companies get their money either way -- either in leased line and ISP access charges, or as metered long distance charges. I would think they would prefer the leased line style, since both the income and resource requirements are much more predictable. Barry Margolin BBN PlaNET Corporation, Cambridge, MA barmar@bbnplanet.com Phone (617) 873-3126 - Fax (617) 873-6351 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #104 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Mar 7 13:35:38 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id NAA05696; Thu, 7 Mar 1996 13:35:38 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 13:35:38 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199603071835.NAA05696@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #105 TELECOM Digest Thu, 7 Mar 96 13:35:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 105 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Idea For Additional Telemarketing Restrictions (Steve Chilinski) Re: Computer Networks Classifications (lr@access1.digex.net) Re: A New RBOC Media Offensive For a "Modem Tax" (Eric Smith) Re: RF Interference (Ray Hazel) Re: Sprint Employees Still Bitter About Office Closing (db@barc.com) Re: La Conexion Familiar (Van Heffner) CallerID, AT&T and Bell Atlantic (Scott Plichta) Phone Number Retirement (was Re: NPA 213 Nearing Exhaustion) (Eric Smith) Messing Around With 710 (Jim Lord) Re: Maine Island Seeks Wider Calling Area (John Grossi) Linear Amplifier Modules (Jeff Giddings) History Lesson: Details of 5 March 1977 Call-in (Carl Moore) Modem Tax - Internet Phone (Kevin J. Cameron) Re: AT&T Worldnet for Macintosh Real Soon Now? (Henry Baker) The Busiest Payphone in America (Mark J. Cuccia) Re: Network Internet E-Mail Access (Brian Brown) Re: Network Internet E-Mail Access (Dub Dublin) Re: Telecard Rip-Off (Van Heffner) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve.Chilinski@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: Idea For Additional Telemarketing Restrictions Date: Thu, 07 Mar 1996 05:12:30 GMT Organization: Gateway to Internet Services Reply-To: chili@gwis.com Tom, I think your idea has little merit. Even though you may not make your living in the telemarketing industry, about four million others do in the United States alone. Additionally, recent rules just implemented have greatly protected the consumer further from many things. However, just because you choose to "unlist" your telephone lines, the only privilege this legally gains for you is to eliminate your name and number from public lists. Anyone and everyone, including your friends, my relatives and your local newspaper, is perfectly within their legal rights by calling you, and will be. Also, as a telemarketing industry veteran, I can also tell you that a rather interesting rule holds true. In almost all cases, the person with an unlisted number is universally more receptive to a purchase through a telemarketing call then a person with a listed number. Numbers back this up in study after study. The reason, I presume, is that many companies market solely from lists, therefore folks with unlisted numbers are less barraged by calls, and not as irritated by the interruptions. However, do not expect now or in the future for non-published telephone numbers to be non-marketable. This topic has been argued incessantly over the years, but the bottom line is -- unlisted means unlisted, and that's all. Steve ------------------------------ From: lr@access1.digex.net (Sir Topham Hatt) Subject: Re: Computer Networks Classifications Date: 7 Mar 1996 08:05:00 GMT Rosas Landa Ramos Octavio-IIE (orr@servidor.dgsca.unam.mx) wrote: > I've been reviewing Andrew S. Tanenbaum's book on Computer Networks > and found that there are several kinds of classifications for > networks, That book is by technology standards, is ancient, of course. > But I was wondering, since he doesn't give any hint on the subject of > size, would there be a classification according to the size of the > network? You can charaturize networks by all sorts of parameters, speed is another. The LAN/MAN/WAN characturstic is convenient because the networking technology available broke nicely along those lines. > And one other thing. Was ARPANET the first computer network ever > existed? What kind of network would it be? WAN? Network is a broad term, ARPANET was certainly the first wide area deployment of a packet switched network. Yes, it meets all the criteria of a WAN. Ron ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Mar 96 13:11 PST From: Eric Smith Subject: Re: A New RBOC Media Offensive For a "Modem Tax" In article j-grout@glibm5.cen. uiuc.edu (John R. Grout) writes: > Now that IXCs like AT&T are getting into the ISP business, it seems > inevitable that the RBOCs will eventually succeed in imposing such > charges ... We should try to convince the FCC that the access charges are obsolete, and rather than adding them to the Internet, they should *remove* them from long distance service. What are the legal and technical requirements for me to set up my own LEC (to provide Internet service, of course), and get the IXCs to pay *me* access charges for my incoming calls from my customers? If we must have this outdated cross-subsidy scheme, I want to get on the receiving end! Eric ------------------------------ From: razel@net.com (Ray Hazel) Subject: Re: RF Interference Date: 7 Mar 1996 10:53:35 GMT Organization: N.E.T., Inc. In article usexnjv6@ibmmail.com writes: > For a while now we have all been aware of the RF interference > likely to occur when a digital cellular telephone (GSM) is operated > near other digital installations such as PCs, file servers, PBXs, > medical equipment, CD players, etc. We ban the use of all cellular > telephones in our computer rooms accordingly to prevent the possible > crash of critical equipment. > However, is anyone aware of RF interference into equipment from > conventional, hand-held, narrow-band FM, VHF & UHF radios (say 1 to > 5W)? Are there any documented cases of interference with sensitive > digital equipment that would cause these devices to be banned as well? There is a great potential for causing problems. First and formost, the power of the hand-held sets (packset) you mention is up to 5 watts. That's almost 10x the power of most hand-held cellular sets. But my experience with Sprint years ago confirmed for me that they can cause problems. At one time I worked for Sprint in San Francisco. I took on a new job with Southern Pacific Transportation in the same building, and was given a 5 watt "packset" for communications in the building. I had a packset with me when visiting the switchroom (DanRay switching equipment) and answered a call while next to the processor bay. Two things happened. First thing was the hardcopy printout stopped momentarily, and the second (standby) processor went immediatly off-line and had to be manually restarted. I repeated this process once again, when a field support engineer was on-site to show what happened, and was from then on allowed to "visit" with the understanding that the packset wouldn't be used in the switchroom. Distance was about five feet from the cabinet with the two processors. I don't know if call processing was disrupted, as furter testing wasn't done (to my knowledge). But I would recommend that those packsets you mentioned be used outside the room as well. Ray Hazel ------------------------------ From: db@barc.com Subject: Re: Sprint Employees Still Bitter About Office Closing Reply-To: db@barc.com Date: Thu, 07 Mar 1996 09:43:04 GMT ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) writes: > Sprint has responded saying the worker's claim that the company is > anti-union are outlandish. Sprint claims that its local telephone > service division has been unionized 'for decades' ... but they seem > to have forgotten the company has only been in business for about > twenty years and in local phone service for a much shorter time > than that. Furthermore, the local operations were unionized *under > their previous owners* and not through any decision made by Sprint > since that company has owned the locals ... I believe 'Sprint' is, in actuality, the renamed OLD owner, United Telecom (with the subsidiaries for local telco as United Telephone). If I have the trail correct, I believe that: Sprint was originally a subsidiary of Southern Pacific Railroad and went under the name of SP Communications. It was then sold either wholly or partially to GTE (After Southern Pacific was sold ... I believe to a Kuwait company) GTE then ended up with a 50-50 with United Telecom, with United folding it's Long Distance subsidiary into Sprint (I forget what United called their service ... something with 'One ' in it or something like that). GTE sold their half of the company to United Telecom. Sprint became a wholly owned subsidiary of United Telecom. United Telecom renamed the company to Sprint to more reflect the long distance subsidiary than the local excange subsidiaries. Bottom line, I think, is that 'Sprint' is actually the 'old' United Telecom company that HAS been around for many decades. Doug ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Mar 1996 00:12:13 -0800 From: vantek@northcoast.com (VANTEK COMMUNICATIONS) Subject: Re: La Conexion Familiar Pat, Appareantly, someone at Sprint thinks that the "Dime A Minute" campaign should also apply to their worker's salaries. I would guess that Candice Bergen makes more for doing one Sprint commercial than their entire SF office made in a year. All the more reason to take advantage of the Sprint Friday's FREE offer! Van Hefner - Editor Discount Long Distance Digest http://www.webcom.com/longdist/ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well a dime a minute comes out to six dollars per hour, and while that certainly is not a great salary it is fairly typical of wages paid to low-level office clerks in customer service type positions. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Mar 96 09:24:03 EST From: splichta@instalink.com (Scott Plichta) Subject: CallerID, AT&T and Bell Atlantic I am suprised that I haven't heard anything about Bell Atlantic and DCS suing AT&T recently. It appears that AT&T's switches won't talk to Bell Atlantic's for exchanging long distance caller id. Bell has sued AT&T saying that it has decreased the usefullness of it's caller ID. As a Bell Atlantic caller ID user, I get significant amount of NO CID AVAIL on my caller id from callers who use AT&T (there are alot of you). Until these issues are resolved, I have a nice paperweight to sit next to my phone. Anybody with more technical information? Scott Plichta splichta@instalink.com Western Interactive Media Interactive 800/888 number programs and nearest dealer location services. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Mar 96 01:01 PST From: Eric Smith Subject: Phone Number Retirement (was Re: NPA 213 Nearing Exhaustion) rlm@netcom.com (Robert McMillin) writes: > I have been told this by one person and have not verified it. One of > the reasons is that the cellular companies do not re-use a number if > it has been cloned. This results in a bunch of numbers being retired > (permanently) every day. What would be the point of that? They could just assign the number to someone else (perhaps six months later) and associate it with the ESN of the new customer's phone. The old cloned phones wouldn't work anyhow because they would have the wrong ESN. Presumably the owners of the cloned phones in question would long since have cloned some other ESN/MIN pair anyhow. Cheers, Eric [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You would think the cellular companies could reuse their numbers after some intervals in most cases. Only in instances where the fraud had really been outrageous and coming from several directions on one number should it be necessary to retire a number for more than a few months or a year at most. On the subject of permanently retiring numbers however, I am reminded of one situation in Chicago back in the 1960's where a phone number had been assigned for many years to to a house of prostitution. One day the police decided to raid the place and close it down for good. Don't ask me why they had not done it years before; maybe they did not get their regular handout and decided to make an example of the ladies working there. Or maybe it was time for an election and the politicians had promised to get rid of all the sin and vice; who remembers from that long ago. Anyway, the place shuts down and Illinois Bell reported five years later that there were still a dozen or more calls daily from all over the world coming in to that (now disconnected and intercepted) number. We had manual intercept in those days with an operator coming on the line and asking what number you dialed and then giving a status report or a new number to dial, etc. According to Bell, all these guys kept right on calling; most were not listening when the operator answered and they assumed they had reached the Madam of the house so they would start right out asking for an appointment, etc until the operator interuppted them to tell them in a more firm tone of voice that the number they were calling had been *disconnected*. Five years later! The guys calling would argue with the operator and insist that they were legitimate customers -- not police -- and that she did not have to 'pretend' with them. Many would explain to the operator in crude terms exactly what kind of services they would need when they came to their appointment. A businessman from Japan was in the United States five or six years after the place had been raided and closed; he lost his wallet and in the process of returning it to him it was noted that the number of that place -- MIchigan-2-xxxx -- was in his 'address book'; he planned a visit there while he was in the States. Fifteen years later, in the middle 1970's, Illinois Bell said that phone number never did 'quiet down' enough that they felt comfortable about assigning it to a new customer. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Messing Around With 710 From: jim.lord@t1bbs.t1.org (Jim Lord) Date: Thu, 07 Mar 96 07:19:00 -0500 Organization: ATIS/Commitee T1, Washington, DC-202/639-4469 Reply-To: jim.lord@t1bbs.t1.org (Jim Lord) Once more the misinformed/uninformed mess with things they shouldn't. I hope when the time comes that some one needs to call 710 its not your fanny that needs the protection or rescue or whatever the emergency was. Why shouldn't your government emergency agencies have the ability to place calls with some precedence when something like "Andrew" or a twister (I live in Kansas) happens! [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Maybe if 710 was not treated like such a deep dark secret there would be less attention paid to it. Maybe if the government was open and honest about facilities like this and encouraged the public to not abuse them it would not be such an interesting story for people in journals like this. Everyone wants to know about government 'secrets'. Anyway, I somehow doubt that 710 has anything to do with rescuing citizens in distress. I think it has to do ultimatly with the government gaining even more control over its citizens. I think it is intended to serve the government in times of civil disturbances and/or massive disasters, allowing the government to communicate among itself and retain/regain control as needed. If that is the case, then we certainly should have the right to know about it, and other than a single tiny mention in Harry Newton's magazine several years ago I have never heard a peep about it otherwise. By the way, I have yet -- a month later -- to hear from any federal authorities asking me to please not discuss it here; nor have I heard reports from readers about any such contacts. I have to wonder. PAT] ------------------------------ From: jgrossi@bbn.com (John Grossi) Subject: Re: Maine Island Seeks Wider Calling Area Date: 7 Mar 1996 04:26:22 GMT Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman (BBN) In article Mike Fox writes: > In , roavery@aol.com (Roavery) writes: >> Deer Isle, Maine residents are trying to get their local calling area >> extended to several adjacent mainland towns. 3000 people live on the >> island (half mile offshore) year round, but every call off-island >> whether to the local hospital, relatives, stores or computer access is >> an expensive toll call. This is not an uncommon thing in Hancock County. I've got several friends that live in the nearby town of Castine, and Blue Hills. Their local calling area is their town only. So they've told me ... I've got no Ellsworth Phone book to look it up. Unfortunately you probably don't have much recourse in phone service to getting your calling area expanded. And if they do do it they'll give you one town. Say Brooklin or Sedgewick. I suspect that most of your calls though are going to Ellsworth, Orland, and Bucksport for the local stuff and Bangor for business. That kind of expansion is not going to happen as NYNEX is not going to make much money off of it. The other problem that I know of in that area is that the lines running into Castine at least are rather minimal and NYNEX may be attempting to keep the volume down to avoid having to replace the hardware. I know Maine Maritime has been trying to get a net connection put in but NYNEX's lines into that area are still Analog (I was not paying attention to the explination at the time so you'll forgive if it's not accurate) and can't support a full feed net connection and the Academy is unwilling to pay NYNEX the cost of stringing the line down from US Highway 1 in Orland. To the guy from North Carolina, the area in question (downeast Maine, and Maine in general) is for the most part rural. The nearest city is Bangor which is an hour and twenty minute drive away and maybe has 70k people in the metro area. For most of that area I suspect NYNEX is losing money and only does service because the state won't let them get away with not doing it; this would also explain the somewhat outdated hardware. John Grossi Associate Engineer Bolt, Beranek, & Newman Inc. (617) 873-4152 10 Moulton St. Cambridge Ma. 02138 jgrossi@bbn.com ------------------------------ From: sis.intl@ix.netcom.com (SIS International) Subject: Linear Amplifier Modules Date: 7 Mar 1996 17:01:05 GMT Organization: Netcom I am looking for the Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) on AT&T's and Spectrian's Linear Power Amplifiers (LPAs). I understand that AT&T's LPA has two versions of the same struture, but different plug-in modules, called Linear Amplifier Modules (LAMS), that determine the total power capability. I would like to find the following Subsytem MTBFs: 240 WATT version 110 WATT version Any information would be greatly appriciated. Jeff Giddings ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Mar 96 11:13:47 EST From: Carl Moore Subject: History Lesson: Details of 5 March 1977 Call-In I noted in the history file that area code 900 began in 1970, but that the earliest use I know of is 5 March 1977 call-in to radio program featuring then-President Jimmy Carter. The next day's {New York Times} even has transcripts of the calls aired from the TOLL-FREE number, which was 900-242-1611; I did not search them, but have seen newspaper references that Carter himself asked (on the air?) that callers dial carefully. (Carter had learned of the plight of Mr. Otto Flaig, whose telephone number at Mequon, Wisconsin was 414-242-1611 and who was bombarded with calls from people who, I take it, forgot to dial the 1-900 or, if 242 was a toll call within 414, the 900. 414-242 is a Thiensville prefix, and I don't know if it is local to Milwaukee. This was before 1+414+7D kicked in for toll calls within 414.) The {New York Times} also noted another number (it said it had only a slight resemblance) bombarded with misdirected calls for Carter: 990-2422 at the pediatrics ward of Queens Hospital Center in New York City. At the time, NYC had only area code 212, and long distance from NYC did not use the leading 1, so a scenario might be 9 - 9 (one dial click less than 0) - 0 - 2 - 4 - 2 - 2 (one dial click more than 1), with 611 being ignored. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: 'Mass calling' was the original purpose of 900. There were no premium charges involved. It was intended merely as a 'choke' to prevent an overflow of calls into locations where some special telephone event was going on, such as the historic 1977 call-in to President Carter where he spoke directly with citizens who wished to contact him about concerns. It was only several years later that 900 began being used for premium services offered by information providers. And in the early days of its use in that way when there were only a dozen or maybe two dozen subscribers nationally to 900, a call to the traditional number for directory assistance, 900-555-1212 brought you a recorded announcement of about four minutes in length listing all the 900 subscribers and the fees they charged for service. When it got to where there were quite a few more 900 subscribers, such a recorded announcement listing them all became impractical and 900-555-1212 was discontinued until recently when AT&T took it over for nationwide directory assistance in competition with the Bell companies. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 06 Mar 96 21:53:10 EST From: Kevin J. Cameron <75272.304@compuserve.com> Subject: Modem Tax - Internet Phone Pat -- to clear up some seeming confusion: The RBOCs have launched a mainstream media attack on the ISPs exemption from access charges (perhaps driven by AT&T's press release, which stated AT&T was expecting its customers to be nailed-up 24 hours a day -- that ought to create a huge demand for second phone lines, but also require vastly increased switching capacity). The RBOCs now have an unlikely ally in America's Carrier Telecom Ass'n -- a grabbag of small IXCs. ACTA has petitioned the FCC to exercise jurisdiction over the provision of "telecommunications services" over the Internet and enjoining the sale of any I-phone type software until the FCC issues a rulemaking on Internet issues. What is less clear is how ACTA reads the new telecom act's definition of "telecommunications services". Are they after (quasi ) real time transmission like I-phone? Or all Internet traffic? In any event, looks like it might be time for a netizens meeting. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I certainly would like to see the 'Netizens Association' actually get started as was described in the special mailing I sent out to the readers several days ago. I think it is an idea whose time has come. Thanks for your more detailed explanation. PAT] ------------------------------ From: hbaker@netcom.com (Henry Baker) Subject: Re: AT&T Worldnet for Macintosh Real Soon Now? Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 03:51:03 GMT In article , johnb@Printrak.Com wrote: > (2) In their current Windows software offer, why are they providing a > "special" version of Netscape Navigator for Windows? What are the > differences between this version and a "standard" version? > I'm somewhat leery of placing "custom" software on my computer, and > I'm wondering whether there is some technical reason that I can't use > my own software, or if there's something else going on. (I have > paranoid visions of the AT&T software "cleaning up" drivers from other > applications, or of seeing a Prodigy-esque AT&T advertisement on the > bottom of every Netscape screen ...) Perhaps the ATT/Losent software should be called a 'Trojan Horse'?? Perhaps the reason why the account is free is that ATT wants to get some free marketing info on their customers. Perhaps the sw sends down a profile of the customer to ATT, including how much disk, memory, what sort of cpu, what popular programs are loaded, etc., etc., ... www/ftp directory: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/hb/hbaker/home.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Mar 1996 15:48:03 CST From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: The Busiest Payphone in America I just heard this piece of trivia on the radio- The busiest payphone in America is located in: The CHICAGO BUS TERMINAL! It averages over 270 outgoing calls a day! MARK J. CUCCIA PHONE/WRITE/WIRE: HOME: (USA) Tel: CHestnut 1-2497 WORK: mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu |4710 Wright Road| (+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity 5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New Orleans 28 |fwds on no-answr to Fax:UNiversity 5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: At one point not that long ago, the title 'busiest pay phone' went to one at Ohare Airport in Chicago. I am in the Chicago Greyhound Terminal from time to time but cannot really picture where that particular phone is located. PAT] ------------------------------ From: brianb@cfer.com (Brian Brown) Subject: Re: Network Internet E-Mail Access Date: Thu, 07 Mar 1996 00:09:40 GMT Organization: ConferTech, International A few years ago, my company did exactly this, and did it with a dedicated UUCP machine The machine, an old 386 with a 2400 baud modem, ran a WAFFLE (shareware) UUCP batch file-type program which made the UUCP connection whenever outbound mail was queued (it retrieved mail at this time also), and checked for incoming mail whenever an hour went by without any outgoing mail sent. It placed incoming mail into the appropriate MHS directory on the Novell server. We used Pegasus mail, at that time only available in DOS versions, as our mail client, which works great with Novell. It also has some good support for integrating WAFFLE UUCP. If you get a dedicated connection to the internet, you can set up your Novell server to run TCP/IP with a suite from Novell, and then run David Harris's (author of Pegasus mail) Mercury NLM which acts as an SMTP server on your Novell fileserver, and handles all kinds of great things, like aliases, mailing lists, and mail servers, as well as inbound and outbound mail via SMTP. Mercury is also free; David Harris is great. Pmail is great, and Mercury is great. Brian Brown ConferTech, International ------------------------------ From: Dub Dublin - Sun Network Ambassador Subject: Re: Network Internet E-Mail Access Date: Thu, 07 Mar 1996 08:42:32 -0600 Organization: Sun Microsystems Houston Todd A. Grissom wrote: > I'm running a Novell Network with fifty clients. We are > looking at world-wide e-mail and limited internet access for the Well, the first part (e-mail) is easy -- if you want to minimize the risk of break-ins, use uucp rather than a real IP connection. This will support mail and news and is all many of us old-timers had in the early days of the Net (gosh, that makes me feel *really* old at 33!) The risk can be further minimized by eliminating sophisticated mail handlers like sendmail, by using PC implmentations of uucp. Mortice Kern Systems in Ottawa sells a good uucp as part of their MKS Toolkit package, which is a bunch of really handy UNIX utilities for DOS/Windows/NT. If you want to support other services, (web, etc.) you'll need a firewall to do it correctly. Some of the better ISPs will sell you an Internet conection on the back side of a firewall, which eliminates the cost and complexity of having to get your own. Check around, and caveat emptor. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 01:34:59 -0800 From: vantek@northcoast.com (VANTEK COMMUNICATIONS) Subject: Re: Telecard Rip-Off > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Can anyone tell me what this company > did precisely? Did they just take the money and run off or was it > a case of getting into some sort of financial trouble with their > supplier? How are the big retailers who sold the card (you mentioned > K-Mart) dealing with this? PAT] To the best of my knowledge, the stores that were affected are still being contacted by the USTelecard Association. They are being told to pull the product from their shelves and are being given refunds or equal value credit on cards from participating USTelecard member organizations. Nobody seems to know, or will say, what happened to the operators of the calling card company. If anyone out there has been "stuck" with one of these useless cards, they should call USTelecard ASAP at 1-800-333-3513 to obtain a refund, or credit. The Association provides sort of a "Good Housekeeping Seal" for Member's Calling Cards. Their "seal" was most likely printed on the back of this company's cards, and since consumers had no other (working) point-of-contact they called the Association. It's ironic that the USTelecard Association was created to give credibility to it's members, and the affected card company was a member of the Association. At least they are standing behind the cards that their members produce. That's a lot more than you can say for most other "consumer" organizations, such as the Better Business Bureau, which seems willing to sell their name to anyone - for a price. You certainly wouldn't see the BBB giving people refunds! Van Hefner - Editor Discount Long Distance Digest http://www.webcom.com/longdist/ ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #105 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Mar 7 14:26:04 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id OAA11563; Thu, 7 Mar 1996 14:26:04 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 14:26:04 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199603071926.OAA11563@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #106 TELECOM Digest Thu, 7 Mar 96 14:26:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 106 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson EPIC Analysis of Crypto Bill (Monty Solomon) PIM/Contact Manager With Caller ID Now Available For Download (D. Nguyen) Employment Opportunity: Manager of Datacom/Telecom; PC Support (J Bedits) EasyRun in Booth 330 at CT Expo (Boaz Zilberman) Re: Misuse of the Internet? (Tom Crofford) Re: Unadvertised MCI Deal During March (Gene LeDuc) Re: GATS and Negotiations on Basic Telecommunications (John Godfrey) Re: PCS Phones Disrupting Hearing Aids (Shri Balachandran) Re: History Lesson: Details of 5 March 1977 Call-In (Garrett Wollman) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 06:47:51 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: EPIC Analysis of Crypto Bill Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM Forwarded to the Digest FYI: Date: 6 Mar 1996 16:45:28 -0500 From: "EPIC-News" Subject: EPIC Analysis of Crypto Bill Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and several other co-sponsors have introduced the Encrypted Communications Privacy Act of 1996 (S.1587). The proposed legislation comes in the midst of an ongoing debate concerning U.S. encryption policy and at a time when the need for secure electronic communications is becoming widely recognized. The explosive growth of the Internet underscores the need for policies that encourage the development and use of robust security technologies to protect sensitive personal and commercial information in the digital environment. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) has long advocated adoption of a national encryption policy that emphasizes the protection of personal data and encourages the widespread dissemination of privacy-enhancing technologies. The text of the proposed legislation is available at: http://www.epic.org/crypto/legislation/s1587.html Analysis The proposed Encrypted Communications Privacy Act addresses a number of unresolved issues concerning the use of encryption technology. The proposed legislation would: - Relax export controls by transferring authority for export decisions to the Secretary of Commerce, and mandate the removal of controls on "generally available" encryption software; - Create a legal framework for key escrow agents, including an obligation to disclose keys and assist law enforcement, and establish penalties for improper disclosure; - Affirm the freedom to use and sell encryption within the United States; and - Criminalize the use of encryption which may have the effect of obstructing a felony investigation. Export Controls The bill moves encryption policy in the right direction by placing export control authority in the Commerce Department, rather than the State Department and the National Security Agency (NSA) -- the agencies currently charged with that responsibility. However, the legislation would only remove export controls on encryption software to the extent that software with similar capabilities is "generally available," or in the "public domain or publicly available." Likewise, controls would be lifted on hardware with encryption capabilities only if "a product offering comparable security is commercially available from a foreign supplier." These limitations raise two concerns: 1) The Commerce Department historically has been dependent upon NSA for assessments of the worldwide availability of encryption technology. The Commerce Department recently released the results of a survey it conducted of foreign encryption products. Portions of the Department's report were classified by NSA and withheld from public disclosure (EPIC is currently seeking the release of the complete report in a lawsuit filed under the Freedom of Information Act; Electronic Privacy Information Center v. Department of Commerce, C.A. No. 95-2228 (D.D.C.)). By conditioning the relaxation of export controls on a finding that similar products are "generally available," the legislation will likely perpetuate NSA's ability to influence export determinations and to thwart public oversight of Commerce Department actions. 2) The "generally available" requirement will continue to hamper the development of innovative security technology by U.S. firms. Restricting exports to products comparable to those already "available from a foreign supplier" will ensure that foreign, and not domestic, firms will be on the leading edge of privacy-enhancing technology. This is necessarily a non-competitive trade policy that will continue to obstruct the development of strong encryption. EPIC supports the efforts of the bill's sponsors to liberalize export control, but EPIC believes the bill should go further. EPIC supports the complete repeal of these out-dated barriers to the development and dissemination of software and hardware with encryption capabilities. This is a necessary step to ensure the development of a secure Global Information Infrastructure that promotes on-line commerce and preserves individual privacy. Key Escrow Procedures As currently drafted, the bill does little to roll back the deployment of Clipper-inspired key-escrow encryption within the federal government. Indeed, a significant portion of the legislation is devoted to establishing a legal framework for the management of key-escrow systems in the private sector. The bill would restrict certain activities by key holders and impose criminal and civil penalties for the unauthorized disclosure of keys. Key holders could only release keys (1) with the consent of the person whose key is held; (2) as may be "necessarily incident to the holding of the key;" and (3) to law enforcement or investigative officers pursuant to federal wiretap law or the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Under the current bill, keys could be disclosed to law enforcement officials without satisfying a warrant requirement. The legislation also establishes reporting requirements on the number of orders and extensions served on key holders to obtain access to decryption keys or decryption assistance consistent with current reporting requirements in the federal wiretap statute. However, there are no provisions for notifying the subject of an investigation when keys are disclosed, even for the purpose of alerting the subject that the security of keys may have been compromised. Statutory protection for the privacy of encryption keys appears to be a worthy goal. The bill's key-escrow procedures, however, must be considered in the context of the larger policy debate concerning encryption. Beginning with Clipper and continuing with the more recent "commercial key-escrow" proposal, law enforcement agencies and the national security community have lobbied aggressively for the implementation of key-escrow systems that would provide government the ability to decrypt secure data. Such proposals have also been supported by companies that have received substantial government contracts or promises of special deals on export licenses. Users and most businesses have remained firmly opposed to the key-escrow concept. Indeed, there is virtually no installed base for key-escrow encryption, while the number of users of non-escrowed encryption is in the millions. By placing a Congressional imprimatur on the key-escrow concept, the legislation will have the effect of supporting an escrow scheme that has already been rejected by users and businesses. A statutory scheme that creates a legal framework for key-escrow is contrary to the privacy interests of network users and the security needs required for network development. EPIC recommends that the key escrow provisions of the bill be dropped. Freedom to Use and Sell Encryption The proposed legislation appears to affirm an absolute right to use and sell encryption, but a close reading of the bill shows otherwise. The proposed legislation provides that it "shall be lawful for any person within ... the United States ... to use any encryption ..." and "to sell in interstate commerce any encryption ..." It then modifies that language with the words "except as provided in this Act and the amendments made in this Act or in any other law." As described below, the bill then sets out the first criminal penalties yet proposed for the domestic use of encryption. Other similar provisions could easily be added. Since there is currently no regulation of encryption in the United States, supporters of the bill must explain what will be accomplished by this effort to establish a government regulatory scheme for the use of encryption. EPIC believes that there is a fundamental constitutional right to use encryption and would support only an unconditional articulation of that right. The current statutory framework clearly opens the door to further regulation of privacy-enhancing technologies. "Unlawful Use of Encryption" The proposed legislation contains the first explicit criminal penalties for the use of encryption within the United States. It would criminalize the use of encryption to "obstruct, impede, or prevent the communication of information in furtherance of a felony ... to an investigative or law enforcement officer." This provision is unlikely to add much to the existing legal arsenal available to law enforcement agencies or prosecutors. Use of encryption in furtherance of a crime could currently be prosecuted under existing conspiracy and obstruction of justice statutes. The effect of the proposed provision could be to discourage the deployment of encryption where it is appropriate and to raise unnecessary suspicion about the use of routine security procedures. The net result could be an increased risk to public safety and network security. EPIC recommends that this provision be struck from the bill. As currently drafted, it is far too broad to serve any useful purpose. Conclusion The proposed Encrypted Communications Privacy Act provides an opportunity to revise outdated encryption policies that have undermined network security, jeopardized personal privacy and frustrated public accountability. Although the current draft of the bill does not go far enough in removing antiquated controls on the export of encryption technology, the proposal recognizes the need for sweeping changes to the export regime. Removal of export restrictions on encryption technology is a pressing need and Congress should address the issue expeditiously. Less desirable is the bill's promotion of key-escrow encryption. This is the Clipper-like scheme that should finally be laid to rest. Congressional action on key-escrow management is unnecessary and the issue certainly need not be addressed in conjunction with a relaxation of export controls. Legislation concerning key-escrow will have a detrimental effect on the development of secure network technologies and necessary privacy safeguards. EPIC will remain opposed to this provision. EPIC commends the sponsors of the proposed legislation for moving the public debate on the relaxation of export controls forward and recognizing the need for an overhaul of an out-dated policy. We are confident that further consideration of the unnecessary and potentially dangerous provisions contained in the current version will result in a legislative approach that best serves the needs of all concerned -- users, industry and government. ======================================================================= EPIC Cryptography Litigation EPIC makes frequent and effective use of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to obtain the public release of government information concerning cryptography and privacy policy. The following cases are among those we are currently litigating: Electronic Privacy Information Center v. Department of Commerce, C.A. No. 95-2228 (D.D.C.). This case seeks the full release of a survey conducted by the Department on the foreign availability of encryption software. The report was created after Congress decided not to pass legislation in 1994 that would have relaxed export controls on encryption. An "unclassified" version of the survey was released in January, but substantial portions were withheld at the behest of the National Security Agency (NSA). Electronic Privacy Information Center v. National Security Council, C.A. 95-0461 (D.D.C.). In this lawsuit, EPIC is seeking disclosure of information concerning the Security Policy Board, which was established by classified Presidential directive in September 1994 and is charged with developing government-wide policy on information security. Based on information we have already obtained, it appears that this new structure is a formalization of the process that gave rise to the Digital Signature Standard and Clipper initiatives. Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility v. National Security Agency, C.A. No. 93-1074 (D.D.C.). This lawsuit seeks the disclosure of key NSA and National Security Council documents concerning the controversial Clipper Chip encryption initiative. Issues to be decided include the propriety of NSA's classification of the Clipper algorithm on national security grounds. EPIC Cryptography Resources The EPIC website contains key materials on cryptography policy issues, including: - Efforts to Ban Cryptography - The Clipper Chip - Key Escrow (Government-proposed alternatives to Clipper) - The Digital Signature Standard - Export Controls - The Computer Security Act of 1987 - Reports on Cryptography Policy These and other relevant materials are available at: http://www.epic.org/crypto/ ======================================================================= The Electronic Privacy Information Center is a public interest research center in Washington, DC. It was established in 1994 to focus public attention on emerging privacy issues relating to the National Information Infrastructure, such as the Clipper Chip, the Digital Telephony proposal, medical record privacy, and the sale of consumer data. EPIC is sponsored by the Fund for Constitutional Government, a non-profit organization established in 1974 to protect civil liberties and constitutional rights. EPIC publishes the EPIC Alert, pursues Freedom of Information Act litigation, and conducts policy research. For more information, email info@epic.org, HTTP://www.epic.org or write EPIC, 666 Pennsylvania Ave., SE, Suite 301, Washington, DC 20003. +1 202 544 9240 (tel), +1 202 547 5482 (fax). The EPIC Alert is a free biweekly publication of the Electronic Privacy Information Center. To subscribe, send email to epic-news@epic.org with the subject: "subscribe" (no quotes). ------------------------------ From: apdsuppt@apdsolutions.com (David Nguyen) Subject: PIM/Contact Manager With Caller ID Now Available For Download Date: 7 Mar 1996 01:22:05 GMT Organization: APD Solutions You can download the shareware version of PIM/Contact Manager with CALLER-ID (it's called 'APD Organizer with Caller ID V1.5') NOW from: http://www.apdsolutions.com APD Organizer with Caller ID is a PIM/Contact manager with complete PhoneBook, Call Log, todos with carry-over, appointments with reminder and recurring options, daily/weekly/monthly/yearly calendar, color reports, envelope printing, letter, notes, drag and drops, and more ... It's an intergated Computer Telephony software for your Home & Small Offices. If you have modem capable of CallerID, you can use this software: - Know who's calling and all information and contact history about the caller before you answer the phone. - Use it as your virtual answering machine, it logs all calls so you know who to return your call -- never miss a call ! - If you have sound card, it will anounce different sound file when the phone ring different phone number - ie: When your mom call, it will say 'Mommy call'... - Use the software to collect customer information and automatically add to its phonebook Database. Company: APD Solutions (Computer Telephony) Tools for Home and Small Offices WWW: http://www.apdsolutions.com email: apdsuppt@apdsolutions.com or apdsales@apdsolutions.com ------------------------------ From: tkdtaz@atlantic.net (Joe B) Subject: Employment Opportunity: Manager of Datacom/Telecom; PC Support Date: 7 Mar 1996 01:26:49 GMT Organization: MGA Technologies Reply-To: ian@mgagray.com Immediate opening available for a Manager of Datacom/Telecom and PC Support in the Tampa, FL area. Candidate should have experience with most, if not all, of the following: - Development of LAN/WAN strategies, desktop automation and client connectivity. - Provides technical support services and training for all systems users on all PC hardware/software applications. - Provides technical assistance for new implementations and provides on-site maintenance of UNIX operating system and supporting platform to bridge UNIX, AS400 and Windows for Workgroups. - Installs and maintains software, hardware, system terminals, PC's, and peripheral equipment, printers and modems. - Coordinates and administrates all company telecommunications equipment. - Provides staff with in-service training on computer operations, desktop applications and telecommunications equipment. - Provides the Information Technology team with after hours support (on-call). - Assists in the procurement of PC hardware, software, maintenance contracts. - Oversees the Help Desk. - Must have a B.S. in Engineering, Information Systems, or related field. Please respond or send resume including the following name and requisition number to: Joe Bedits MGA Technologies REQ#TELEMGR.A36 Phone: 1-800-642-4729 or (813) 791-7890 Fax: (813) 724-8039 e-mail: ian@mgagray.com ------------------------------ From: boaz@actcom.co.il (Boaz Zilberman) Subject: EasyRun in booth 330 at CT Expo. Organization: ACTCOM - Internet Services in Israel Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 17:49:39 GMT EasyRun Communication Software Systems Ltd. 7 Taasia St. Raanana 43654, Israel. EasyRun will demonstrate its new version of Call-Center products in Computer Telephony Exposition in Los Angeles on March 12-14, 1996. See us at booth #330 and mention this posting for your free gift. -------------------- Contact: Anat Liechtenstein, Press Coordinator. Tel: +972-9-910-953 Email easyrun@actcom.co.il EASYRUN ANNOUNCES AVAILABILITY OF ITS CALL-CENTER 'EMIS' PRODUCT. EasyRun delivers its desk-top Call-Center Management Information System to work with TSAPI-based PABX systems. Raanana, Israel. EasyRun announced today that its new computer telephony integration (CTI) application for Call-Centers is available for Novell Telephony Services Application Programming Interface (TSAPI) computing environments. EMIS is supported on virtually any PABX system that provides support for the NETWARE Telephony Services environments and is ready for immediate delivery. Previously, the package was available for use only on a number of proprietary protocols with a limited set of PABX systems. EMIS offers an advanced CTI solution for medium to large size Call-Centers at functionality level offered by large scale systems at a fraction of the cost of traditional implementations. It can be deployed with a scaleable numbers of agents, supervisors and managers spread around a local or remote establishment. EMIS allows a Call-Center with even a small number of agents and complex topology to be an economic reality. EMIS uses the TSAPI information stream coming from a telephony system to collect performance and statistical information about the activity taking place within the call-center. The information is then displayed in real-time on the clients' computer terminals and stored in an ODBC based data-base system for historical reporting, trends analysis and call-center forecasting. "There are three main issues addressed by this release of the software: - delivery of a software package that works with a large variety of PABX systems: a computing architecture which provides a scaleable, cost-effective solution; wide use of configuration tools that enable the end-user to design and tailor any aspect of the display format and printed reports to his/her own taste" said Avi Silber, President of EasyRun. "Our unique report generation package enables the end-user to logically view and explore any data element collected and stored within the system and to 'drag and drop' it into any report or graph that best depicts accurate information of the Call-Center activity" added Natan Bronstien, VP for R&D in the company. Joseph Elati, the Project Manager for the EMIS system gave a clue on the technical merit of the product: "By using an advanced compression algorithm and utilizing ultra fast communication links we are able to deliver real-time information in single second resolution to hundreds of clients and graphical display devices in the Call-Center". The major elements of the EMIS system include: Agent status, Group status, Super-Group status, Trunk status displayed in real time. Multiple open windows on multiple instances of groups and super- groups. User-defined text, graphic and tabular report formats. Wide range of pre-defined historical reports available in text, tabular and graphic formats. Built-in report generation package provides logical view of the call-center data and full control over data content and display format. Automatic report generation according to pre-defined schedules to various destinations. --------------------- Founded in 1991, EasyRun is a privately owned international supplier of software solutions for the telecommunications industry. EasyRun specializes in the development of Computer-Telephony software, call- processing applications, wireless systems and network management products. EasyRun focuses on delivering intelligent adjuncts into multivendor networks of telecommunications systems with support for industry standards like TAPI, TSAPI, CAPI, GSM, IS-54/41 and SNMP. EasyRun leverages on its expertise in state of the art desktop computing technologies such as object oriented programming; client/server technologies; event-driven architecture; UNIX, OS/2, WINDOWS and real-time operating systems (iRMX, PSOS); advanced GUI builders and SQL servers. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Mar 1996 12:39:18 -0800 From: Tom Crofford Organization: XETA Corporation Subject: Re: Misuse of the Internet? I am not in favor of a 'modem tax', but I'd be interested in this group's various opinions of how the telcos can be reasonably expected to carry the longer and more frequent calls spawned by modem use. My point is that I know those of us using modems place lots more calls, and the calls are much longer than voice calls. We do a good deal of our equipment's service calls via modems. We make about four times the number of calls per extension as a non-information based company. So, do you think it is fair or unfair for a given telco to be required to support higher traffic levels without a revenue increase of some sort? Tom Crofford tomc@xeta.com ------------------------------ From: GLeDuc@mktdev.com (Gene LeDuc) Subject: Re: Unadvertised MCI Deal During March Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 10:43:16 GMT Organization: Market Development, Inc. In article jeremyps@eskimo.com (Jeremy Schertzinger) writes: > MCI has a deal for their customers that is not publicized anywhere (at > least that I've found). Residential customers can make up to $75.00 > of free calls on Saturdays in March for *free*. This is all 24 hours > on Saturdays, not just certain hours. If you don't believe me, call > MCI Customer Service yourself at 800-444-1616 and ask about it. I > also understand they are going to have another unadvertised deal in > April. MCI told me that the April deal will be $50/day on Fridays. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That is odd; someone else wrote here and said it would be free calls on Mondays. Everyone had better find out for sure before milking this promotion and finding out too late you were busy calling on the 'wrong' day each week. PAT] ------------------------------ From: John Godfrey Subject: Re: GATS and Negotiations on Basic Telecommunications Date: 7 Mar 1996 18:48:37 GMT Organization: National Academy of Sciences ab261@torfree.net (David Ujimoto) wrote: > Is there a WWW site that has information dealing with the current > status of the negotiations on Basic Telecoms that are presently > underway in Geneva? The World Trade Organization home page , in the "What's New" section, has a good article dated 22 Feb 1996, "Background Note on the WTO Negotiations on Basic Telecommunications." John Godfrey jgodfrey@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu ------------------------------ From: Shri Balachandran Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 12:56:31 -0600 Subject: Re: PCS Phones Disrupting Hearing Aids Well. You got questions ... we got answers! (Sorry to plagiarize Radio Shack slogan). To solve this problem in GSM PCS phone, Ericsson and PacBell have worked together and come up with four (or is it five) solutions. Check out the news, a couple of weeks back, about this announcement. Just to show to the world that we telecom folk do care! Cheers, Shridharan Balachandran (Shri) 214-907-7530(O) Ericsson Network Systems, CCS-SS7 Group. 214-994-0486(H) ------------------------------ From: wollman@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu (Garrett A. Wollman) Subject: Re: History Lesson: Details of 5 March 1977 Call-In Date: 7 Mar 1996 14:09:00 -0500 Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science In article , Carl Moore wrote: > I noted in the history file that area code 900 began in 1970, but > that the earliest use I know of is 5 March 1977 call-in to radio > program featuring then-President Jimmy Carter. Hmmm. The first "premium" service using NPA 900 that I can remember having been advertised was a few years later than that. The service (or maybe the company) was called "Dial-It", and was a sports-score service. Their number (I don't know if it is still in service) was 900 976 1313, usually shouted by a large group of men in their commercials. Another slogan I remember associated with this service was "Dial-It ... We're talkin' to you!". I can't imaging these services being successful now, given the huge penetration of CNN Headline and ESPN, which both offer frequent scores for "free" (or rather, hidden in your monthly extended-basic cable bill). Garrett A. Wollman wollman@lcs.mit.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #106 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Mar 7 21:45:16 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id VAA24679; Thu, 7 Mar 1996 21:45:16 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 21:45:16 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199603080245.VAA24679@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #107 TELECOM Digest Thu, 7 Mar 96 21:45:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 107 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson NBA in Full Court Press (TELECOM Digest Editor) Amerex Toll Restrictor? Help? (Michael Muderick) No LDDS Operator on B.A.M.S./NYNEX (Fred Atkinson) Re: CallerID, AT&T and Bell Atlantic (Hovig Heghinian) Re: CallerID, AT&T and Bell Atlantic (Lynne Gregg) Re: Misuse of the Internet (Fred R. Goldstein) Re: Misuse of the Internet? (John B. Hines) Re: Here's What Happens With 1-888-555-1212 (Babu Mengelepouti) Re: Maine Island Seeks Wider Calling Area (Babu Mengelepouti) Re: Unadvertised MCI Deal During March (Mark Tenenbau) Re: Unadvertised MCI Deal During March (Babu Mengelepouti) Re: Sprint Employees Still Bitter About Office Closing (Ray Hazel) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 19:37:12 EST From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: NBA in Full Court Press The National Basketball Association is ready for some court time; a court of law, not a basketball game. The NBA has filed a lawsuit against Motorola in Schaumburg, Illinois and a Skokie, Illinois company called STATS, Inc. That acronym means Sports Team Analysis and Tracking Systems, Inc. Motorola offers a new pager called SportsTrax, which offers up to the minute scores, statistics and play action during a sports event. They use the STATS, Inc. company here in Skokie to provide the data. STATS sends it out every few minutes to Motorola which then transmits it out to the pagers. Customers pay a one-time fee of $199 for the pager, and that gives them three year's worth of the sports update service. Any major sporting event at any time of day or night reaches the customers on their pagers within as little as two minutes after something of interest has happened in the game or the score has changed. The lawsuit filed by the NBA seeks unspecified damages claiming false advertising, copyright infringment and misappropriation. Although Motorola and STATS have a deal with Major League Baseball for similar service, but they never did reach an agreement with the NBA to do the same thing with basketball. The NBA claims that the process is basically an illegal retransmission of their games, which television networks, cable companies and radio stations pay to broadcast to their viewers. Although neither NBA or Motorola would comment on the suit, John DeWan, president of STATS, Inc. here in Skokie said his company is only in the business of providing statistics, and he would not comment further. I think this lawsuit is going to have major implications in the area of new technology and how information can be delivered. The core issue is whether the pager technology, which can send out the updates as quickly as two minutes after some action or event being reported, is giving too much information too quickly for a company that is not paying rights to broadcast. A wide range of technologies -- including everything from cable and phone companies to online services and the Internet -- could wind up testing the copyright law that was enacted in 1976. In fact the whole question of copyright infringement in cyberspace is one that we will be hearing a lot more about during the months ahead. PAT ------------------------------ From: am004d@netaxs.com (Michael Muderick) Subject: Amerex Toll Restrictor? Help Date: 8 Mar 1996 00:33:00 GMT Organization: Philadelphia's Complete Internet Provider I have what I believe to be a toll restrictor, i.e. not allowed to dial 900 calls , or 976 calls. The name Amerex in Riverside, CA is printed inside. It has two green leads and a red lead. I assume the two greens interrupt the green side of the phone. Anyone have any info on this? It looks to have a crystal and three ic/s inside. ; Is it programmable? What exactly does it do? Hookup diagram? Instruction sheet? PHotocopy? It's about 1 x 1.5 " x .5" high. Thanks in advance. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Mar 96 17:00:35 CST From: Atkinson, Fred Subject: No LDDS Operator on B.A.M.S./NYNEX Today I spoke to a representative of LDDS regarding their inability to route me to the LDDS operator (when dialling '00') on my cellular phone. As I have been unable to get any dialog going between these two (for all practical purposes) I was interested in knowing what she had to say. It appears that there is some legal thing going on between B.A.M.S./NYNEX and LDDS. She is telling me that the problem won't be corrected until the lawyers get through settling things. This will probably take months. She did not elaborate on exactly what this problem was or why the lawyers would take so long to resolve such problems (while their customers suffer). In the meantime, it appears that customers of LDDS who use B.A.M.S./NYNEX as their cellular carrier will be unable to get LDDS operator assistance when they require it. I told them this was unacceptable and she suggested I call their corporate headquarters in Jackson, Mississippi and discuss it with the upper management. I told her that I shouldn't be having to go to this much trouble to get such a simple problem resolved and that I would start shopping for another long distance carrier immediately. Does anyone have any insight as to exactly what this 'legal' problem is that they have to take several months to work out? Fred ------------------------------ From: hovig@ai.uiuc.edu (Hovig Heghinian) Subject: Re: CallerID, AT&T and Bell Atlantic Date: 7 Mar 1996 23:28:43 GMT Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Reply-To: hheghini@telesciences.com Scott Plichta writes: > It appears that AT&T's switches won't talk to Bell Atlantic's for > exchanging long distance caller id. [...] As a Bell Atlantic caller ID > user, I get significant amount of NO CID AVAIL [...]. I am a Bell Atlantic/MCI customer in Philadelphia: * My folks are NYNEX/AT&T customers. I receive number, no name. * My in-laws are Ameritech/MCI customers. I receive both name and number. * We are Comcast Metrophone (wireless) customers. I get nothing from them. (They use Sprint for LD, if that makes a difference.) Do any wireless carriers deliver name and number? Will they? Must they? Thanks, Hovig Heghinian Department of Computer Science University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ------------------------------ From: Lynne Gregg Subject: Re: CallerID, AT&T and Bell Atlantic Date: Thu, 07 Mar 96 13:22:00 PST splichta@instalink.com (Scott Plichta) wrote: > I am suprised that I haven't heard anything about Bell Atlantic and > DCS suing AT&T recently. It appears that AT&T's switches won't talk > to Bell Atlantic's for exchanging long distance caller id. Bell has > sued AT&T saying that it has decreased the usefullness of it's caller > ID. > Anybody with more technical information? There are no known problems with AT&T switches related to handling Caller ID. However, several IXC's reported to the FCC (documented in the FCC Order and 12/95 Memo on Calling Number Services) that DSC and Northern Telecom switches had software problems related to Caller ID. These problems, the IXC petitioners claimed, prohibited them from delivery of Calling Party Number (as the FCC orders). The IXC's sought and received waivers through 3/31/96. Recently, the FCC received an application for extension to 4/30. The software problems documented by the petitioning IXC's (to the FCC) involved the switch taking in ANI and substituting ANI in the Calling Party Number field. This meant that unwitting consumers (and even those who attempted to block with *67) would have their phone numbers displayed on Caller ID equipment - a privacy violation under U.S. and most state laws. Regards, Lynne ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Mar 1996 14:41:37 -0500 From: Fred R. Goldstein Subject: Re: Misuse of the Internet From my position at an ISP, I can agree that "Internet Phone" is misuse of the Internet, but only because its IP traffic character- istics are improper. TCP, used on the vast majority of Internet high-volume applications, adaptively sets is transmission rate to the available bandwidth. It's almost magical; it makes the net scale beautifully and is quite fair in allocating bandwidth among varying user loads. Iphone, on the other hand, runs inside UDP, which has no such adaptation; its packet-emission rate is not affected by availability, so if the network is busy, TCP "good" users will slow down while Iphone "bad" users will hog what's left. But that's not what the RBOCs are talking about. Under existing rules, they are entitled to major-league compensation when somebody carries telephone calls *across a state line into a local exchange*. That's exactly what an Interexchange Carrier does. So if I call Pat on his 847 number via AT&T, Ameritech gets paid by AT&T to deliver it. If I use a NYNEX line to originate the call, NYNEX gets paid by AT&T to originate it. Now if Pat has an 800 (or 900, 500, 700, etc.) number directly served by an AT&T switch, then Ameritech doesn't get anything, since it's not using their network. (Leased "special access" line monthy rates are of course possible if they provide that service between AT&T and Pat.) Ditto if I make the call on a direct AT&T connection ("Megacom"). Indeed, corporate "on-net" calls can be very cheap, under a nickel a minute in some Tariff 12 arrangements. So what's an Iphone call? If it goes from Sound Blaster to Sound Blaster, then no RBOC switches are involved. It's NOT a phone call, in the legal sense. Legally, an Iphone call today is no more a "bypass" of the RBOC's due payment schemes than a CB radio conversation. And if the RBOCs think that CB radio, ham radio, etc., own them money for calls not touching their networks, then they had better stand in line behind the Post Office who has an equal claim to the lost letter-post revenue caused by the phone company! (We'll omit the telegraph company stage, since WUTCO is history.) It sounds as if the RBOCs are trying one last desperate grab at the mediaeval notion of "franchise", or "staple" -- a payment due to them for their exclusive right to some part of the economy, even if they don't actively provide any value. Such franchises (not to be confused with the modern "McDonald's" type) are rare today in America, and are certainly not what the new "competitive" telecommunications environment is supposed to be about. If PacBell has a "franchise" right to all voice traffic into their territories, do TCG, MFS, AT&T/MCI and any other new "competitive LECs" also get a cut? The whole notion is preposterous! If somebody were to establish a dial-in/dial-out "pool" of phone lines linked to Sound Blasters, selling I-phone dialed-up links as a form of long distance telephone service, where I could I-phone Aunt Tillie without her even having a computer, then that person would indeed be a long distance carrier. Their phone lines would today be subject to IXC treatment. Of course they'd be a pretty poor-quality long distance company, but that's irrelevant. No rules need to change to cover this case, which to my knowledge is nonexistent at present. Iphone *can* be used as a form of transmission between telco networks, and it matters not whether an IXCs transmission is good or bad. But even the IXCs only pay the telcos for calls that are connected *as phone calls* to their networks, not for phone calls placed over tie lines between PBXs, or data circuits, or anything else. Fred R. Goldstein k1io fgoldstein@bbn.com +1 617 873 3850 ------------------------------ From: John B. Hines Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 15:39:10 CST Reply-To: jhines@mcs.net Subject: Re: Misuse of the Internet? In , Tom Crofford writes: > I am not in favor of a 'modem tax', but I'd be interested in this > group's various opinions of how the telcos can be reasonably expected > to carry the longer and more frequent calls spawned by modem use. My > point is that I know those of us using modems place lots more calls, > and the calls are much longer than voice calls. > We do a good deal of our equipment's service calls via modems. We > make about four times the number of calls per extension as a > non-information based company. > So, do you think it is fair or unfair for a given telco to be required > to support higher traffic levels without a revenue increase of some > sort? Why do you think there is no revenue involved? Around here, business calls are all metered, you pay for every minute of every call. All residential calls over eight miles are also metered, and there is no unlimited calling options. So Ameritech (in this case) is already making money on modem calls. If the phone company isn't already making money on modem calls, its not because they don't want to, but because someone is forcing them, e.g. politics. john ------------------------------ From: dialtone@vcn.bc.ca (Babu Mengelepouti) Subject: Re: Here's What Happens With 1-888-555-1212 Date: 7 Mar 1996 21:24:17 GMT Organization: Vancouver Community Net > The industry decided that 1-888-555-1212 would not be placed into > service, apparently because they felt it would set a bad precedent of > encouraging people to duplicate their 800 numbers in 888. > Accordingly, no matter which of the two area codes a toll free number is > in, you still have to use 1-800-555-1212 to look up the number, then dial > the number whether it's 1-800 or 1-888. Bell Canada seems to agree with you that this is stupid, and they have already duplicated toll-free directory in the 888 prefix. I would hope that US toll free directory will do same. dialtone@freenet.vancouver.bc.ca ------------------------------ From: dialtone@vcn.bc.ca (Babu Mengelepouti) Subject: Re: Maine Island Seeks Wider Calling Area Date: 7 Mar 1996 21:42:34 GMT Organization: Vancouver Community Net Mike Fox (mjfox@raleigh.ibm.com) wrote: > In , roavery@aol.com (Roavery) writes: > Is this really unfair? Sure, there probably are some areas on the > mainland with bigger calling areas in pure square miles, but have you > considered the cost of carrying calls over/under/whatever 1/2 mile of > water (with probably no revenue producing subscribers in that 1/2 mile > stretch)? Let's face it, if you choose to live in a remote area there > are many compensations, but there are some costs too. A cable or microwave tower. Big deal. In the Northwest cable and microwave runs to remote towns high in the Cascades, through lakes, and up and down steep hills. Yet we still don't pay extra for local calls. Once the investment is made there's little additional cost. The facilities are going to be there anyway, it's just how the usage is billed. You can call in the Portland (OR) area over 3500 square miles and it's all a *free* local call (no monthly call limit, per call charges, or any similar nonsense such as Ameritech and Nynex get away with). Telco seems to do fine on their $25/ mo average local bill. > I live in a larger metropolitan area. It seems like every couple of > months or so, I get notified that some rinky-dink rural town is being > added to our local calling area, and everyone's phone bill is going up > a few cents as a result. Since the number of calls coming in from > these outlying areas is probably going to be a lot more than the > number of calls going out, in effect the people in these small towns > are forcing those of us in the larger cities to subsidize their > calling. Those rinky-dink towns are often calling businesses that they would not otherwise patronize if they had to pay long distance rates. And those businesses are in your local calling area, aren't they? I'll bet your economy benefits. > Sorry for the flame. I'm just annoyed by the notice that my Raleigh, > NC phone bill is going up so that Pittsboro can be added to our local > calling area. Our bills are only going up a few pennies, but if the > Pittsboro were paying for it, it would cost each of them a lot more. > It's a classic case of a small constituency widely distributing the > costs of something whose benefits will be concentrated on them. It's > how our government got into the mess it's in now, IMO. When Yamhill OR and Hoodland OR got added to the Portland EAS region, their bills went from $8 or $9 per month to over $25 per month. My bill went up 40 cents. True, I don't call Yamhill much (it's a dinky town out in the middle of nowhere). On the other hand, Hoodland contains many mountain cabins used by people in the Portland area, and a ski area. There was arguably some benefit to people in the Portland area. What I find irritating is that dinky towns get added, while Vancouver WA on the other side of the river remains a long distance call. You can see it from the Portland side of the river but you can't call there. I suspect that the reason it hasn't been added yet is that Washington is reluctant to pay Oregon-tariffed phone rates. dialtone@freenet.vancouver.bc.ca ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Mar 96 13:20:25 -0600 From: Mark Tenenbaum Subject: Re: Unadvertised MCI Deal During March Jeremy Schertzinger (jeremyps@eskimo.com) wrote: > MCI has a deal for their customers that is not publicized anywhere (at > least that I've found). Residential customers can make up to $75.00 > of free calls on Saturdays in March for *free*. This is all 24 hours > on Saturdays, not just certain hours. If you don't believe me, call > MCI Customer Service yourself at 800-444-1616 and ask about it. I > also understand they are going to have another unadvertised deal in > April. In Volume 101, Richard Spall added: > I believe April's promotion is up to $50 free calls on Mondays ... I just got my GTE bill yesterday and in reviewing my MCI pages (ah! the convenience of having just one bill -- take note AT&T), I noticed that MCI had a Friends and Family promotion for Martin Luther King Day in January (no, I did not "dream" it!) and that I received some nominal additional savings for calls I made on that day. Seems like MCI is having a promotion per month. I ask this very important question, being in Marketing at GTE myself, why have a promotion but not promote it? Maybe our new friend on the Digest, Ms. Leslie Aun (she is a she, isn't she?) can reply on behalf of MCI. I am sure I am not alone in being more than willing to change my LD calling patterns if I know of additional savings. Maybe a moot point for me anyway -- I'm planning to switch to GTE Long Distance when it's available to me in Texas. Mark D. Tenenbaum Plano, TX ------------------------------ From: dialtone@vcn.bc.ca (Babu Mengelepouti) Subject: Re: Unadvertised MCI Deal During March Date: 7 Mar 1996 21:19:22 GMT Organization: Vancouver Community Net Jeremy Schertzinger (jeremyps@eskimo.com) wrote: > MCI has a deal for their customers that is not publicized anywhere (at > least that I've found). Residential customers can make up to $75.00 > of free calls on Saturdays in March for *free*. This is all 24 hours > on Saturdays, not just certain hours. If you don't believe me, call > MCI Customer Service yourself at 800-444-1616 and ask about it. I > also understand they are going to have another unadvertised deal in > April. Unfortunately, this is only for MCI subscribers who have "friends and family" and want to make their calls from their home phone. My account with MCI includes only a calling card, so they won't let me do it. Also, it only applies to *domestic* calls made *from the subscribed number*. So even if you have a line with "friends and family" subscribed to MCI, you stll can't make the free $75 to India or wherever, or from your calling card. Oh well. dialtone@freenet.vancouver.bc.ca ------------------------------ From: razel@net.com (Ray Hazel) Subject: Re: Sprint Employees Still Bitter About Office Closing Date: 7 Mar 1996 23:15:12 GMT Organization: N.E.T., Inc. In article db@barc.com writes: > If I have the trail correct, I believe that: Just a couple "alterations"... > Sprint was originally a subsidiary of Southern Pacific Railroad and > went under the name of SP Communications. S.P. Communications started out as a private line carrier. When they went into the switched services business, they started it under the service name "Sprint". There was no "official" definition as an acronym; the only "request" was that SP be reflected in the name, as it was owned by Southern Pacific Company. Another subsidiary of SPCo. was SP Transportation, aka the railroad. > It was then sold either wholly or partially to GTE (After Southern > Pacific was sold ... I believe to a Kuwait company) Due to the capital intensive nature of operating a railroad and a communications company (especially a growing one), SP Communications was sold to GTE, where the GTE company subsidiary was named "GTE Sprint". The railroad and its parent company attempted to merge with Santa Fe industries. The merger went through with the exception of the rail operations. (Santa Fe ended up being the largest landowner in California, surpassing the Federal government and the State of California). To the best of my knowledge, no Kuwait company was involved. Eventually the rail operations was bought by Phillip Anschutz, and combined with the Denver & Rio Grande Railroad. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: For years and years the story has been that SPRINT is an acronym for: outhern

acific ailroad nternal etwork elecommunications (or) outhern

acific ailroad ternal elecommunications You have to go back to how Sprint came into existence in the first place. There was no intention originally to offer any sort of public long distance service. For more than sixty years, the Southern Pacific like every other railroad operated its own corporate phone system between locations and the wires ran on poles on their right of way next to the tracks. At intervals of every five miles or so there were trackside telephones -- outdoor phones in secure metal boxes mounted on the pole and fed from the wire which ran overhead. In the event of a malfunction or emergency on the train the crew used these trackside phones to call ahead to the next station for assistance. The telephone operators at the various terminals on the railroad had jacks on their switchboard connected to these lines. Therefore you could call for example the office of the Santa Fe Railroad in Chicago at their depot downtown on Dearborn Street and ask to speak with someone in the Los Angeles depot. The operator would plug in there on the board and presently the operator in the Los Angeles depot of the Santa Fe RR would answer the circuit and extend it on her switchboard. Now the finest in quality audio it was not ... the connections were just horrible from years of neglect of the wires strung for a couple thousand miles along the track right of way. On the few occassions I had to speak over one of those circuits (when I worked for a summer at the Baltimore and Ohio RR office in Chicago in the 1960's) it sounded like the people on the other end were at the bottom of a barrel. You had to speak loudly to be heard. In the late 1960's, the Southern Pacific decided to overhaul the system with all new and modern (for its day) equipment. They wound up with lots of excess capacity and decided 'on a temporary basis' to sell the excess capacity to other railroads and large corporations seeking private tie-lines between cities. They planned on taking it all back when their own needs expanded. Where their telecommunications department staff consisted of about five people (not including the telephone operators) prior to the upgrading of the system and for a short time afterward, it soon reached the point where they had to hire 'a couple extra women' to handle the added bookkeeping and customer service functions. Within perhaps a year or so, they were up to a couple dozen employees in the railroad's telecommunications department and that is when serious consideration was given to simply spinning the whole thing off on its own. The very, very early customers of Sprint actually got bills for their service each month from the accounts receivable department of the Southern Pacific Railroad itself, printed on a Victor Comptometer machine; a bookeeping device which served well for decades. A very close analogy would be the growth and transformation of the Diner's Club credit card back in the 1950's from being a promotion offered as part of the in-house credit card offered by Bloomingdale's Department Store in New York to a full fledged thing of its own. In recent years, Alfred Bloomingdale commented that he really missed the personal service they offered in those days. He said that a cus- tomer would come into Bloomingdale's with a complaint about some erroroneous charge on the Diner's card; someone would 'run in the back office and talk to the *two ladies* who handled all the bookkeeping for Diners and get the matter resolved then and there ...' All the bookeeping was done on a Victor Comptometer machine, the same kind of bookeeping device the Southern Pacific Railroad used in its accounting department in the 1960's and very early 1970's, along with clerks making manual entries on ledger cards. The Victor Comptometer Company was located here in Chicago at 1730 North Paulina Street until they went out of business sometime in the late 1960's. The building still stands there as a deserted warehouse/ factory. It has housed several firms that have moved in and out since. Old-timers still call it the Victor Comptometer Building, although hardly anyone in the neighborhood now has any idea what the building used to be fifty years ago -- just the international headquarters for the greatest mechanical bookeeping system in the world is all ... PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #107 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Fri Mar 8 01:39:20 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id BAA15545; Fri, 8 Mar 1996 01:39:20 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 01:39:20 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199603080639.BAA15545@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #108 TELECOM Digest Fri, 8 Mar 96 01:39:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 108 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Source For Western Union Clocks Located (TELECOM Digest Editor) Re: Misuse of the Internet? (Tim Hogard) Re: CallerID, AT&T and Bell Atlantic (Steve Granata) Re: Directory Assistance Without Knowing City? (John Cropper) Re: Directory Assistance Without Knowing City? (Peter M. Weiss) ATT and Long Distance Information Services (Glenn Foote) 888-555-1212 From Canada (Ian Angus) Re: No 28.8kbps Over Fiber Optic POTS Lines (Robin Bassett) CallerID Only For Some Local Calls (Jonathan Bradshaw) Employment Opportunity: Telecom PM Job - Atlanta (David B. Hughes) CIR Update (Free News Headline Service) Back Issues on WWW (Jeff Breen) Re: Maine Island Seeks Wider Calling Area (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 public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 22:54:14 EST From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Subject: Source For Western Union Clocks Located Several readers have asked me at one time or another to let them know if I ever found a source for the old Western Union clocks ... and I have! eli@seldon.terminus.com has a limited number available for sale, all in pretty good condition. The price depends on the exact style and the condition of the clock, but I suspect a couple hundred dollars or maybe a little less would get you one ready to use. You deal with him on that. As I understand it he has both the square case 16 inch dial version and the round case 16 inch dial with sweep second hand version. He might have others. I think they are all 60 beats per minute; I asked him if he had any at 90 beats per minute and he said he did not think so at the present time. I have a 90 here; it is from Self-Winding Clock Company and has that name on the dial. It does not say Western Union on it. It is in a wooden case. All of his have Self Winding Clock Company works and authentication tags to prove the works go with the case, with the WU logo on the dial and the little red light on the setting circuit. You would need to ask him for a description of the various styles he has available, and there are not that many of them so if you are interested you might want to get in touch with him soon. Western Union shut down their Time Service division about 1965. The last twenty years or so before that there were no new clocks manufactured, so all of them are at least fifty years old. Two of mine that I got from other sources are in their eighties. I imagine his are about that old. He has been prompt to respond to my email and he is known by several netizens on the mailing list dealing with old clocks. You'll want to exchange correspondence with him and decide for yourself whether or not to purchase one of these pieces of American history. With some patience at the time you install it, i.e. leveling it very precisely on the wall and *tiny*, careful adjustments of the pendu- lum over a period of a few days when you first hang it, it is quite possible to get the clock to operate on its own with an accuracy of a few seconds per month even without the setting circuit. One of mine has gone for about two or three months before the discrepancy was worth bothering with. In addition there is a program available which allows you to operate the setting circuit on the clock from your PC with a phone call to the Naval Observatory, whose name appears on the clock dial as part of the old Western Union logo. He mentioned in one letter to me that 'there is a warehouse where these old clocks are stacked by the thousands and have been sitting there for years after they were taken out of service ...' Well, I got lust in my heart, but he would not tell me where it is, and I doubt he will tell you either. I've got a check in the mail to him now for still another one for my collection. Anyway, if interested contact him direct and talk it over. He is out in California but will ship UPS to you carefully packed and insured, etc. Get them while they last! eli@seldon.terminus.com And if you get one, let me know later what you think of it. Some say the brown metal cases are ugly, but I don't think so. By the way, he paid me nothing to put this here, and did not give me any discounts or special consideration. I just happen to be enthusiastic about old clocks, especially considering the source and history behind these. PAT ------------------------------ From: thogard@inmind.com (Tim Hogard) Subject: Re: Misuse of the Internet? Date: 8 Mar 1996 03:54:48 GMT Organization: In Mind, Inc. Tom Crofford (tomc@xeta.com) wrote: > I am not in favor of a 'modem tax', but I'd be interested in this > group's various opinions of how the telcos can be reasonably expected > to carry the longer and more frequent calls spawned by modem use. My > point is that I know those of us using modems place lots more calls, > and the calls are much longer than voice calls. Between my mother and my sister, they use up many more hours of local free calls than my modem. All they do is talk for hours. That is figured in as part of the cost of doing business, a fixed number of lines will be tied up for an average amount of time. Basicly modems modify the averages slightly. > We do a good deal of our equipment's service calls via modems. We > make about four times the number of calls per extension as a > non-information based company. > So, do you think it is fair or unfair for a given telco to be required > to support higher traffic levels without a revenue increase of some > sort? My phone company just stopped charging for touch-tone even though it has been years since rotary was cheaper than touch-tone. I'm sure the phone company has more than made up for the slight increase in phone line use over the last decade with the rip-off prices for the "extras". Many states set up rates so that the good 'ole phone company makes a nice profit. The PUC would set up a % that the company would do well and could invest in equipment. Now what has happend is that many new companies would love to provide a local dial tone at a fraction of the proffit that the traditional phone company gets. That sould be a reason to drop the profit ratio. tim http://www.abnormal.com/~thogard GPS, VW and Usenet topics. ------------------------------ From: sgranata@cais.com (Steve Granata) Subject: Re: CallerID, AT&T and Bell Atlantic Date: Fri, 08 Mar 1996 01:48:25 GMT Organization: Capital Area Internet Service, Inc. splichta@instalink.com (Scott Plichta) wrote: > I am suprised that I haven't heard anything about Bell Atlantic and > DCS suing AT&T recently. It appears that AT&T's switches won't talk > to Bell Atlantic's for exchanging long distance caller id. Bell has > sued AT&T saying that it has decreased the usefullness of it's caller > ID. As a Bell Atlantic caller ID user, I get significant amount of NO > CID AVAIL on my caller id from callers who use AT&T (there are alot of > you). Until these issues are resolved, I have a nice paperweight to > sit next to my phone. Interesting to read this. I live in Bell Atlantic - VA territory. My mother is at home in Oregon using AT&T long distance. Mom and I decided to set up an arrangement where I would get BA CID and monitor the box for her phone number in Oregon, thus saving her toll charges for leaving short messages on my answering machine. As a test, I had Mom call me on my Sprint Spectrum PCS handset, which has CID. Her phone number came through loud and clear. I had planned (and will) sign up for BA CID tomorrow afternoon, to implement our toll-saving arrangement. I'll e-mail my results to the Digest. Steve Granata sgranata@cais.com http://members.aol.com/sgranata/index.htm ------------------------------ From: psyber@usa.pipeline.com (John Cropper) Subject: Re: Directory Assistance Without Knowing City? Date: 8 Mar 1996 00:38:47 GMT Organization: Pipeline USA On Mar 07, 1996 01.34.46 bparker@interaccess.com (Ben Parker) wrote: > When you call Directory Assistance (esp long distance xxx-555-1212) to > ask for a number of a business, the operator's first response is "What > city, please?" > If I don't know the city (and don't know anything about the area to even > make a dumb guess) it seems impossible to get any help. > I realize the answer may vary with each telco but aren't there > alternate ways that operators can look up the needed info within that > area code, especially if it's a business (as opposed to an individual > name where there seems a greater chance for duplication)? > Will we ever get to on-line (web page type) automated lookups? Try http://www.switchboard.com. It does a search on all US white pages for personal AND business listings (tho some are up to one year old). Brand new, and featured in several local papers. John Cropper, President NiS Telecom Division POB 277, Pennington, NJ USA 08534-0277 voice/fax: 1-800-247-8675 psyber@usa.pipeline.com ------------------------------ Organization: Penn State University Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 14:06:18 EST From: Peter M. Weiss Subject: Re: Directory Assistance Without Knowing City? If your company has their own domain on the network, you can always check the WHOIS db at rs.internic.net. Of course some LD consortium will now want to charge you extra for this service because you bypassed their service ;-) Pete Weiss at Penn State ------------------------------ From: glnfoote@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Glenn Foote) Subject: ATT and Long Distance Information Services Date: 7 Mar 1996 15:04:19 -0500 Organization: The Greater Columbus FreeNet I recently had occasion to contact several Chambers of Commerce in Kentucky. When I called (my LD service is through ATT) 1.606.555.1212 and asked for a listing in Lexington, and one in another city, I was told that ATT could provide the second city, but they would have to transfer me for the Lexington Number. Why? Seems as though they are "not allowed" to give out information (or maybe just don't have access to it?) from Lexington because it is a "Independent Telephone Company (GTE)". Hummm ... The transfer was made, at (I assume) no charge, and I got the information, but ... since when has this been a standard practice. Would someone who knows more than I do about this (which is probably almost anyone) shed some light on this, and possible future problems that might be encountered when we start to have *multiple* "local" companies competing in the local access areas? Glenn "Elephant" Foote ... glnfoote@freenet.columbus.oh.us [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: A number of years in the past when the 555-1212 service was first getting started, quite a few telcos just contracted with the local predominant carrier -- usually Bell -- to provide their directory assistance service. Many also over the years found it was more economical to contract out their operator service to the predominant company -- usually Bell -- in their area. Now there was no rule they had to, and some small independent telcos to this day maintain their own operators and their own directory assistance. For whatever reason, they prefer to do it themselves. When you come across a case like this, the public is not expected to know that for all of a certain area Bell is the telco but in one small community there is a separate telco with their own thing going on. So to better serve the public, as 555-1212 became widely known, the decision was to just encourage everyone to use that number and in the instances where an independent telco did not want to contract with Bell to handle it then on reciept of a call about that area the operator would just tell the party to hold on and she would connect them there for local handling. There used to be bunches and bunches of these in North and South Carolina for some reason. It seems to me the operators answering on 555-1212 there rarely did anything but pass the customer on to the local, usually small rural telco which wanted to handle its own directory assistance. Maybe they figure they can do it cheaper than whatever price the Bell would charge them for the service there. You haven't heard anything yet. In the latter years of manual service when there were still a number of manual exchanges being run by small telcos, they were not, strictly speaking, part of the area code wherein they geographically sat. Like Lafayette, Indiana, a GTE holdout with an odd dialing arrangement and no direct long distance dialing for years after it became common elsewhere, they sat in the middle of Indiana but were not technically part of 317. Yes, for rate and route purposes and operator ticket writing they were, but not for dialing purposes, which the customer could not do anyway. I remember once calling a small rural community; I think it was in Mississippi which was still manual and not reachable by dialing 601. None the less I called 601-555-1212 to get a number there, knowing full well it was manual and with funny three digit numbers and letters at the end, etc. When 555-1212 answered me and asked what place, I gave her that town name. Just a minute, she says, I will ring there for you. A few rings later, what sounds like a much older black lady answers who was the operator in that little place. Before I get a chance to get a word in edgewise, the Bell operator who put me through speaks up and she says, "Operator! This is a call for information only! Do not connect for party, just give him the number! ..." Well, I was told the number I wanted, but of course I had to hang up and dial my operator to actually put the call through. I guess at least a few people had tricked the poor old operator down there into putting a call through via the 555-1212 connection to the rural switchboard, so now the Bell operator who passed the call would always warn her about the call coming in. Based on your experience, I guess there are still some small indepen- dent telcos who prefer handling their own operator and directory assistance functions. Most long ago contracted them out to Bell. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Ian Angus Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 15:20:36 -0400 Subject: 888-555-1212 from Canada Scott Robert Dawson wrote that he had dialed 1-888-1212 from Toronto, and reached Toll free Directory Assistance, and guessed that "Bell Canada is handling this better than AT&T..." Alex Klaus wrote that he dialed 1-888-555-1212 from Area Code 613 (Ottawa) and got a recording directing him to call 1-800-555-1212. He guessed thart "it depends on your location for Bell service." I did some checking with Stentor, which actually is responsible for telco Toll-free service in Canada. Here's what I learned: When the 888 Code was activated on March 1, Stentor implemented a translation routine, so that all calls to 1-888-555-1212 went to 800 Directory Assistance. Several days later, they were ordered, "by the FCC" to stop doing this, because 1-888-555-1212 is under Replication Protection for AT&T. Apparently AT&T "owns" 1-800-555-1212, and wants to own its 888 counterpart. So on March 6, Stentor eliminated the translation routine, and began routing all calls to 1-888-555-1212 to a recording which says "For Toll-free Directory Information, please dial 1-800-555-1212." Isn't progress wonderful? IAN ANGUS Tel: 905-686-5050 ext 222 Angus TeleManagement Group Fax: 905-686-2655 8 Old Kingston Road e-mail: ianangus@angustel.ca Ajax Ontario Canada L1T 2Z7 http://www.angustel.ca ------------------------------ From: rbassett@aztech.com.sg (Robin Bassett) Subject: Re: No 28.8kbps Over Fiber Optic POTS Lines Date: Fri, 08 Mar 1996 00:40:58 GMT Organization: Pacific Internet, Singapore rf@ZONE.NET (Bob Forsythe) wrote: > Recently, our client has been having difficulties with their new > telephone service. They use a LEC by the name of Teleport ... > bank. The nonsense that is being fed our poor client is that the POTS > lines they've been connected with are incapable of data transmission > speeds in excess of 9600bps. Of course, this sounds like sheer BS > because of a number of factors (including e.g. between the hours of > 2AM and 6AM, disconnections rarely, if ever, occur and full speed > transfers sometimes occur flawlessly for hours). To add insult to > injury, its been mentioned to our client that "... only copper POTS > lines can really support these higher data speeds". The client > specifically wished to avoid the RBOC in this area due to the long and > distinguished history of extraordinary customer service problems (with > NYNEX). ... The first rule in this situation is never to say "Modem". Tell them you have problems faxing. In comp.dcom.modems I have seen several people with similar problems (telco "upgraded" my line, can't get high data rates, called them and they said "we only support 9600bps). The answer to their post was almost always "tell them you have a fax problem." Hope this helps. Robin ------------------------------ From: jonathan@NrgUp.Com (Jonathan Bradshaw) Subject: CallerID Only For Some Local Calls Date: 7 Mar 1996 19:26:50 -0500 Organization: NRG-Up Internet Services I live in Ameritech Land ... Indianapolis, Indiana to be exact. Although CallerID is offered and works from some out of state calls such as Michigan and Kentucky etc. it doesn't work from any of the outlying areas that are still local calls for me such as Greenfield. There is little doubt these places are on older switches but the question is, is Ameritech required to pass this information? If the LD companies must, does this not mean they should too? Jonathan M. Bradshaw | Jonathan@NrgUp.Com | http://WWW.NrgUp.Com/jonathan 1024 PGP Key fingerprint EA 16 1B 5D 5D 94 6B 06 58 FD E6 E9 52 F3 6E 11 Software Administrator, Boehringer Mannheim Corporation, Indianapolis, IN ------------------------------ From: davidh@mindspring.com (David B. Hughes) Subject: Employment Opportunity: Telecom PM Job - Atlanta Date: Fri, 08 Mar 1996 00:12:13 GMT Organization: MindSpring Enterprises, Inc. Reply-To: davidh@mindspring.com Project Management Services, Inc. in Atlanta GA needs a Project Manager with 5+ years experience in aviation, telecommunications, or information technology. Salary is commensurate with skills and experience. To apply, email your resume or call me direct at 770/518-3213. ------------------------------ From: cir@cir-inc.com (CIR) Subject: CIR Update (Free News Headline Service) Back Issues on WWW Date: 08 Mar 1996 03:10:05 GMT Organization: Communications Industry Researchers, Inc. CIR Update is an electronic publication containing headlines from the printed newsletters of Communications Industry Researchers, Inc. CIR is a leading consulting and publishing firm serving the telecommunications, CATV, and broadcast industries since 1979. Back issues of CIR Update are now available at http://www.cir-inc.com/update/ on CIR's Web site. If you would like to subscribe to CIR Update, send e-mail to "majordomo@cir-inc.com" with "subscribe cir-update" in the _body_ of the message. Thanks, Jeffrey Oliver Breen Complete Internet & WWW Solutions Consultant & Webmaster Novus Papyrus Incorporated Voice/FAX: (804) 977-4WEB (4932) 977 Seminole Trail, No. 224 http://www.NovPapyrus.com Charlottesville, VA 22901 e-mail: job@NovPapyrus.com ------------------------------ From: kd1nr@anomaly.ideamation.com (Tony Pelliccio) Subject: Re: Maine Island Seeks Wider Calling Area Date: 7 Mar 1996 20:45:51 -0500 Organization: Ideamation, Inc. In article , Lisa wrote: > I think part of the issue is the cost of carrying said calls. How far > is the island from the mainland, and what is involved in installing a > new cable to carry the traffic? In the longterm it's not very significant. It's just a typical Nynex ploy to rape the consumer, and I do mean RAPE. Of course there is hope. The folks that live in the Diamond Hill section of Cumberland, RI fought like the devil with Nynex for several years. Seems their calling area was only the extreme northern part of the state with Providence, the capitol, being a toll. Don't ask me how it happened bu the 658 exchange was created that gave those residents not only their old calling area but access to all the Providence exchanges as well. So there is some hope. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Do they *need* a new cable to carry > the traffic? Aren't we talking here more about bookkeeping entries > than we are any significant increase in traffic? Of course there is > a theory which says people do not need a particular telecom service > until they have it, then once it is available they use it a great > deal. So it is possible I guess that if the 'free' calling range is > expanded there will suddenly develop a lot more traffic than prev- > iously. But an entirely new cable being required? PAT] Cable? I suppose Nynex is still in the dark ages but a microwave system would be more than likely be adequate to service that island. In article , Mike Fox wrote: > Is this really unfair? Sure, there probably are some areas on the > mainland with bigger calling areas in pure square miles, but have you > considered the cost of carrying calls over/under/whatever 1/2 mile of > water (with probably no revenue producing subscribers in that 1/2 mile > stretch)? Let's face it, if you choose to live in a remote area there > are many compensations, but there are some costs too. But the cost of providing that service isn't much more than what it costs to serve their mainland neighbors. It's just the same old same old from Nynex. I can't wait for competition. > I live in a larger metropolitan area. It seems like every couple of > months or so, I get notified that some rinky-dink rural town is being > added to our local calling area, and everyone's phone bill is going > up a few cents as a result. Since the number of calls coming in from > these outlying areas is probably going to be a lot more than the > number of calls going out, in effect the people in these small towns > are forcing those of us in the larger cities to subsidize their > calling. So talk to the business owners in Nynex territory who are FORCED to subsidize unlimited local service. Yup, business is measured service only unless you hookup with DID lines and Flexpath outdials. > In your case, how many people on the mainland are clamoring for free > local calls to your island? Probably few to none. But if you get what > you want, will everyone's bill in the new local calling area go up, > including those on the mainland? If the answer is yes, then you are > in effect requesting that they be forced to subsidize your desire to > call them for free. Or are you just requesting that NYNEX eat it? > Since you don't want to pay any more, you're obviously requesting that > SOMEONE besides you eat it. Who? You should contact kd1hz@anomaly.ideamation.com since you both share similar views about subsidization. > Sorry for the flame. I'm just annoyed by the notice that my Raleigh, > NC phone bill is going up so that Pittsboro can be added to our local > calling area. Our bills are only going up a few pennies, but if the > Pittsboro were paying for it, it would cost each of them a lot more. > It's a classic case of a small constituency widely distributing the > costs of something whose benefits will be concentrated on them. It's > how our government got into the mess it's in now, IMO. IMO it makes more sense to charge you the extra couple of pennies than charge the Pittsboro residents exhorbitant rates. It's always the same argument. It's gotten to the point where it probably costs your LEC no more to provide service in Pittsboro than it does in your town. It's always nice to have a monopoly. Of course with any luck that's all going to end very soon. Tony Pelliccio, KD1NR As offensive as I wanna be. kd1nr@anomaly.ideamation.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #108 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Fri Mar 8 03:05:07 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id DAA20369; Fri, 8 Mar 1996 03:05:07 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 03:05:07 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199603080805.DAA20369@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #109 TELECOM Digest Fri, 8 Mar 96 03:05:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 109 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson San Jose Mercury Strikes Again (John Higdon) MCI Mail Statement About the Week-Long February Outage (W. Hatfield) Re: PCS Phones Disrupting Hearing Aids (Dan Pock) Public 710 Information (Louis Jones) Seeking Information on Radio Control Multiplexers (Steve Politsch) Re: NBA in Full Court Press (Dan Rosenbaum) Re: Directory Assistance Without Knowing City (Dave Close) MCI Friends Promotion - Limits (Stan Schwartz) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 19:42:10 -0800 From: John Higdon Subject: San Jose Mercury Strikes Again I have many residential telephone lines, so I probably have a larger than normal exposure to that company's annoying telemarketing calls. But over the years, I have repeatedly and painstakingly attempted to make sure that my numbers appeared on that firm's "do not call" list. It appears that this has been wasted effort. First, to bring you up to speed, here is a letter sent last week to the SJMN's subscription marketing department: **** To Whom It May Concern: I have seventeen phone lines in my home. Several years ago, your telemarketing contractor nearly drove me out of my mind with subscription calls week after week after week. After months of complaining, I was able to get the calls stopped. About a year after that, the calls began again. Once again it took considerable effort, but finally the calls ceased once more. Last night, they began again. "Hi! I'm ______ from the San Jose Mercury News [blah blah blah]." And this happens on line after line after line. But I am going to tell you something. If it continues, you, your telemarketing contractor, and everyone associated with the project are going to wish you had never heard of subscription solicitation calls. What I am going to do, since I have previously repeatedly asked you and your contractors to stop bothering me on my home phones, is to record each and every occurance on each and every line. I have Station Message Detail Recording enabled on every line in the house. All I have to do is dial a code to flag that call as being from "the San Jose Mercury News" and then after a period of time I can have the details collated automatically. At that time, I will present my data to Pacific Bell, my attorney, and to other agencies as may be appropriate. I will extract every ounce of compensation, pursue every redress, and seek all possible relief for your refusal to comply with my wishes to not be called by you or your contractors at my residence. I intend to benefit handsomely from your lack of compliance with laws that entitle me to remain undisturbed after duly notifying you of my demands in this matter. Consider this my final demand that you refrain from bothering me on any of my seventeen residential telephone lines, and also consider it fair warning for the consequences that will follow if you choose to ignore the demand. Thank you for your time. **** In response to that letter, I received a call on Monday, March 4 from a Mr. Tim Fullerton who assured me that my numbers were indeed on file (he even read them back to me) and that he would investigate into the matter. But this evening (March 7), I received two more solicitation calls. The first SJMN caller had a not-so-polite expletive as a response to my polite assertion that I did not want to be called by them. The second caller informed me that the calls "come from Pennsylvania and it is impossible to guarantee that you won't be called just because your number is on 'some list'". Now that we have set the stage, here is what I would like to do: There are new, very tough, Federal laws about being called by any person or business after you have duly notified them of your wish not to be called. I would like to hear from anyone who has been called by the San Jose Mercury News AFTER they have asked to be put on the "do not call list". I want to document as many hits as I can, not only from myself, but from others in the same situation. I have complete records of all incoming calls so my case is in the bag--but the more the merrier. These people have had years to get the act together. They have blown it. It is time to set them straight. I am going to make it a point to do just that. John Higdon | P.O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX: john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | +1 500 FOR-A-MOO |+1 408 264 4407 | http://www.ati.com/ati | [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You need to get in touch with Robert Bulmash of the 'Private Citizen' organization here in the Chicago area. He has been quite successful in handling cases like this and often times in getting money for the victims. Since he is a reader of the Digest he may well get in touch with you if you do not try to contact him first. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Mar 96 23:43 EST From: W. Hatfield <0001177259@mcimail.com> Subject: MCI Mail Statement About the Week-Long February Outage [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: MCI Mail sent out this letter to their customers on Thursday evening, and Mr. Hatfield passed along a copy for us to read. PAT] --------------- Date: Thu Mar 07, 1996 7:19 pm EST From: MCI Help / MCI ID: 267-1163 Dear Customer, Within the next week, you will be receiving your invoice for MCI Mail charges for the month of February. You will see a credit has been automatically applied to your invoice for all February messaging traffic. This is to reflect any inconvenience you may have suffered from the service outage beginning on February 3. Many of our customers have asked for a written explanation of the outage and the actions taken by MCI to prevent such a situation from reoccurring. After extensive research and analysis, the following information is available. MCI Mail message traffic continues to increase and, in fact, exceeded normal traffic patterns by 27% for the month of January. This increase in message throughput was coupled with a dramatic rise in Internet traffic. The combination of these two events necessitated a change in both system configuration and load distribution. Although initiating system changes ran the risk of further taxing system resources, taking no action contained even greater customer-impacting risks. Plans were developed to maximize system efficiency by balancing high volume Internet users and low volume Internet users across the MCI Mail system. In addition, two new state-of-the-art processors and additional storage devices were installed. It was during the execution of the user transfer and balancing strategy that system utilization reached its maximum processing ability. This unexpected impact required the development of an alternate plan. During the execution of this alternate plan about 320 customer accounts became inaccessible. Additionally, a latent software deficiency was encountered that, while not an issue during normal processing, resulted in roughly 8% of messages in transferred accounts to be rejected into hold queues. Repair code was developed within hours and used to finally correct this situation, but execution of this repair procedure took several days to complete so as to ensure full restoration and message integrity. Although customers were severely impacted, no messages were lost or, at any time, was the system security compromised. With the pending installation of two new Internet gateways, heavy Internet users will now be able to be vectored to other systems. This action alone is expected to significantly improve system performance and reduce the possiblity of a reoccurence of similar problems. In addition, the installion of additional new disk drives will further improve system efficiency and avoid the risk of a similar situation. MCI apologizes for the disruption in service. We appreciate your business and recognize that we have all come to rely on MCI Mail as an important business tool. Our focus is on the future and our goal is to maintain MCI Mail's high level of system performance, reliability and customer satisfaction. Sincerely, MCI Messaging Support ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 21:49:41 -0800 From: Dan Pock Subject: Re: PCS Phones Disrupting Hearing Aids Rob Levandowski sent this reply to me so I am forwarding it to the Digest since the discussion originally started here. My latest response follows Mr. Levandowski's, > From: Rob Levandowski > To: nadaniel@earthlink.net > Subject: Re: PCS Phones Disrupting Hearing Aids > Dan Pock wrote: >> Monty Solomon wrote: >>> Cellular phones that cause noise pollution should not be allowed to >>> ruin anyone's ability to hear when other technology is available that >>> does not cause noise pollution. >> What would you have the FTC do, outlaw digital technology? It isn't going >> to happen. It is an interesting problem that few people with good hearing >> are aware of, and for that reason I applaude your zeal in pubicizing it. I >> realize that to a hearing impared person a sudden burst of static can seem >> like a rude assault by insensitive people with cellular phones, but that >> isn't the case. > The matter at issue is not digital technology, but the manner in which > it is implemented. My understanding of the problem is that it stems not > from the digital data stream itself, but the way that the RF frequency > bandwidth is time-shared. This "time division multiple access" scheme > results in a sort of RF "pulse" in the vicinity of the phone. These > pulses occur at such a frequency that any RF interference in audio > circuits is quite audible, and annoying. > The question is, do people with no hearing loss have the right to deprive > others of the use of one of their senses, for the mere reason of personal > convenience? If a cellphone somehow blinded a certain percentage of people > nearby when it was used, would that be permissible? > My mother has a congenital hearing loss. Legally, she is deaf. With > hearing aids, she can hear pretty well. However, she already faces > discrimination because of her aids. This discrimination is not what you > may think, though. It comes in the form of security systems. A large > number of the "inventory control" systems in retail stores interact with > her hearing aids. These systems are the "gates" that you pass through > when entering or leaving a store. The RF signals they use to determine > when an inventory tag passes through also affect hearing aids. In many > stores which use these systems, my mother cannot shop. The alarm causes > loud, painful noise in her ears from the hearing aids. If she wants to > shop in such stores, she must either endure debilitating pain, or go deaf > by turning off her hearing aids. Imagine having to wear heavy earplugs > to shop in a store in the mall. She has, in the past, approached managers > of such stores about the problem. Most of them had never heard of the > problem. None of them would turn off the system so she could shop, citing > the possibility that someone could steal something while the alarm was off. > Citing the Americans with Disabilities Act, which would seem to outlaw the > use of devices which effectively deny access to the hearing-impaired, had > no effect. > When I hear of TDMA digital cellular phones, I think of my mother. I think > of her being unable to go out in public for fear of sudden, unpredictable > migraine headaches from loud, painful noise. Is it fair to deafen people > like my mother just because TDMA phones are convenient and cheap? Is it > fair to deafen people when other technologies, like CDMA, are available > which don't have the problem? > Is it fair to say that personal convenience is more important than other > people's use of their own senses? >> I think that if you succeed in making the problem known a solution >> will be found. However, don't be surprised if that solution turns out >> to be reengineered hearing aids that are sheilded or filtered so as to >> block the offensive signals. > Have you ever examined a hearing aid? > A battery, an amplifier, a signal processor, a microphone, a speaker, > a volume control, and an induction pickup. These items must all fit into > a durable, hypoallergenic casing that has to fit within your ear canal. > Why? Have you ever looked oddly at someone with a big hearing aid hanging > off their ear or clipped to their belt? If so, be sure that the wearer was > aware of your stare. > There's only so much sheilding you can pack into such a unit. You also > have to consider that such aids are made to a mold of the wearer's ear, > so good hearing aids are usually largely hand-built for each person. > To the extent that they are mass-produced, they must fit into the smallest > possible space, to fit within the widest possible range of ears. > There's certainly no room for the kind of filtering that would be needed > to remove TDMA noise without impacting performance for everyday sound. >> If you think that such a law suit needs to be filed, my suggestion to >> you would be that you go after the hearing aid manufacturers. Because >> if you try go after every manufacturer of digital technology you are >> going to have to file alot of law suits. > You don't need to go after every user of digital technology -- only those > who knowingly make equipment that radiates strong RF harmonics at audible > frequencies, like TDMA. My mother has no problem watching TV, or working > on a computer, or using a standard cellular phone, or operating any of > the other myriad devices out there which use digital technology. It's > mainly security systems that stymie her. I'm concerned that TDMA cellular > phones will become a further bane of her existance. > Robert Levandowski > VAR Support, Office Document Systems > Xerox Corporation, Rochester NY [Opinions mine, not those of Xerox] > rlvd_cif@uhura.cc.rochester.edu ----------------- Dear Rob, I do sympathize with your mother. To the extent that security systems and cell phone manufacturers can "reasonably" produce products that accomodate the hearing impaired they should do so. That is the wording that the ADA uses. The key word is "reasonably". The difference between your perspective and mine is one of econimic philosophy. You clearly embrace socialism in which we go running to the government everytime we have a problem like a child taddling on a sybling. "Mommy, make Johnny stop bothering me." The problem is that we are not children and the government is not Mommy. "Big Brother" would be more accurate under socialism. Capitalism on the other hand would dictate that we give our patronage to the hearing aid manufacturer who rises to the occasion and produces an aid that sheilds RF. As for your argument that this can't be done, I would ask you to take a look at a peice of coaxial cable. (The kind that your cable company uses to bring you television service.) It uses foil to sheild the RF signal. What would be so hard about coating the inside surface of a hearing aid with a layer of foil for sheilding and a layer of sullifane for insulation against the foil conducting electricity to the wrong places? It can be done. The question is: Will the manufacturers do it? Pure capitalism may not be enough. It may very well be necessary to ask the government to step in. I believe the courts are going to inclined to think that it is more reasonable to ask hearing aid manufacturers to sheild their products than it will be to suppress an entire technology. It is also more reasonable to burden one industry, (the hearing aid manufacturers), than it is to burden multiple industries, (Cell phones, security systems, etc.) You can stay on your pesent course or move to one that will give your case more favor with the courts and still solve the problem. The choice is yours. Sincerely, Dan Pock ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 22:18:53 -0500 From: du465@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Louis Jones) Subject: Public 710 Information Reply-To: du465@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Louis Jones) PAT, I'm surprised that, with all the discussion of the 710 area code, no one has mentioned the fact that there is a set of US Government Web Pages on the subject. Try the Defense Information Systems Agency website at: http://164.117.147.223/~nc-pp/html/getswork.htm Not overly informative, but hardly secret. Lou Jones du465@cleveland.freenet.edu [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Very interesting! I know a lot of folks here will be checking it out over the weekend. PAT] ------------------------------ From: spolitsch@attmail.com Date: Thu, 07 Mar 1996 18:14:46 -0900 Subject: Seeking Information on Radio Control Multiplexers I am looking for information on the best multiplexers to handle radio control lines. The radios are all tone controlled UHF base station or VHF repeaters. I currently have 14 radio channels that need to be transmitted over a distance over 20 miles. What I am looking for is multiplexer that can handle all that with using minimum bandwidth. My local teleco can provide 9.6 kbps, 64 kbps, 128 kbps and T-1 lines. The current system that handles the radio is a microwave, but it?s getting old and needs to be replaced. The other option is to buy a new microwave, but I think the multiplexer is cheaper. Additionally, I am looking at using another multiplexer over a WAN that may go through two satellites depending on routing. This system will carry radio, voice, FAX and data. I am interested in any suggestions/comments on products and problems with using multiplexers. Thanks, STEVE POLITSCH spolitsch@attmail.com ------------------------------ From: drosenba@panix.com (Daniel Rosenbaum) Subject: Re: NBA in Full Court Press Date: 8 Mar 1996 01:43:57 -0500 Organization: Panix I hope the NBA isn't thinking that they'll be able to steamroll STATS; it's owned by Paul Allen -- co-founder of Microsoft, an NBA team owner (Seattle Supersonics), and a man with a few spare bucks to defend himself in court. Dan Rosenbaum Editor, NetGuide drosenba@panix.com ------------------------------ From: dhclose@alumnae.caltech.edu (Dave Close) Subject: Re: Directory Assistance Without Knowing City? Date: 8 Mar 1996 07:54:19 GMT Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena bparker@interaccess.com (Ben Parker) writes: > Will we ever get to on-line (web page type) automated lookups? Try http://www.switchboard.com - nearly 100m white pages listings for people and businesses over the whole USA - and it's free. Dave Close, Compata, Costa Mesa CA dave@compata.com, +1 714 434 7359 dhclose@alumni.caltech.edu ------------------------------ From: Stan Schwartz Subject: MCI Friends Promotion - Limits Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 22:41:27 -0500 I called MCI today and spoke to both the voice-response system and a live operator, who told me that the FRIENDS promotion for March is limited to $75.00 PER LINE PER MONTH. So, before you run up that big bill this Saturday ... Stan [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Har, har, har! It would serve these leeches right, wouldn't it Stan ... they run up a big humongous, hellish telephone bill figuring MCI is going to write it all off in this promotion; then they receive the bill and go into shock. Not having budgeted for such a thing, they are unable to pay the bill. They keep stalling and finally MCI cuts off their long distance service and places them with an agency for collection purposes. Listen up all! You have been warned. I hope this issue reaches you before you start an orgy of long distance calling on Saturday morning. Don't get cauliflower ear from holding the receiver up there for hours on end figuring MCI is going to bail you out of it. As for me, I have a bunch of stuff to do Saturday and won't be around anyway, so how about we get together the first of next week in this same space about the same time? Have a nice weekend, all! PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #109 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Mar 11 10:47:10 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id KAA28064; Mon, 11 Mar 1996 10:47:10 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 10:47:10 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199603111547.KAA28064@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #110 TELECOM Digest Mon, 11 Mar 96 10:47:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 110 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Dialing For (no) Dollars on the Internet; Solving Problems (Paul Robinson) Mailing List Opposing Ban on Voice on the Internet (Jack Decker) Re: Misuse of the Internet? (Dave Hughes) Re: Misuse of the Internet? (Mike Pellatt) Re: Misuse of the Internet? (Gregor Markowitz) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 06:49:57 EST From: Paul Robinson Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company/TDR, Inc. Silver Spring, MD USA Subject: Dialing For (no) Dollars on the Internet; Solving Problems In a prior article, I mentioned about how Long Distance companies are not happy by the recent development of the use of the Internet as a means to bypass them and make telephone calls without paying long distance charges. Specifically, the issue is because inexpensive software allows anyone with a computer and a SLIP or PPP connection to the internet to be able to make telephone calls. There are lots of other things being done. The developments in technology amaze me (has anyone seen the recent work with slow-scan TELEVISION?) What this reminds me of is the work by Ham Radio operators in the early days of the hobby (or which may still be going on, I'm not sure.) I got thinking about this once, and realized that there is a big problem -- and a big opportunity -- for long distance companies. Consider the following: A prospective customer wanted me to find out what it would cost to get a T1 to the Internet into their location which was in Rural Virginia. I contacted the four largest carriers I know supply Internet connections (AT&T, MCI, Sprint and Cable & Wireless). Of these four, only the rep from MCI bothered to return my calls. She was extremely helpful, and I found out some additional information. Consider that, for example, a place has five sites across the country, and wants to connect them to the Internet. There are many options including a virtual private network, frame relay, and others. In one example, they could set up a virtual private network, with the ability to contact other VPN sites (I think this is similar to Shared Metropolitan Data Service (SMDS)) if they know their network address and also connect to the Internet over the same system. It can be purchased according to how big a pipe you need, e.g. a 128K guaranteed bandwidth ("Committed Information Rate" or CIR) is slightly higher than 56K, and 256K is slightly higher than 128K, all the way up to using a full T1 if they need it. It's always been possible to do this, but the costs were usually astronomical. Now, the costs are merely on the high side for individuals, but not too bad for a business. The example given was if a place wanted to take a T1 with a 128K CIR (which means if they use more than 128K at a time, there may be charges for exceeding bandwidth, but only when and if they use more), and otherwise having no additional charges no matter how much use of the pipe occurrs. The rate for such an example was about $1500 a month, and in some cases, the installation could have been waived, saving several thousand dollars. This gives an average per site of $300 a month. Now, what do you get for this money: - The ability to have up to ten simultaneous telephone conversations at each of their sites (assuming that a conversation requires about 12K of bandwidth) which, when converted by the equipment from an analog voice to digital data, should now be considerably clearer. - Five simultaneous fax transmissions, (presuming 24K bandwidth) at each site. This doesn't even consider that the number might be higher, since one possibility is to merely use a fax machine as a scanner, then have a computer transmit it as digital data to another computer at a destination site and send the image to a laser printer or another computer for display at that site by the addressee. - Either two (with 56K compessing codecs) or one (128K) video conference, per site (which, as I understand, provides fairly good quality). - Ability to network any of these (which would mean holding a conference call without paying CC charges, or a video conference). - A 128K internet connection the rest of the time the network isn't being used. What this can mean, simply enough, is that an organization can get dual channel 56K video conferencing for $300 a month per site, plus free tie-lines when the video conferencing isn't being used, and internet connectivity free, too! Or another way to put it is they can buy Internet connectivity and get free tie-lines and video conferencing! If you spend more than that on travel for meetings and on long-distance calls between offices, this could be a considerable savings. Plus, since you can hook the equipment through each site's PBX, it means you can have direct-dial between any office in the company whether they are next-door or across the country, and it doesn't cost anything no matter how many calls you make. To go to a higher CIR isn't that much more expensive, either, say $100 per doubling. As you get into larger volumes, it becomes less expensive for the amount of bandwidth being used. This means that many of these formerly expensive capabilities are now available to smaller businesses. The development of software such as these programs that allow use of the Internet for telephony, isn't anything new, it is simply pushing the reach of bypass down to the individual. Large companies have always been able to do things like negotiate huge discounts for such services because they can buy in bulk, or purchase their own internal network as dedicated tie-lines, or if big enough, build it themselves (SPRINT started as the internal network for the Southern Pacific Railroad, and it used the wires they had on their own rights-of-way). As I said earlier in this article, this creates a new problem for Long Distance Companies as well as a new opportunity. The stance being taken by their lobbying association is the old, "Whine, complain about the development of technology and try to get the law to outlaw it" stance that too many organizations have used to try and protect their status quo. I wonder what personal transportation would be now if the blacksmiths, buggy whip and carrage makers had been able to organize to stop the production and sale of the automobile. You can whine about the problem, or you can use it as a new means to make money. Instead of whining about how unfair this sort of thing is, take advantage of it. Start selling Internet Connections to companies, trying to push larger pipes into their offices. Instead of trying to sell some company merely a reduced-rate long distance service, show them that they can buy a new service that gives them several new features AND ELIMINATES ANY USAGE CHARGE. So maybe, due to the size of the pipe, this only cuts 20% of their long distance charges. Well, if a $300 a month per site pipe cuts perhaps $1000 in toll costs, then isn't increasing the pipe an even better idea? Thus, you now sell them an even bigger minimum monthly charge, and they now cut even more of their costs. Doesn't that sound like a win-win situation? Oh, sure, you can realize that if their taking a data pipe reduces your sales of long-distance service to them, you are cutting some of your own profits. That is short-term thinking. Would you rather sell them more of one service and less of another, even if it means you make less in total, than have a more limber competitor sell them more of their service, and eventually cutting you out? But you have to be willing to see what the customer wants or needs. What can a salesman point out to a customer? "How many of your places are either spending money on travel, or having trouble because they can't afford to have meetings between distant people? Providing inexpensive videoconferencing could solve either issue. Then, the benefits of other features that, once you get the basic feature you want, everything else is gravy on top of that!" There are so many things that can be done, if people have the means to do them. Reduction of cost increases that means. Creating new means to do things gives more opportunities to sell those means. Selling those means not only means you can make money out of it, you may eventually be able to sell them things to use more of what you sold them. King Camp Gillette {gave away} razors. Then he kept selling people blades. Sell people lower-cost non-metered service. Then watch as they use so much that you sell them even more. Or give them new ideas to use more of the service, then sell them the equipment to use it, too. Or, if they buy it from someone else, suggest ways to be "more efficient" by using more of that equipment. Then, when they find that it's overtaxing the service, "suggest" that they increase what they are buying. They end up saving money or getting some new service that makes them more efficient, you end up selling them more bandwidth, and everyone wins. Business does not always have to be a zero-sum game. You can look at ways that everyone makes out better on the deal. Do that, and you often don't even have to sell the service: show the customer (s)he's better off with the service than without it and it sells itself. You were just there to let them see the difference. It's all a matter of thinking of new ideas. Keep thinking of ideas, and some of them will be successful. We do not have too many problems in this world. We have too few ideas and people willing to go out and sell them. Everything that has ever made people money has started with an idea, and someone willing to champion it. No, not every idea will succeed, but realize that if you try enough ideas, you have more chances for success. If you see that a product or service is facing competition, the answer to that isn't to try and use the law to stop that competition -- in the end, such a stance will probably come back to haunt you, either because someone will do the same thing to you, or because people will figure out how to do an end run around the law if the issue is serious enough -- but to look at what the competitor is doing and figure out how to meet that competition either with better service or more features. If you expect to be able to prevent your market from being changed -- either by trying to use the law to stop change, or trying to scare people away from it -- you are kidding yourself right into Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy code if you don't wake up and smell the coffee soon enough. You have to be willing to take risks, to innovate, to try new ideas. The companies that are doing this are record profit makers and fun places to be at. The ones that sat on their kiester and tried living off of the market while failing to innovate are the dinosaurs of which the deserts of competition are littered with their bleached bones and bankrupted carcasses, when the asteroid of change came crashing down on their world. :) I said this many times in the past, but it bears repeating: Where the U.S. can win over the Japanese, the Europeans, the Koreans, and every other country is our ability to be willing to take risks, and possibly make mistakes and fail. No other country has the culture to permit such things; in Japan, a failure in {Kindergarten} can mean the difference between whether you can get into a University or end up going to a trade school! You don't need to have huge successes to win big. For example, if someone spends $5 million (considered "chump change") to make a motion picture and makes $25 million (considered "small potatoes"), the return is 5:1, which is better than spending $100 million to make $300 million, which is a 3:1 return (6 times as much money in absolute terms, but costing 20 times as much to get that return.) Consider which was a better investment in terms of costs: {Pulp Fiction} which cost $7M and returned over $200M, or Jurassic Park, which cost $100M and returned over $1B. Sure, JP returned $900 million above costs, which is 10:1 on investment, but PF returned more than 28:1. And on less money to start with! But this is 20/20 hindsite; let's use a simpler explanation: it's a whole lot easier to raise $7 million in investment capital than it is to raise $100 million! Another consideration: if some company makes ten films for $10 million -- if they are of decent quality -- there is a higher likelihood they will make a profit than on one film of $100 million. Simple arithmetic tells us that ten $10 million films have a higher probability of returning a net profit, because even if most of them lose money, but three return five times their cost, or four make four times their cost, or five make three times their cost, the company has less exposure per item and more chance to make a profit, even though 1/2 of the films lose money! (Don't remind me about the "creative accounting" tricks in Hollywood; I know most of them. If they'd put the kind of creativity into the scripts that they do into hiding income, there'd be a lot better material coming out of there, but that's a whole 'nother story. :) ) Make more tries and you have more opportunity to make more money. It's that simple. Look for more ways to sell a product or service and you can make more money. Look at problems and figure a way to solve them. Not every one will succeed, but with enough failures you eventually will, and more importantly, have more chances to succeed. You can whine about problems, or you can look for ideas to provide solutions to those problems. Try to get the law to stop problems and you end up with more and worse problems. Try enough ideas to solve problems and you eventually come up with some successes. The question of which of these will make money is left as an exercise for the reader. :) Paul Robinson General Manager Tansin A. Darcos & Company/TDR, Inc. ------------------------------ From: Jack Decker Subject: Mailing List Opposing Ban on Voice on the Internet Date: Sun, 10 Mar 1996 12:55:18 -0500 Organization: AltNet - Affordable Usenet Access - http://www.alt.net If you are opposed to the ban on Voice on the Internet, you might want to sign up for this moderated e-mail mailing list. It is called "VONYES" and to subscribe, you can send mail to: "Majordomo@enterprise.pulver.com" with the following command in the body (NOT the Subject line) of your email message: subscribe vonyes I am *NOT* the moderator of this list, but I have found the discussion interesting so far and a lot of good ideas have come forth. I'll just throw out a couple of other quick comments. I agree with those who say that the best answer would be to eliminate ALL access charges paid by ALL long distance carriers to local phone companies, in the spirit of true competition. This would resolve the so-called "injustice" of long distance carriers paying access charges while Internet users supposedly do not. Of course what nobody is saying is that on most Voice over the Net calls, at least FOUR monthly access charges are being paid (for calls with the U.S.): 1) The Internet user pays a monthly access fee on his modem line. 2) The user's ISP pays the same monthly access fee on each line of the modem pool, so there's another monthly fee. 3) The recipient of the call pays a monthly acces fee on his phone line. 4) And, of course, the recipient's ISP also has a modem pool that they are paying access charges on. So it is just plain wrong to say that no access fees are being paid. What are NOT being paid are fees _based on minutes of use_, but bear in mind that many ISP's aren't charging customers that way ... rather, they are charging a flat rate. Another thing to keep in mind is that all ISP to ISP connections are up 24 hours per day, seven days a week, and some users have full-time connections as well. Is every user that has a full-time internet connection going to be charged an access fee for 1440 minutes per day? If we cannot convince the regulators to eliminate access charges entirely, maybe it would be fairer for all concerned to redefine access charges to be based on monies actually collected rather than minutes of use. In other words, let's say that there was a flat access charge of 25% (this is much higher than I'd like to see, but I'm using it to make a point here because it's an easy calculation). If a carrier or ISP sold a flat rate service at $20 per month, they'd collect $25 and give $5 to the local telcos handling the call (IF we assume that ISP's should even be liable for this charge - see below). If they sold access at $3.00 per hour, they'd charge $3.75 and 75 cents would go to the local telcos. If a phone call were priced at 10 cents per minute by the carrier, 12.5 cents would be collected and 2.5 cents would go to the local phone companies. In other words, the carriers would be free to charge strictly according to market forces, including flat rate service if they care to offer it, and yet the local phone companies would still get some subsidy. I'm not saying that I LIKE this idea - I'd much rather see the subsidies gone entirely, especially since we're supposedly moving toward an open market for communications services - but it would be far better than the situation now, at least as far as long distance phone service is concerned. I actually feel that in the end, if access fees were collected as a percentage of monies collected, the local telcos just might come out ahead because a lot of people who avoid making long distance calls now would sign up for a $20/month "unlimited" calling plan (even one that excludes business hours) if the carriers could offer it. That would give the phone companies an additional access charge they would not otherwise get from those people. Yes, there are a lot of people who spend more than that much in a month, but there are also a lot of people (even in this day and age) that try to avoid making toll calls (the dimwit dad on the AT&T commercial that wanders around watching his kids run up the phone bills is definitely the exception rather than the rule!). It has been shown time and again that people prefer flat rate service when they can get it, and if any long distance companies care to offer it that way, they should be able to. The one complaint I would have about ANY access charges being applied to ISP's is that it would in effect be double taxation ... as I mentioned above, you, the folks you communicate with on the 'net, and all the ISP's involved are already paying access charges on their phone lines, so it really would NOT be fair to impose an additional charge on ISP's. But if the government becomes determined to take multiple bites from the same apple (or to let the local phone companies do it), then at least let them base the charges on revenues actually collected, rather than on minutes of use! Jack ------------------------------ From: dave@oldcolo.com Subject: Re: Misuse of the Internet? Date: 11 Mar 1996 13:50:04 GMT Organization: occ Reply-To: dave@oldcolo.com In , Stuart Zimmerman <0007382020@ mcimail.com> writes: > FCC PETITIONED TO STOP MISUSE OF THE INTERNET! > Technology may once again be surpassing government's ability to > control its proper use. However, the misuse of the Internet as away > to "by-pass" the traditional means of obtaining long distance service > could result in a significant reduction of the Internet's ability to > transport its ever enlarging amount of data traffic. Therefore, ACTA > has petitioned the FCC to define the type of permissible > communications which may be effected over the Internet. Of course the characterization of the use of I-phone as 'misuse' of the Internet implies there is some 'proper use' of it. Wonder if ACTA would like to define that? A major and important future (and just ramping up) 'use' of the Internet is in Distance Learning. And there are many efforts to make individual workstations for education handle as much 'multi-media' forms of student teacher communications as possible. Including the use of voice *and* data -- in such forms as White Board, (teacher on one side of screen, student on other, writing math/physics solutions while both 'converse' via speakers and microphone attached to workstation), CuSeeMe forms of videoconferencing, and asynchronous voice messaging, where messages are either email or computer conferences (ala newsgroup/bbs form) 'attachments' to text. Such as the services 'RealAudio' server software now permits. Not to speak of front-of-the- classroom systems such as PicTel which carry two way voice and video via the net. With 84,000 public and 23,000 private schools out there with over 42 million students and 3 million teachers, besides the 4,000 or so colleges and universities trying to get into net-based learning and teaching, for, not only its dollar savings but also time savings (travel time to/from 'classrooms' or where ftf teachers exist) as well as demonstrated convenience to a huge out-of-school work force which cannot simply 'go to class' to pursue education or training -- it seems that this use alone is not only not a 'misuse' but a superior 'use' of communications technologies. Then to make things even more interesting, the uses of new forms of wireless communications, such as Part 15 (no licence) spread spectrum radio to interconnect to wired circuits both carrying data traffic, is, and will, continue to grow. I was asked by the National Science Foundation to pursue a year of Field Tests of Wireless communications for Education. Part of it in order to work out wireless ways to get higher bandwidth connections than pots lines with 28.8 modems can deliver, and for communications between schools, including the special case of *rural* schools and other schools in a district, as well as to the nearest Internet POP, at costs which are affordable to the school - i.e. taxpayer. As part of that testing, at this moment we have twenty teachers in four separated schools (three in the very rural San Luis Valley of Colorado, where also community income levels are low -- and one large urban school), with the 'instructor' a physicist at MIT, taking a 48 hour, 3 credit hour, formal course in math and science, using individual school/home workstations connecting both to school server/gateways to a commercial pop, and to the pop directly, by 28.8 modem, 56kbs 'personal' wireless modem, and connections from school server to pop, up to 20 miles away, via 56kbs to 2mbs, no-licence wireless connections, which do, indeed, 'bypass' the local loop, partially or completely. (but as pointed out here, the long distance carriers are already being paid to provide carrier across the net long distances. In fact we, the NSF project, purchased double the bandwidth of the rural POP back to Colorado Springs -- in the same area code, therefore the local loop provider) The teachers are sitting at LAN workstations at school, equipped by us with sound board and mike, Connectix video camera, graphics tablet (for both writing, freehand, math formulas and diagrams, and for use while doing White Board work with remote 'classmates' as well as the instructor.) And the ability to do this multi-media in real time or asynchronously (posting their 'dialogue' on an intermediate server) And testing the ability of wireless modems as well as school-server to pop (which also might be a nearby college with higher speed connection to the net) wireless devices to achieve 'last five mile' bandwidth necessary to do voice over data simultaneously. In the case of one school, 10-15% of whose students live in homes without voice phones (can't afford it), the student can use a loaned laptop and wireless modem to connect to the school server, and thence to the net -- to do his/her homework. With voice as part of the data. Bits is bits. To even suggest that the 'voice' component of such data communications be seperately regulated and and tariffed, much less technically monitored and audited over the Internet, on the grounds that such communications is, de facto, 'misuse' of the net is pretty backwards. Dave Hughes, Principal Investigator NSF Wireless Field Tests ------------------------------ From: mike@ktgroup.co.uk (Mike Pellatt) Subject: Re: Misuse of the Internet? Date: 10 Mar 1996 17:53:37 GMT Organization: Knowledge Technology Group In article , Stuart Zimmerman wrote: [ Snipped so-called "internet misuse" petition ] > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well let me ask you this Stuart ... [snip again] > A sign on the wall in a local tavern comes to mind. Although the > intent of the message is a bit different, it discusses businesses > getting into venues which traditionally 'belong' elsewhere. "We have > an understanding with the local bank. They do not sell Booze, and we > do not extend credit." Yes, I know what the tavern was saying, but it > is an interesting thought. If AT&T can be in the credit card business, > why shouldn't Visa operate a telephone company? But if they tried, > you know the telcos would be angry. Just like the way the Accountancy Partnerships have stomped over everyone else's business. But just see them scream if a firm of Consulting Engineers were to offer Audit and Financial advice ... Mike Pellatt, VCS Limited (A Knowledge Group company) Tel: (+44) 117 9007500 Fax: (+44) 117 9007501 Mobile: (+44) 468 192021 Home Page: http://www.ktgroup.co.uk/~mike/ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Going back years ago, AT&T as the Bell System was always vigilant about anyone getting into their business in the most minor ways. I put in an intercom system which amounted to nothing more than a wire between two places several yards away from each other along with a buzzer on each end notifying the other end to 'pick up the phone. I installed a buzzer in each phone and wired it through the switchhook on the other end so that either party lifting their phone caused the buzzer on the other end to sound until the person on that end also lifted their receiver. That caused the current on the line to be shunted into the pair they talked on. I did this about 1975. There was *no* connection to the phone network at all, and the phones were an old style of Automatic Electric (GTE) instrument from back in the 1950's. Not a single use of the Bell System at all, yet one day a Bell Security guy said to me it was 'illegal'. He said I should have called Bell and had them install this 'hotline' at some price per month. Bell had a 'legal monopoly' on all voice communications. But readers should note however that turn about was not fair play. Bell got into the business of printed text many years earlier with their TWX network, and in turn Western Union responded by suing AT&T to make them get out of TWX and stay in traditional telephony. The suit by WUTCO against AT&T -- was it about 1960 or so? -- claimed that AT&T was 'misuing' the phone network by allowing printed text via TWX. WUTCO's claim was that their telegraph business would be irreparably harmed if AT&T was allowed to continue doing this. AT&T was forced out of TWX. The more things change, the more they stay the same. PAT] ------------------------------ From: gregor@myhouse.com (gregor markowitz) Subject: Re: Misuse of the Internet? Date: Sun, 10 Mar 1996 18:28:47 GMT Organization: myhouse.com Reply-To: gregor@myhouse.com > What follows is an interesting whine I mean, press release. I > do not agree with their proposed solution. However, they have a valid > point. Note, though, they only count the cost of one side of an > Internet telephone conversation in their analysis. >FCC PETITIONED TO STOP MISUSE OF THE INTERNET! ---snip--- My small home www design business pays about $1000 per month for IP connection to the internet on a fractional T1 line. About half of that goes to Bell Atlantic for the leased line. For my $500 monthly payment, don't you think I should be able to telecommunicate over the line? How many more times can they charge me for the same data flow? I think the monopoly which allowed us as a society to wire up the world with telephones was a fantastic human endeavor. One of the wonders of the modern world. At one point or another in recent history, that monopoly became obsolete after the job at hand was mostly completed. A breakup occurred, forming the Baby Bells and private long distance companies. Now the Baby Bells are in turn obsolete. They were just a stepping stone in a longer process of breaking things up into far more effecient units to perform the job at hand. This is the dawning of the era of Micro Bells, heck, NANO Bells. We operate a Free World Dialup system here in Washington DC that allows anyone in the world with many different internet phones to call through us to any standard phone number in our local calling area. The call itself is free, but the total expendature is probably higher for the user, because they need a good computer with commercial software on a monthly billed internet line to work. In effect, our FWD server is an international phone company, but with only one line. A nano bell. There is a lot more information about this whole issue on the URL: http://mybell.com We are not telecom people to begin with. We are interneters. If you can help make this site more sophisticated and understandable from the telecom viewpoint, please don't be shy. Thanks! gregor markowitz ~ gregor@myhouse.com publisher ~ internet love fest ~ http://myhouse.com/ ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #110 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Mar 11 12:27:58 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id MAA06914; Mon, 11 Mar 1996 12:27:58 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 12:27:58 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199603111727.MAA06914@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #111 TELECOM Digest Mon, 11 Mar 96 12:27:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 111 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Misuse of the Internet? (Rob Carlson) Re: Misuse of the Internet (Robert Wolf) Re: Misuse of the Internet? (Dan O'Conor) Re: CS Phones Disrupting Hearing Aids (Osman Rich) Re: Allegations About MCI (Bob Hofkin) Re: Messing Around With 710 (Ed Ellers) Re: Idea For Additional Telemarketing Restrictions (Robert Bulmash) Re: Idea For Additional Telemarketing Restrictions (Gary Fancher) Re: No LDDS Operator on B.A.M.S./NYNEX (Stanley Cline) Re: The Busiest Payphone in America (John Agosta) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Misuse of the Internet? From: sysop@cola.westmark.com (Rob Carlson) Reply-To: sysop@cola.westmark.com Date: Mon, 11 Mar 96 10:07:10 EST Organization: Cola, South Plainfield, New Jersey, USA Tom Crofford writes: > We do a good deal of our equipment's service calls via modems. We > make about four times the number of calls per extension as a > non-information based company. > So, do you think it is fair or unfair for a given telco to be required > to support higher traffic levels without a revenue increase of some > sort? Its also crucial to consider that data calls prohibit telcos from using one of the most potentially money saving technologies available to them today -- voice compression. With inexpensive systems, it would be possible for them to put six or seven (perhaps more) voice calls in the same bandwidth as one with no audible loss of quality. Why should the telcos suffer when they are forced to constantly accomodate bandwitch-hungry 28.8bps modems which cannot be compressed? I believe that perhaps they may be entitled to higher revenues for high bandwidth calls, but that any collection methods (ie. a modem tax) would be too intrusive and "tacky" for most customers to accept. Think about it: a telephone call charge based on HOW you communicate certain information? Not for me, thanks. Rob Carlson sysop@cola.westmark.com uunet!westmark!cola!sysop Tel: 908-937-0452 Cola, South Plainfield, NJ, USA I use PGP ------------------------------ From: Robert Wolf Subject: Re: Misuse of the Internet Date: 11 Mar 1996 10:31:43 GMT Organization: Millennium Telecom Fred R. Goldstein wrote: > But that's not what the RBOCs are talking about. Under existing > rules, they are entitled to major-league compensation when somebody > carries telephone calls *across a state line into a local exchange*. > That's exactly what an Interexchange Carrier does. So if I call Pat > on his 847 number via AT&T, Ameritech gets paid by AT&T to deliver it. > If I use a NYNEX line to originate the call, NYNEX gets paid by AT&T > to originate it. Now if Pat has an 800 (or 900, 500, 700, etc.) > number directly served by an AT&T switch, then Ameritech doesn't get > anything, since it's not using their network. (Leased "special > access" line monthy rates are of course possible if they provide that > service between AT&T and Pat.) Ditto if I make the call on a direct > AT&T connection ("Megacom"). Indeed, corporate "on-net" calls can be > very cheap, under a nickel a minute in some Tariff 12 arrangements. That's an accurate description. > So what's an Iphone call? If it goes from Sound Blaster to Sound > Blaster, then no RBOC switches are involved. It's NOT a phone call, > in the legal sense. Legally, an Iphone call today is no more a > "bypass" of the RBOC's due payment schemes than a CB radio > conversation. And if the RBOCs think that CB radio, ham radio, etc., > own them money for calls not touching their networks, then they had > better stand in line behind the Post Office who has an equal claim to > the lost letter-post revenue caused by the phone company! (We'll omit > the telegraph company stage, since WUTCO is history.) This part of your logic is flawed. If the originator of the Iphone call is connected to the ISP via a dial-up line, the LEC (it does not have to be an RBOC) is very much involved. It provides the originating connection in exactly the same way as in a "traditional" long distance phone call. And if the recipient of the Iphone call is also connected to an ISP via a dial-up connection, then that LEC provides switching facilities at the terminating end. That is the RBOC argument. Robert Wolf member: Society of Telecommunications Consultants Millennium Telecom http://www.keyconnect.com/millennium 818-790-7339 Fax 818-790-7309 Consulting in Voice, Video, and Data Communications ------------------------------ From: doconor@winternet.com (Dan O'Conor) Subject: Re: Misuse of the Internet? Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 00:36:50 GMT Organization: StarNet Communications, Inc Reply-To: doconor@winternet.com On 8 Mar 1996 03:54:48 GMT, thogard@inmind.com (Tim Hogard) wrote: > Tom Crofford (tomc@xeta.com) wrote: >> I am not in favor of a 'modem tax', but I'd be interested in this >> group's various opinions of how the telcos can be reasonably expected >> to carry the longer and more frequent calls spawned by modem use. My >> point is that I know those of us using modems place lots more calls, >> and the calls are much longer than voice calls. > Between my mother and my sister, they use up many more hours of local > free calls than my modem. All they do is talk for hours. That is > figured in as part of the cost of doing business, a fixed number of > lines will be tied up for an average amount of time. Basicly modems > modify the averages slightly. Modems modify the averages more than slightly; they change the connection model in a major way. The frequency and duration of call attempts and the busy hour (key variables in the traffic engineering model) from a modem equipped line are not the same as a voice only line. >> We do a good deal of our equipment's service calls via modems. We >> make about four times the number of calls per extension as a >> non-information based company. >> So, do you think it is fair or unfair for a given telco to be required >> to support higher traffic levels without a revenue increase of some >> sort? > My phone company just stopped charging for touch-tone even though it > has been years since rotary was cheaper than touch-tone. I'm sure the > phone company has more than made up for the slight increase in phone > line use over the last decade with the rip-off prices for the > "extras". The Telco pricing model is oriented towards the out-dated notions of guaranteed rates of return, cost-plus and cross subsidies and has no relationship to the marketplace, the consumer or even profitability. The Telco will always seek a tariffed price addition to current services when they feel threatened by changes in the marketplace. Doing it that way means that they are guaranteed a revenue increase without having to do anything, or even add value to the service. > Many states set up rates so that the good 'ole phone company makes a > nice profit. The PUC would set up a % that the company would do well > and could invest in equipment. Now what has happend is that many > new companies would love to provide a local dial tone at a fraction > of the proffit that the traditional phone company gets. That sould > be a reason to drop the profit ratio. Changes in key engineering variables caused by market changes bring unhappiness to organizations which don't have the marketing skills and, I have to add, regulatory freedom, to develop and promote new products that address the market changes. Why doesn't the Telco market a " dial-up data line"? Engineer the line to deliver high quality dial up data connections (the engineering would include loop qualification and routing to a data quality inter-switch trunk group),include a service quality guarantee (loop loss specifications, noise specifications, etc.), then price this service at a premium to voice only service. They could buy mailing lists of all new owners of PC's equipped with modems from PC manufacturers , then direct mail and telemarket the offering. Instead they've fallen into the ISDN trap. That's a service offering that will require that they spend heavily on software and switch upgrades and which requires the consumer to buy expensive hardware to support, not to mention that configuring ISDN NTI's and TA's is not for the faint of heart. Regards, Dan O'Conor ------------------------------ From: Osman Rich Subject: Re: CS Phones Disrupting Hearing Aids Date: Mon, 11 Mar 96 04:34:00 PST Monty Solomon wrote (monty@roscom.COM) : > Cellular phones that cause noise pollution should not be allowed to > ruin anyone's ability to hear when other technology is available that > does not cause noise pollution. Dan Pock replied: > What would you have the FTC do, outlaw digital technology? It isn't going > to happen. > {other stuff deleted} While some folks have taken extreme positions on both sides, there's a *very* large group working to resolve the problems cooperatively. The group was formed on the recommendation, and with the sponsorship of FCC commissioner Reed Hundt. The group involves active participants from several orgainizations in the hearing impaired community, hearing aid manufacturers, and wireless equipment manufacturers. > I think that if you succeed in making the problem known a solution > will be found. However, don't be surprised if that solution turns out > to be reengineered hearing aids that are shielded or filtered so as to > block the offensive signals. The Americans with Disabilities Act will > come into play sooner or later on this. But I suspect it will take a > civil suit to get things moving. Actually, a suit isn't required, and would probably stifle good work progressing today. There was a series of quite serious meetings last week with representatives of all three groups discussing issues and sharing information. Quite a bit of analysis and engineering has already been done and modifications to hearing aids and phones are being discussed. > If you think that such a law suit needs to be filed, my suggestion to > you would be that you go after the hearing aid manufacturers. Because > if you try go after every manufacturer of digital technology you are > going to have to file alot of law suits. There a lot of wireless phone manufacturers, and more hearing aid manufacturers than wireless phone manufacturers. Tom Lager (pteng@postoffice.ptd.net) also replied: > WOAH!!! > Before anybody goes off half cocked and starts a national furor over > this lets get something straight. > 1. According to the articles I have read in the trade > magazines, it is only GSM handsets that cause interference with hearing > aids. Actually, this is not correct. Many current US manufacture hearing aids are very susceptible to interference from many sources. GSM Digital AMPS, and CDMA handsets are all quite capable of being detected on a hearing aid, or a number of other appliances (TV sets, etc.) The fact is that there are two sides to the problem, and both need attention. Hearing aids (and many other appliances) are susceptible to strong RF fields, but this is a surmountable problem. Likewise, wireless systems need to consider compatibility issues as they identified. The problem isn't any one technology, it's the need to (co)operate in a changing world. > 2. Although they use somewhat similar technology, cellular > phones are NOT CS phones. They operate in an entirely different > portion of the spectrum. But they are still potential interferers regardless of the technology, as are two-way radios, computers, monitors, etc., etc. Conventional analog phones are less noticed because they don't have a high rate of amplitude variation. I can tell when my cellphone is about to ring, my CD player shuts down. Inconvenient, but no crisis in this case. The digital technologies have a substantial amplitude modulation component, and this amplitude change is what hearing aid wearers are detecting. GSM and D-AMPS phones have a pulsed waveform, current CDMA phones use very precise power control, and variable rate vocoding which has the effect of substantial radiated power changes. Either technology can demonstrate a "no interference case" by disabling these features, but the fact is they are required to provide the capacity specified by the systems. > Whoever you are and whatever your purpose in posting this article, get > your facts straight first. This is an area where strong emotions come into play on all sides. I've expressed _my_ _opinions_ based on my background and observations. I don't speak for my employer on this subject or any other. Rich Osman ------------------------------ From: bhofkin@nyx10.cs.du.edu (Bob Hofkin) Subject: Re: Allegations About MCI Date: 10 Mar 1996 20:38:51 -0700 Organization: University of Denver, Math/CS Dept. Here are a few bits of misinformation MCI gave me this week. I signed up for an "InternetMCI" password, which allows access to one's customer records. Based on social security number(!) and zip code, they came up with THE WRONG NAME. My customer records with MCI and Bell Atlantic are correct, but the Haines people have been circulating this error for a while. In theory, MCI could mail YOUR password to somebody completely unrelated -- and they haven't bothered to get back to me about this possible security problem. A customer service rep told me about the Friends and Family deal, and signed me up. She forgot to mention the package included an personal 800 number. (I discovered this bonus via InternetMCI.) The 800 service rep claimed they had generated these numbers for ALL their customers, and I should have gotten a letter explaining the whole thing a week earlier. The rep also claimed that each customer got a unique (ten-digit) 800 number, and that the "PIN" was only for security. (My own quickie test suggests that around one in ten "PIN" codes is accepted.) Do they do this deliberately? Do they make it up as they go along? I have no idea, but accuracy sure doesn't seem to be MCI's strong point. Bob Hofkin [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Would Ms. Aun care to respond after perhaps discussing this with the MCI employees involved? PAT] ------------------------------ From: edellers@shivasys.com (Ed Ellers) Subject: Re: Messing Around With 710 Date: 11 Mar 1996 04:41:05 GMT Organization: Pennsylvania Online [Usenet News Server for Hire] > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Maybe if 710 was not treated like such a deep > dark secret there would be less attention paid to it. Maybe if the > government was open and honest about facilities like this and encouraged the > public to not abuse them it would not be such an interesting story for > people in journals like this. Everyone wants to know about government > 'secrets'. Especially those who want to sabotage what the government does. Don't forget that there are people who occasionally do things like blow up Federal buildings; too much information in the public domain might reveal a "back door" that somebody could use. The dilemma in an open society is that the bad guys read the same newspapers as the good guys. > Anyway, I somehow doubt that 710 has anything to do with rescuing citizens > in distress. I think it has to do ultimatly with the government gaining even > more control over its citizens. I think it is intended to serve the > government in times of civil disturbances and/or massive disasters, allowing > the government to communicate among itself and retain/regain control as > needed. But does one *necessarily* lead to the other? Does the ability of the Federal Government to respond to a hurricane or terrorist act *necessarily* lead to oppression of the people? > By the way, I have yet -- a month later -- to hear from any federal > authorities asking me to please not discuss it here; nor have I heard > reports from readers about any such contacts. I have to wonder. PAT] Maybe (hopefully) what's been discussed here hasn't been detailed enough to be a security threat to the 710 system. ------------------------------ From: prvtctzn@aol.com (Prvt Ctzn) Subject: Re: Idea For Additional Telemarketing Restrictions Date: 11 Mar 1996 10:24:58 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: prvtctzn@aol.com (Prvt Ctzn) In a recent posting: Steve.Chilinski@uunet.uu.net wrote: > I think your idea has little merit. Even though you may not make your > living in the telemarketing industry, about four million others do in > the United States alone. Is that so? And what about the the 500,000 who make their living selling drugs or robbing people? Does the number people involved in a sociopathic industry give legitamacy to that industry ... so what's your point? > Additionally, recent rules just implemented have greatly protected the > consumer further from many things. Huh? > However, just because you choose to "unlist" your telephone lines, the > only privilege this legally gains for you is to eliminate your name > and number from public lists. Anyone and everyone, including your > friends, my relatives and your local newspaper, is perfectly within > their legal rights by calling you, and will be. Nevertheless, it is a reasonable indication to tele-annoyers that the unlisted party is unwilling to be duisturbed by unsolicited calls. Or does the telemarketing industry consider reason as on of its foundations? > Also, as a telemarketing industry veteran, I can also tell you that a > rather interesting rule holds true. In almost all cases, the person > with an unlisted number is universally more receptive to a purchase > through a telemarketing call then a person with a listed number ... > The reason, I presume, is that folks with unlisted numbers are less > barraged by calls, and not as irritated by the interruptions. You make my point very well. TELEMARKETING= TELE-IRRITATING. > ...This topic has been argued incessantly over the years, but the > bottom line is >-- unlisted means unlisted, and that's all. And telemarketing means telenuisance, and that's all. Robert Bulmash Private Citizen, Inc. 1/800-CUT-JUNK [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Except Bob, I would have to defend Steve on one of his points that you made exception to. He said four million people earn their living that way; you responded by noting that many earn their living 'selling drugs and robbing people'. The answer to your statement would be the one has been traditionally defined as a legal activity while the other has been traditionally defined as an illegal activity in which there are victims. Now like any number of activities which at one time -- some as recently as twenty or thirty years ago -- were defined as illegal because we perceived that there were 'victims' and have since been if not made legal with any stamp of approval have at least been decriminalized, the law is basically all we have to go with. His activities are, within a certain framework, legal. In your example, robbing people is never legal. In the few cases where it is, we do not refer to it as 'robbery' by definition. Maybe as the old Herst newspapers comic strip {There Oughta be a Law} would say, something ought to be done about those critters; and there have been some laws, but the activity itself remains quite legal. In your example, they never are legal. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Gary Fancher Subject: Re: Idea For Additional Telemarketing Restrictions Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 09:21:27 -0600 Organization: DSC Communications Corporation, Plano, Texas USA On Mon, 4 Mar 1996, Tom Allebrandi wrote: > So, my idea is this: > Telemarketers should be barred from calling unlisted and non published > phone numbers. > What do you think of the idea? Tom, I wish that we could outlaw ALL telemarketing, unless the telemarketers are willing to pay at least a part of our phone bills. We watch free TV and listen to free radio because we are willing to tolerate the incessant commercials of those who are paying for the programs. But the telephone is different -- we pay for them. If the telemarketers are going to invade our space again, they should pay for the right to do so. What do you think of this idea? Does this make any sense to anyone else? Gary DSC Communications Corporation Internet: gfancher@spd.dsccc.com 1000 Coit Road (214) 519-5268 Plano, Texas 75075 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: To add a little insult to injury, to pour some salt in the wound, years ago -- going back to the 1950's now, in the days before WATS lines and very cheap long distance, there were not nearly as many telemarketers as there are now. It was a much more expensive proposition for the few companies doing it in those days. Most sales pitches were either door-to-door salesmen (when is the last time you saw one of those) or via the mail. But one of the telemarketing firms -- I think they sold magazines and books -- got a bright idea: they placed their calls *collect*, asking the called party to pay for the call. And you know, quite a few people would accept the collect call before realizing they had done so and who it was that was calling them. Collection agencies back in the same 1940-50 era were faced with the same problem: write letters that were ignored or use the phone at a greater expense for more immediate and direct confrontation with the debtor. They also tried calling collect and oddly enough, some debtors would accept a collect call from the collection agency also. It led to a lot of backlash though, and finally the Federal Trade Commission clamped down on 'collect calls' to debtors and to recipients of tele- marketing calls and made the companies quit doing that. A company in the 1950's marketed a little sign you were supposed to place on the front door of your home if you did not want door-to-door salesmen stopping there; it meant they were not welcome. They promised that the sales representatives of honorable companies will see this and recognize your desire to be left alone ... they won't knock on your door. But of course that was a crock; sometimes three or four salesmen per day would come by and all pretend they did not see the little sign or know what it meant. There were as many door-to-door guys then as there are telemarketers now; everything from encyclopedias to brushes to pots and pans, vacuumn cleaners, household supplies, women's lingerie, magazines, collectors for charities, poll-takers, etc. None of them had any idea what the little sign on your door saying 'no solicitors' meant or they ignored it if they did. The expression 'to get a foot in the door' came from those guys. When you opened the door they would get right in the doorway so it was impossible to shut the door without slamming it on their foot, which a few people were willing to do anyway. A revolution came in the 1960's with the birth of long distance service in bulk or wholesale from AT&T. ide rea elephone ervice or WATS started telemarketing as we know it today. This was a new way of selling things at far less expense than door-to-door. And when 800 service, or IN-WATS followed a few years later, the door-to-door guys about all faded away. PAT] ------------------------------ From: scline@usit.net (Stanley Cline) Subject: Re: No LDDS Operator on B.A.M.S./NYNEX Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 10:46:26 GMT Organization: Catoosa Computing Services In comp.dcom.telecom, Atkinson, Fred wrote: > It appears that there is some legal thing going on between > B.A.M.S./NYNEX and LDDS. She is telling me that the problem won't be > corrected until the lawyers get through settling things. This will I don't know what is wrong with LDDS and BANM. Here, on BellSouth Mobility, only one CIC code (10450/101-0450) is valid for LDDS; 10450+0+ works just fine. LDDS is in the list of carriers that have agreements with BSCC/BMI. With CellOne/GTE, OTOH, there's no choice of LD carriers. What's even worse, though: Subscribers to BellSouth's "own" LD service *in this area(?)* currently have no 0+ service at all! Dialing 0+ with BellSouth LD (on a Hughes GMH2000 cell switch) results in a "this feature is not available" recording. Dialing 00 is translated as *611/*811, and goes to BMI's customer-service line. 1+700-555-4141 is mishandled as well; it goes to an LEC "call cannot be completed ..." recording. To place ANY 0+ calls (even intraLATA which are rare anyway as virtually the whole LATA is local) I am forced to dial a CIC code (10ATT, 10222, etc.) to route through another IXC. 0+500 is handled correctly, however, and goes straight to AT&T "True Connections" bong ... it didn't work before! This odd behavior may be due to the fact that the Hughes switch came online just YESTERDAY, but they should have gotten 0+ right. Before, on a Motorola EMX switch, 0+anything went to AT&T, even if one was presubscribed to another IXC (MCI, LCI, BellSouth, etc.) Stanley Cline (Roamer1 on IRC) ** GO BRAVES! GO VOLS! Catoosa Computing Services, Chattanooga, Tenn. mailto:scline@usit.net ** http://chattanooga.net/~scline/ CompuServe 74212,44 ** MSN WSCline1 ------------------------------ From: jagosta@interaccess.com (John Agosta) Subject: Re: The Busiest Payphone in America Date: 10 Mar 1996 23:28:48 GMT Organization: Agosta and Associates In article , Mark J Cuccia says: > The busiest payphone in America is located in: > The CHICAGO BUS TERMINAL! > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: At one point not that long ago, the > title 'busiest pay phone' went to one at Ohare Airport in Chicago. At one time it was a pay phone in Grand Central Station, NYC. BTW, I was talking to an Illinois Bell Employee one day waiting for my luggage after an American Airlines flight. He was changing all of the labels on each airport telephone from "Illinois Bell" to "Ameritech" labels. I asked him if he could have all the revenue generated by a single phone in the airport, which phone would that be? He pointed to the phone adjacent to the one I was using at the moment to check with my ride home ... The busiest phone in O'hare airport is located across from the American Airlines oversized bag claim area, which is between doors 3E and 3F. It is the phone closest to the baggage conveyors, and as you use it, you are facing towards the airport's exit. The keypad was quite worn. ja ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #111 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Mar 11 13:43:10 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id NAA14383; Mon, 11 Mar 1996 13:43:10 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 13:43:10 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199603111843.NAA14383@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #112 TELECOM Digest Mon, 11 Mar 96 13:43:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 112 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Microsoft ISDN Announcement on Monday (Joscelyn Zell) Sprint Wants Asian American Customers (Les Reeves) Patching Other Sound Sources Into Phone Line? (Elana Beach) Houston AC: It's Not Over (Jeff Brielmaier) Changing Responsible Organization on 800/888 Numbers (Jim Weiss) Unlimited Local Calling For New York Area (Greg Monti) ICA Annual Conference and SUPERCOMM (texlink@aol.com) First Major User of "888" is Now in Service (Danny Burstein) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joscelyn Zell Subject: Microsoft ISDN Announcement on Monday Date: Mon, 11 Mar 96 09:18:00 PST Wanted to give you a heads up on an ISDN announcement Microsoft made today. Microsoft is announcing a web site called "Get ISDN for Microsoft Windows" (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/getisdn), basically a one-stop way for users to obtain ISDN, as well as the ISDN Accelerator Pack, downloadable software for native Windows 95 ISDN support. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Joscelyn Zell 503/245-0905 jzell@wagged.com REDMOND, Wash. March 11, 1996 Microsoft Corp. today announced a comprehensive program to simplify the acquisition and use of high-speed digital ISDN lines for users of the Microsoft? Windows? 95 operating system. The program includes new ISDN software for Windows 95 that is downloadable today at no charge, alliances with major North American telephone companies to allow users of Windows 95 to request an ISDN line electronically over the World Wide Web via Get ISDN for Microsoft Windows, and broad support from hardware manufacturers and ISDN-capable Internet service providers (ISPs). Software supporting ISDN with Windows 95, called the ISDN Accelerator Pack, will be made available to end users by leading ISDN hardware vendors, telephone companies and ISPs over the Internet at no charge. The customer experience of having ISDN installed and working has at best been extremely painful until now, said Rob Enderle, senior industry analyst at Giga Information Group. With this announcement, Microsoft has delivered a solution that makes ISDN a reasonable option for those of us who are not telephony technicians. This service and related support for Windows 95 should accelerate significantly the adoption of ISDN into home as well as small-office and home-office markets. I would expect a whole series of new, feature-rich applications and services to be created for these markets by third-party developers and service providers. Get ISDN for Microsoft Windows The Get ISDN program helps simplify and streamline the process of connecting an ISDN line to a Windows-based PC. The program includes information from major local telephone companies offering ISDN service, including Ameritech, Bell Atlantic, Bell Canada, BellSouth, GTE, NYNEX, Pacific Bell, Southern New England Telephone and US West Communications, as well as MCI and Sprint as providers of long-distance ISDN service. The Get ISDN software, accessible today on the World Wide Web (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/getisdn) and planned for inclusion in future versions of Windows 95, helps customers request an ISDN line electronically. It forwards the information to the appropriate telephone company, which finalizes the ISDN installation. A line will be configured automatically for use with a Windows-based PC. The Get ISDN software is also supported by leading online services and ISPs with broad ISDN access to their services, including MSN , The Microsoft Network; Netcom; PSINet; and UUNET. ISDN Speeds Internet Access ISDN is an increasingly popular solution that allows customers to surf the Internet, to access commercial online services such as MSN or to connect to a corporate LAN remotely at speeds five or more times faster than today s analog modems. In addition to providing higher data-transmission speeds, ISDN is attractive because it can work via existing telephone lines. Our customers have asked us for a no-hassle way to turbocharge their Internet use, said Brad Silverberg, senior vice president of the Internet platform and tools division at Microsoft. With the Get ISDN for Microsoft Windows program and the ISDN Accelerator Pack, Microsoft Internet Explorer 2.0 becomes their free ticket to the fastest Web surfing possible. ISDN Accelerator Pack: Native ISDN Support for Windows 95. The ISDN Accelerator Pack includes the system software support a customer needs in Windows 95 to access and use ISDN, as well as Internet Explorer 2.0 for high-performance access to the Internet. The native ISDN support takes full advantage of the built-in dial-up networking capabilities in Windows 95, providing fast, reliable and standardized access to information over the Internet or corporate LAN. It supports the industry standard point-to-point protocol (PPP) as well as remote access to TCP/IP, IPX and NetBEUI LANs. The ISDN Accelerator Pack also dramatically broadens the range of applications available for ISDN. Instead of requiring specialized applications that work only with ISDN, users will be able to run any networked Windows 95-based applications. This native ISDN support is scheduled to be incorporated into future versions of Windows 95. Microsoft is making the ISDN Accelerator Pack broadly available to ISDN hardware manufacturers to ship as part of complete high-speed Internet access solutions. It s also available to customers free of charge immediately from the Microsoft Windows Web site (http://www.microsoft.com/windows). ISDN Hardware Industry Support ISDN hardware manufacturers already shipping support for the native ISDN software for Windows 95 include Diamond Multimedia, Digi International Inc., Eicon Technology Corp. and Elmic Systems. ISDN hardware adapter manufacturers that shortly will ship support include 3Com Corp., ACOTEC, ADTRAN Inc., Boca Research Inc., Cardinal Technologies Inc., Global Village Communications Inc., ISDN*tek, Jetstream Communications, Link Technology Inc., Microcom Inc., Motorola Inc., Picturetel, Racal-Datacom, Radicom Research, U.S. Robotics, Xircom, ZOOM Telephonics Inc. and ZyXEL. The combination of Windows 95, Eicon s DIVA for Windows 95 and Get ISDN will help the wide deployment of ISDN to enable high-performance remote access, said Maks Wulkan, executive vice president at Eicon Technology. All digital access to the Internet and corporate intranets will now be available as an integrated solution, significantly reducing the overall cost of ownership traditionally associated with the deployment, management and support of remote users. Founded in 1975, Microsoft (NASDAQ MSFT ) is the worldwide leader in software for personal computers. The company offers a wide range of products and services for business and personal use, each designed with the mission of making it easier and more enjoyable for people to take advantage of the full power of personal computing every day. ######### Microsoft, Windows and MSN are either registered trademarks or trademarks of Microsoft Corp. in the United States and/or other countries. The Microsoft Network is operated by Microsoft Corp. on behalf of Microsoft Network LLC. For Online Product Information: Windows Web page: http://www.microsoft.com/windows Get ISDN for Microsoft Windows Web page: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/getisdn ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 18:37:20 PST From: Les Reeves Subject: Sprint Wants Asian American Customers (Thanks to Van Hefner, publisher of the "Discount Long Distance Digest" for passing this along to me. The document is no longer available on Sprint's Web page.) For info on Van's DLD, check out his page at: http://www.webcom.com/longdist/ ---------------------------- BIG SAVINGS ON EVERYDAY PRODUCTS, SERVICES AWAIT ASIAN AMERICANS WHO JOIN SPRINT AND NEW BUYING CLUB. EL MONTE, Calif., November 16, 1995 -- Asian Americans who sign up for Sprint long distance service will now automatically receive substantial savings on a wide range of everyday needs -- from car rentals to health insurance -- thanks to an Asian buying club announced today. The Asian American Association, formed by leading Asian business people, is the comprehensive, new one-source membership service for Asians. Thanks to its considerable buying clout, the association provides members with significant discounts on a vast portfolio of products and services in areas such as travel, entertainment, insurance, banking and telecommunications. In addition to discounts, association members can take advantage of a free directory assistance and information hotline. This service provides callers with in-language support for a full host of community needs, such as advice on filing immigration papers, as well as choosing restaurants and hotels. Sprint is a founding member of the Asian American Association, along with at least 20 other national companies, including Avis, Pearle Vision and DHL Worldwide Express. Through its marketing arrangement with the association, Sprint is proud to be part of the association's valuable package of products and services for Asian Americans, said Jim Dodd, Sprint assistant vice president for Asian marketing. "This arrangement with the association is a unique way for Sprint to forge a competitive advantage in the U.S. Asian marketplace for telecommunications, which is growing significantly," Dodd said, adding that total volume for U.S. calls to the Asia/Pacific region has increased at least 17 percent in each of the last four years. "The membership program provides Sprint with an excellent vehicle in which we will market Sprint products and bundle them together with products of the association's other member companies," Dodd said. "The program also opens up an exclusive new sales channel through which the association will promote Sprint products. "Asian Americans who sign up for Sprint through the association will receive: Automatic membership in the Asian American Association buying club, ensuring eligibility for deep discounts on a wide array of products and services; Additional discounted calling hours on Sprint's lead international calling plan, Sprint Sense International, specifically for association members; Special promotions on top of the already discounted Sprint Sense International rates; Low rates on domestic calls with the Sprint Sense dime-a-minute calling plan. Membership in the Asian American Association entitles Asian Americans to save on a variety of other needs: personal, travel and entertainment, communications and insurance. Among the offers: 25 percent off prescription eye wear from Pearle Vision; up to 30 percent off major hotels; 15 percent off Avis car rentals; and coupons to major theme and amusement parks across the country. With Sprint long distance, members of the Asian American Association getlow rates on every call -- international and domestic. Sprint Sense International, a global calling plan, provides a clear, bottom-line price for all international long distance calls. For example, Asian Americans can call Taiwan for only 61 cents a minute, or $3.05 for a 5-minute call between 8:00 p.m. and 2 p.m. Monday through Friday and all weekend (U.S. time). Callers on Sprint Sense and Sprint Sense International now get an added bonus -- 10 percent cash back on their annual long distance bill. The minimum cash back checks are $25. For information, and to learn more about the benefits of membership in the Asian American Association, call 1-800-297-4663. Sprint is a global communications company -- at the forefront in integrating long distance, local and wireless communications services, and the world's largest carrier of Internet traffic. Sprint built and operates the United States' only nationwide all-digital, fiber-optic network and is the leader in advanced data communications services. Sprint has $12.6 billion in annual revenues and serves more than 15 million business and residential customers. Copyright; 1995 Sprint Communications Company, L.P. | ------------------------- Les Reeves -- lreeves@crl.com lreeves@america.net -- [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Do you think members of the Asian American Association can sign up for "Fridays are Free"? :-). Sprint has been sort of picky about people from India who are signing up on that program. PAT] ------------------------------ From: elana@netcom.com (Elana who?) Subject: Patching Other Sound Sources Into Phone Line? Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Sun, 10 Mar 1996 00:09:00 GMT Hi, there! :) I want to be able to somehow patch sounds directly into my own phone line. My sound sources will be things like my own CD player (play cool tunes for my friends without having to hold the phone into the speaker), sampling keyboard (yeah, a MIDI-compatible), my own PC (lotsa .wav files to play with!) etc. etc. etc.. The applications for this are many. Get a heavy-breather on the phone, play him a sample of a click, then a phone-ringing sound, then something of a "Phone Police, may I help you?" kind of situation. Or worse. :) For phone solicitors: "Bee-bee-beep! If you want to make a call, please hang up and dial again ..." Hang up, and see if they call back. Repeat process ad infinitum if one is feeling both bored and mischevious. :) For obvious phone scams: " This is the Attorney General's Phone Fraud Verification Center. Please hold while we trace your call and find out where you live ..." For certain fellow fans of music composer Chris Franke calling me, whose numbers I would recognise on my CID box; I'd sample part of a long-ago, preciously saved, original answering machine message as a way to greet them instead of my own voice: " Hello, this is Christopher Franke" in that cool German accent of his ... (I'd have to ask the artist's permission first, of course ...) :) Record and save the answering-machine messages of two people I know (and am not fond of) who absolutely DESERVES to have their heads completely messed with. I see their numbers on my CID box as they call in, and they hear not me saying hello (as per previous paragraph) but their own outgoing answering-machine message! Cause them to sing the "Twilight Zone" theme for the rest of the day. :) Anyone else have some creative and humorous ideas along these lines (no pun intended)??? Yeah ... I wanna have some *fun*. :) :) :) So how *do* I go about patching sounds directly into my home phone? Elana [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: How? Very carefully, and very slightly. You can take the output jack from a tape cassette player and plug it into the phone line at the appropriate times, but keep the level *very* low so as not to overload the line with a lot of distortion, etc. It is fun to play pranks sometimes. A long time ago I had someone else's answering machine message on a cassette tape and when I called them, as soon as they answered I started playing their own outgoing tape to them. I did it three or four times in a row, and the poor fellow -- not being very smart -- soon called me up on the phone to say, 'you know, I think my answering machine must be broken; now and then it makes my phone ring and starts playing its message.' I told him some baloney about maybe the 'logic' in the machine was out of synch. If he turned it off and then back on it would go back to normal operations. He believed me and tried it. Naturally his machine worked just fine from then on. . In the days when CB radio was the big rage, it was also fun to tape record the most obnoxious users and the play their tapes back out over the air and let them hear how they sounded. One day, a fellow was on CB with a lot of illegal power, ranting and raving about Jews and black people and whoever else he had a dislike for. About three minutes of the worst part of his rant got recorded on a endless loop mobious tape and then played back, over and over. Go up a few channels, a couple of women talking quietly ... key up with a lot of power and play that tape. Pretty soon back on his 'home' channel a fellow comes down there and says 'Satan (that was his radio name); why do you come up on the channel where my wife is talking to her friends and talk garbage like that. Do not come on the radio and uses cusses and language that way when my wife is on the radio.' Well of course Satan insisted it was not him. 'Some fool made a tape of me and is going around playing it on all the other CB channels.' Now take the same tape; another channel where a lot of young black guys congregated on the south side of Chicago. Kick up that power to some obscene level; five hundred watts should do. Play that endless loop tape of Satan 'dissing the black guys. The dudes all hear it over and over, not realizing it is a tape replay of course, and soon they are descending in droves up on Satan's home channel. All the rest of the afternoon, black guys all over Chicago are hearing that 'some white guy on the north side dissed one of the brothers' and everyone is tuning in on Satan's home channel to voice their own opinion about the matter. Satan is busy trying to defend himself; his excuse is a weak one at best. He agrees finally that he did say those things, but that he did not *go over on the channel the black guys were using to say it*. Someone, he decides, must have been playing a trick on him by recording him unwittingly while he was talking. Let's take the tape and play it again, this time back on Satan's home channel while the argument is raging between him and the guys who tuned in to confront him. Many of the newcomers who had not heard the message originally -- they had only heard about the 'incident' from others on CB -- now get to listen to it also, and the tape is of good enough quality it is hard to say that it is not Satan himself delivering the message live. He keeps insisting that someone has 'forged' him on that message; but no one will listen to his protests of innocence the second time around. Finally he just turns off his radio completely; he is not heard from again on CB for several days, which in itself was a minor miracle. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Houston AC: It's not over From: jeff.brielmaier@yob.com (Jeff Brielmaier) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 96 04:28:00 -0600 Organization: Ye Olde Bailey BBS - Houston, TX - 713-520-1569 Reply-To: jeff.brielmaier@yob.com (Jeff Brielmaier) As the old saying goes, it isn't over til the fat lady sings. Well, it appears that she has been called off the field just as she was warming up for the final song. Just when we thought we knew what the state regulators wanted to do with the 713/281 AC, the waters have just got muddy again. About a month ago, the Texas Public Utility Commission decided to force a geographic split of the 713 AC rather than implement the overlay plan that South West Bell had plan to implement for over a year. In addition, the PUC had requested that SWB look into adding a third AC in the near future so that there could be stability in this market for a number of years. Well, the local newpaper ran a front page article today (Fri 08 March 1995) entitled "281 Area Code Looks For A Home." The article seems to indicate that someone didn't do all of their homework. Since SWB and the PUC had intended to use the 281 AC as an overlay, SWB has been allocating phones numbers in 281 for pagers and cell phones since March '95. There are apparently about 100,000 numbers allocated already. Some of those users (quantity unspecified) are in what will remain as 713. This means that they will have to change their wireless phone number from their current 281 number to (possibly) an entirely 713 number based on what 281 exchange their were given. This will be required to avoid conflicts with exchange allocations in the 281 AC. With a November 2nd cutover date looming, the PUC is indicating now that SWB should immediately allocate a 3rd AC. Then SWB should implement the geographic split as planned with 713 serving the "Central Zone" (downtown Houston plus some of the surrounding area), the 3rd AC would be assigned to all of 713 outside of the "Central Zone" (what is currently supposed to become 281), and 281 will be used as a wireless overlay over 713 and the 3rd AC. Confused yet ? The PUC is scheduled to make a final (finally?) decision next week. SWB indicates that the idea is technically feasible but it might take some time to implement. SWB also indicates that the FCC could say no to the overlay since the one was rejected in Illinois as discriminatory. The PUC believes that this plan is okay, but SWB warns that any court challenge (and anyone here believe that there will not be a court challenge?) will risk the entire AC plan's Nov.96 implementation date. Now, the only question I have is "Why can't just implement 281 as an overlay on top of 713 call it a day ?" Ye Olde Bailey BBS Zyxel 713-520-1569(V.32bis) USR 713-520-9566(V.34/FC) Houston,Texas yob.com Home of alt.cosuard ------------------------------ From: NBJimWeiss@aol.com Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 10:05:54 GMT Subject: Changing Responsible Organization on 800/888 Numbers I would like to interrogate the Group's readership as to the FCC's position and the legality of a Responsible Organization DENYING the transfer of an 800/888 number to new Resp Org because of a customer's balance due to the current Resp Org. That is, if an 800/888 customer owes a significant amount to a long distance carrier or reseller serving as the Resp Org, can the Resp Org "legally" refuse to transfer the 800/888 number to a new Resp Org when requested by the customer? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Mar 96 10:01:21 PST From: Greg Monti Subject: Unlimited Local Calling For New York Area After 50 years (100 years?) of mandatory local measured service for New York metropolitan area residential telephone customers, NYNEX has begun to advertise what a few years ago would have been unthinkable. Ads I've seen on New York City TV stations say that NYNEX will begin offering a plan which allows unlimited calling for a flat rate. The thirty-second spot doesn't explain many details -- and it does not mention what the monthly price will be. The script reads that you can make, "any local or regional call without restrictions". No waiting until 11 PM when the rates go down. The commercial applies to residential callers in areas served by NYNEX, and does not apply to New Jersey or Connecticut, which are served by different local companies. The NYNEX phone number given in the ad is 800 366-7221. The small print at the bottom notes that the plan must be approved by the New York State Public Service Commission. The new campaign and price plan are obviously in reaction to long distance carriers who have descended on the New York area to offer in-state, in-LATA calling at lower per-minute rates than NYNEX offers. NYNEX wants to keep its customers from dialing around their in-LATA rates. It's important to note the use of the word "regional" in the ad copy. NYNEX does not use the term "LATA" in its consumer literature or advertising that I know of. They use "regional" to mean "intra-LATA." The New York LATA is a huge chunk of land extending from parts of Orange County 40 or 50 miles northwest of New York City to Montauk Point, Long Island, which is 120 miles east of the city. Will subscribers to this new service be able to make a free regional call from Orange County to Montauk Point and what will that level of service cost per month? Who knows? Greg Monti Jersey City, New Jersey, USA gmonti@cais.com ------------------------------ From: texlink@aol.com (Texlink) Subject: ICA Annual Conference and SUPERCOMM Date: 11 Mar 1996 01:09:42 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: texlink@aol.com (Texlink) Announcing the ICA Annual Super Conference, to be held in Dallas, TX - JUNE 23-27, 1996. This year, the conference is being held in conjuntion with SUPERCOMM '96. Our full schedule includes Mini-Conferences, "How-To"Sessions, Tutorials, and so much more. A must for any technology, communications, or purchasing manager. For more information, please call: 1-800-ICA-INFO ext. 122 or send request to intlcoma@onramp.net. Full information can be found on our webste: http://www.icanet.com Netscape or Explorer browsing recommended. Thanks. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 09:44:02 EST From: danny burstein Subject: First Major User of "888" is Now in Service McAfee Associates, a software group primarily known for virus protection programs, had a full page advert in Thursday's NY Times promoting their products. Phone number: 1 888 VIRUS NO (I pity the poor person at '1 800 virus no', unless, of course, it too is this company. I did _not_ try it out.) BTW, the first time I called it I mistakenly remembered it as "1-888-NO-VIRUS" which, fortunately, merely got an intercept but does say something about either my poor brain or the RISKS of 'easy-to- remember' alpha-numbers of this sort . dannyb@panix.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #112 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue Mar 12 10:10:33 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id KAA23660; Tue, 12 Mar 1996 10:10:33 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 10:10:33 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199603121510.KAA23660@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #113 TELECOM Digest Tue, 12 Mar 96 10:10:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 113 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson CPT Survey of ISDN Tariffs (Monty Solomon) India Grants Basic Telephony, Cellular Licenses (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh) AT&T Wireless Rate Restructuring (Larry Schwarcz) More Allegations About MCI (Robert Freimer) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 23:32:30 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: CPT Survey of ISDN Tariffs Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 10:37:28 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: love@Essential.ORG From: James Love Subject: CPT Survey of ISDN Tariffs TAP-INFO - An Internet newsletter available from listproc@tap.org INFORMATION POLICY NOTE March 9, 1996 Selected ISDN Tariffs Version 1.0 March 8, 1996 James Love, Consumer Project on Technology [1] http://www.essential.org/cpt love@tap.org / 202/387-8030 Executive Summary This is a list of selected residential ISDN tariffs. It is not complete, and we will expand and update the list from time to time. The list compares tariffs among various local exchange telephone companies, based upon a purchase of 100 hours of 2B + D service, or a line which is in service full time, such as would be used for a Web server.[2] The full time connection is referred to as a "nailed down" line. Future enhancements will include more states, an executive summary of installation and distance charges, and a little fine tuning of the results. Comments or corrections are welcome. Here are the results: Company/State 100 hours 2B+D Nailed Down (Dollars) (Dollars) NATCO Arkansas 17.90 17.90 Ameritech Michigan 36.61 33.51 Ohio 26.00 26.00 Wisconsin 36.56 30.90 Illinois low 33.05 28.05 high 39.50 34.50 Indiana 314.83 1,828.59 PacBell California (current tariff) 63.62 268.32 (Proposed tariff) 173.88 1,106.17 US WEST Utah 68 184 Oregon 69 1,949.64 Southwestern Bell - SBC Missouri 104.30 104.30 Kansas 104.30 104.30 BellSouth Alabama 68.60 68.60 Florida 57.15 57.15 Georgia 63.75 63.75 Kentucky 60.05 60.05 Louisiana 71.66 71.66 Mississippi 65.51 65.51 N Carolina 75.10 75.10 S. Carolina 60.40 60.40 Tennessee 29.50 29.50 Bell Atlantic Delaware 198 1,206.48 District of Columbia Proposed 198 1,206.48 OPC Staff Recommendation 32 32 Maryland 198 1,206.48 New Jersey 198 1,206.48 Pennsylvania 198 1,206.48 Virginia 198 1,206.48 West Virginia 198 1,206.48 NYNEX New York 153.58 890.98 Massachusetts Area Code 617/508 226.39 1,419.41 Area Code 413 159.19 911.65 Northern Arkansas Telephone Company (NATCO) Voice: 1-800-775-6682 http://southshore.k12.ar.us/natco1.html Installation fee $25.20 Fixed Monthly fee $17.90 Usage Charges None. Cost to Consumer [2] 100 Hours of 2B+D $17.90 Nailed Down Line $17.90 Ameritech Voice 1-800-419-5400 http://www.ameritech.com http://www.ameritech.com/products/data/rates.html Michigan Installation fee $122 Distance Charges For homes more than 3 miles from the local telephone exchange office location, there is a repeater charge of $20.25 per month. Fixed Monthly fee $33.51. Usage Charges After the first 50 calls, a charge of 6.2 cents per call. Cost to Consumer [2] 100 Hours of 2B+D $36.61 Nailed Down Line $33.51 Ohio Installation fee $116.50 Distance Charges For homes more than 3 miles from the local telephone exchange office location, there is a repeater charge of $26.00 per month. Fixed Monthly fee $26.00 Usage Charges None. Cost to Consumer [2] 100 Hours of 2B+D $26.00 Nailed Down Line $26.00 Wisconsin Installation fee $113.05 Distance Charges For homes more than 3 miles from the local telephone exchange office location, there is a repeater charge of $20.75 per month. Fixed Monthly fee $30.90 Usage Charges No per minute charges. Usage charges based upon number of calls: 1-60 6 cents 61- 90 5 151-300 4 301-400 3 401-1200 2 >1200 5 Cost to Consumer [2] 100 Hours of 2B+D $36.56 Nailed Down Line $30.90 Illinois Installation fee $113.05 Distance Charges For homes more than 3 miles from the local telephone exchange office location, there is a repeater charge of $22.50 per month. Fixed Monthly fee $28.05 to $34.50, depending upon area of state. Usage Charges Within local area, no per minute charges. Each call is 5 cents. For distances greater than 8 miles per minute charges apply. Cost to Consumer [2] 100 Hours of 2B+D $33.05 to $39.50 Nailed Down Line $28.05 to $34.50 Indiana Installation fee $127.00 Distance Charges For homes more than 3 miles from the local telephone exchange office location, there is a repeater charge of $22.50 per month. Fixed Monthly fee $94.83 Usage Charges Per minute charges apply. Nine cents for first ten minutes and 9 cents for each additional 5 minutes, per channel. Cost to Consumer [2] 100 Hours of 2B+D $94.83 + $220 = 314.83 Nailed Down Line $94.83 + $1,733.76 = $1,828.59 PacBell 1-800-4PB-ISDN http://www.pacbell.com http://www.pacbell.com/Products/SDS-ISDN/sds-isdn.htm California Installation $34.75 for conversion of POTS line, plus $125 for a new line. Under current tariff, PacBell waves installation fees with 24 month service commitment. Under proposed tariff, the $125 new line charge will no longer be waived. Fixed Monthly fee $24.50 per month. Usage Charges Under present tariff, PacBell meters usage from 8 am to 5 pm weekdays, at 3.33 cents for first minute and 1.05 cents for each additional minute. These charges are per B channel. Usage after 5 pm on weekdays and on weekends is unmetered. Under proposed new tariff, PacBell seeks to double additional per minute charge in prime time, to 2.1 cents per minute, and to impose a per minute charge of 2.33 cents for first minute and 1.46 cents for additional minutes from 5 pm to 11 pm, and 1.33 cents for first minute and .84 cents per additional minute for late night and on weekends. These charges are per B channel. There will be a 20 hour allowance for off-peak usage. Cost to Consumer [2] PRESENT TARIFF 100 Hours of 2B+D $24.50 + $39.12 = $ 63.62 Nailed Down Line $24.50 + $243.82 = $ 268.32 PROPOSED TARIFF 100 Hours of 2B+D $24.50 + $179.4 - $30.02 = $ 173.88 Nailed Down Line $24.50 + $1,116.71 - $35.04 = $ 1,106.17 US WEST 1-800-872-4658, ext 8903 1-800-PATHWAY http://www.uswest.com http://www.w3.uswest.com/isdn/index.html http://www.w3.uswest.com/isdn/pricing.html Utah Installation fee $110 Distance Charges Installation where loop is greater than 18 kilofeet (three miles from central office) is an additional $100. Fixed Monthly fee There are three options. The fixed monthly fee for the fully metered option is $39 per month. The option that includes 200 hours of B channel use (100 hours of 2B + D) is $68. The flat rate option is $184 per month. Usage Charges The usage charge is three cents per minute per B channel. Cost to Consumer [2] 100 Hours of 2B+D $68 Nailed Down Line $184 Oregon Installation fee $110 Distance Charges Fixed Monthly fee $69 Usage Charges The first 200 hours of B channel use (or 100 hours of 2B + D) is covered by the $69 fee. Thereafter there will be a charge of three cents per minute per B channel in the local change area, and 5 cents per minute per B channel for calls outside the local exchange boundary. Cost to Consumer [2] 100 Hours of 2B+D $69 Nailed Down Line $69 + $ 1,880.64 = $1,949.64 SBC - Southwestern Bell 1-800-792-4736 (for Texas, 713-567-4736) http://www.sbc.com/ http://www.sbc.com/kc/isdncost.html Kansas and Missouri Installation fee $457.40 for Kansas and $452.25 for Missouri. SBC will waive $400 of the installation fee with a 24 month committment for service. Distance Charges Fixed Monthly fee There are three options. The two metered options include a $57.30 rate with 10 hours included, and a $75.30 option with 80 hours included. The flat rate option is $104.30 per month. Usage Charges Additonal usage for the 10 hour plan is four cents per minute. Additional usage for the 80 hour plan is two cents per minute. According to SBC staff, this rate applies to 2B+D service. Cost to Consumer [2] 100 Hours of 2B+D $104.30 Nailed Down Line $104.30 Bellsouth 1-800-858-9413 http://www.bellsouth.com The Bellsouth Web page has some information on tariffs available, but it was out of date when I checked on March 8, 1996. All Bellsouth residential ISDN tariffs are flat rate. Installation Fixed Monthly Charge Alabama 190 68.60 Florida 190 57.15 Georgia 197.50 63.75 Kentucky 213 60.05 Louisiana 193 71.66 Mississippi 196 65.51 N Carolina 192.75 75.10 S. Carolina 212.50 60.40 Tennessee 41 29.50 Bell Atlantic http://www.ba.com Basic Bell Atlantic residential ISDN Tariff for Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia. In the District of Columbia, the PSC is considering an Office of People's Counsel (OPC) proposal for a $32 flat rate tariff, with a $34 fee for installation. Installation Fee $125 Fixed Monthly fee $19.50 plus local measured service POTS, for an approximate $30 to $34 per month. Usage Charges Per minute charges apply. Two cents per B Channel from 7 am to 7 pm, and one cent per B channel from 7 pm to 7 am and on weekends. Notes: The tariff is designed to discourage use, first by charging by the minute, and then by basing the charge on the number of B channels being used. Consumers who can afford this service will have incentives to use the service at half its possible speed. Cost to Consumer [2] 100 Hours of 2B+D $168 usage plus $30 = $198 Nailed Down Line $1,176.48 usage plus $30 = $1,206.48 NYNEX http://www.nynex.com http://www.nynex.com/iixxxpg1.html 1-800-438-4736 New York Installation fee $225 for new line. Upgrade of POTS line is $24.05 + 35 = $ 59.05 Distance Charges The service is only available within 18 kilofeet from a central office. If that central office isn't equipped for ISDN, you must pay for "Virtual Service." This will add $75 for a residential installation, plus a fixed fee of $10 per month. Fixed Monthly fee $10.10 for POTS plus $14.00 for 2B + D, for a total of $24.10. Usage Charges Both per message and per minute charges apply. The NYNEX "Circuit Switched Data" charge is one cent per minute per B channel. Per call charges also apply. The per call charge is 10.6 per call, with a discount of 40 percent from 9 pm to 11 pm and a discount of 65 percent from 11 pm to 8 am on weekdays. On weekends the per call discount is 65 percent, except for 5 pm to 11 pm on Sunday. Cost to Consumer [2] 100 Hours of 2B+D $24.10 + $9.48 + $120 = $ 153.58 Nailed Down Line $24.10 + $866.88 = $890.98 Massachusetts Installation fee $67.07 Distance Charges The service is only available within 18 kilofeet from a central office. If that central office isn't equipped for ISDN, you must pay for "Virtual Service." This will add $190 for a residential installation, plus a fixed fee of $32 per month. Fixed Monthly fee $14.39 for line charges plus $18 for BRI ISDN, for a total of $32.39. Usage Charges Voice calls are the same as the local POTS rates. Per minute charges apply for data. For data calls, in the 617 and 508 area codes, it is a one cent per "message" charge, which is applied to each B channel. Usage is also subject to a 1.6 cents per minute per B channel charge. A higher per minute per B channel charge of 5.5 cents per applies to "Zone 2" calls. In the 413 area code, calls are one cent per "message" plus 1.6 cents from 8 am to 5 pm week days and .8 cents in the off peak hours. Cost to Consumer [2] 100 Hours of 2B+D Area Codes 617/508 $32.39 + $2 + $192 = $226.39 Area Code 413 $32.39 + $2 + $124.80 = $159.19 Nailed Down Line Area Codes 617/508 $32.39 + $1387.01 = $1,419.40 Area Code 413 $32.39 + $879.26 = $ 911.65 ----------------- [1] Thanks to Janice Shields of the Center for Study of Responsive Law for research on this topic. [2] The consumer's cost of 100 hours of 2B + D service is based upon the following assumptions. The time online is divided as follows: from 8 am to 5 pm 30 percent, from 5 pm to 7 pm 10 percent, from 7 pm to 11 pm 35 percent and from 11 pm to 7 am and weekends, 25 percent. This works out to 30 percent peak for the PacBell tariff, or 40 percent peak for the Bell Atlantic Tariff. Number of calls is 100. In practice, the number of calls will depend upon the pricing incentives, but generally this isn't a very large number, compared to the cost of the per minute charges. INFORMATION POLICY NOTES is a free Internet newsletter sponsored by the Taxpayer Assets Project (TAP) and the Consumer Project on Technology (CPT). Both groups are projects of the Center for Study of Responsive Law, which is run by Ralph Nader. The LISTPROC services are provide by Essential Information. Archives of TAP-INFO are available from http://www.essential.org/listproc/tap-info/ TAP and CPT both have Internet Web pages. http://www.tap.org/tap http://www.essential.org/cpt Subscription requests to tap-info to listproc@tap.org with the message: subscribe tap-info your name TAP and CPT can both be reached off the net at P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036, Voice: 202/387-8030; Fax: 202/234-5176 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 14:30:39 -0800 From: Rishab Aiyer Ghosh Subject: India Grants Basic Telephony, Cellular Licences The Indian Techonomist: weekly summary, March 10, 1996 Copyright (C) 1996 Rishab Aiyer Ghosh. All rights reserved Contents: India grants cellular, basic telephony licences India's NIIT opens software exports complex India grants cellular, basic telephony licences Finally, after the clearance of the Supreme Court, the Indian government has started issuing licences to winners of the first round of bids for nationwide basic telephony. HFCL, the controversial winner of four "circles" - Delhi, UP (West), Haryana and Orissa, has already signed letters of intent with the Department of Telecommunications (DoT). The fifth clear first-round winner, Hughes-Ispat in Maharashtra (which includes Bombay, now called Mumbai), is expected to get its licence soon; this has been delayed due to a legal challenge by another bidder, Tata-Bell Canada. The second round of bids for basic telephony, which received a poor response as it was held just before the Supreme Court's verdict, should be resolved this week. The Tender Evaluation Committee cleared all six bids (for a total of five circles) and recommended that licences be awarded to the five high bidders. A final decision, which has to be approved by the DoT Secretary and Communications Minister, is expected by March 15th. The DoT is also expected to announce a third round of bidding for basic telephony, for the remaining nine (mainly poor, "C" category) circles, later this week. It will reduce the reserve prices that were announced late last year, by between 25% and 50%. This round, like the previous one, will be limited to consortia who bid in the original round; if despite the lower reserve prices some circles go wanting, yet another round of bids is expected, but open to anyone. Basic telephony licences, first- and second-round bids, and reserve prices can be found at http://dxm.org/techonomist/news/bids.html Meanwhile, licences for operating cellular services have been granted to two competing bidders in most of the 18 circles. A list of licensees is at: http://dxm.org/techonomist/news/bids.html One of the cellular licensees, Koshika Telecom, a venture between India's Usha Group and Philippines Telecom, has sold a 3% equity stake to Alcatel, the French telecom giant. Alcatel has also signed a US$ 100 million contract for GSM cellular equipment in the entire region covered by Koshika's licence - four circles in eastern India. Another cellular licensee, JT Mobile, is in a bit of legal trouble. The Indian partner, the Parasrampuria group (foreign partners are Sweden's Telia, along with ToT and Jasmine from Thailand) has been accused by a Non- Resident Indian (NRI) of reneging on an unwritten agreement whereby the Group was to be a "front" organisation for him. NRIs are Indian citizens residing abroad, and receive numerous investment incentives and tax benefits not available to foreign citizens or Indian residents. Nevertheless, NRI equity is considered foreign equity for the purposes of the telecom bids; foreign equity is limited to 49%. As Telia, ToT and Jasmine together own 49% of JT Mobile, it is possible that Parasrampuria did, as alleged, promise to act as a "front" for the NRI, who could not invest himself. Possible (and, if true, illegal) but unlikely - the Group is rich enough anyway, claims any agreement with the NRI was "pre-contractual" and is not likely to lose any court case. India's NIIT opens software exports complex New Delhi's largest software development complex, owned by NIIT Ltd (a part of the HCL Group, which has links with Hewlett-Packard and is the country's largest information technology firm) was inaugurated by the Commerce Minister last week. Built at a cost of $2 million, the complex, which holds 600 networked computers, is intended for exports. What NIIT calls an extended local area network has extensive links to the Internet and direct satellite links to overseas sites, allowing over 1,000 employees multimedia communication between more than 50 locations in 12 cities spread across five countries where NIIT operates. The $35 million company is among the largest information- technology training firms in the world, in terms of students; it trained well over 100,000 last year. It has migrated successfully to software development for exports; this now generates close to half its revenue. The Indian Techonomist: weekly summary. http://dxm.org/techonomist/ Copyright (C) 1996 Rishab Aiyer Ghosh (rishab@techonomist.dxm.org) Tel +91 11 6853410; Fax 6856992; H-34-C Saket New Delhi 110017 INDIA May be distributed electronically provided that this notice is attached ------------------------------ Subject: AT&T Wireless Rate Restructuring Date: Mon, 11 Mar 96 17:24:13 -0800 From: Larry Schwarcz Last week I got my LD bill for my cellular phone from AT&T. At first I was laughing since I hadn't made any LD calls and the bill was for $0.00. Well, it turns out they sent out bills to everyone just to inform us of a change in their hours for peak and non-peak billing hours. Enclosed was a notice from AT&T about a rate restructuring. They've eliminated the evening rates and now have peak rates from 8am - 11pm M-F and off-peak is 11pm - 8am M-F and Sat & Sun. Here's the whole letter from them: ------------------------------------- IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR WIRELESS LONG DISTANCE RATE STRUCTURE Dear AT&T Wireless Long Distance Customer: Effective April 1, 1996, AT&T will be changing its rate structure for the long distance portion of your California intrastate wireless calls. The basic difference you will find is in the way AT&T assesses charges for wireless long distance calling during different times of the day. This change does not affect your local wireless carrier's rates for airtime. The current rate periods will be changed to a new, simplified Peak and Off-Peak structure as follows: ______________________________________________________________________ | Current | New | |---------------------------------------------------------------------| | Day | 8am - 5pm Mon - Fri | Peak | 8am - 11pm Mon - Fri | |-----|--------------------------|-------|----------------------------| | Eve.| 5pm - 11pm Mon - Fri & | Off- | 11pm - 8am Mon - Fri & | | | Sunday | Peak | all weekend | |-----|--------------------------| | | | N/W | 11pm - 8am Mon - Fri & | | | | | weekends until 5pm Sun | | | |_____________________________________________________________________| The new wireless long distance Peak rate for an initial minute of a call will range from $0.12 to $0.15 per minute depending on the distance, while subsequent minutes of a call will range from $0.07 to $0.14 per minute. The old Off-Peak rates will range from $0.08 to $0.13 per initial minute of a call based on the distance, and subsequent minutes of a call will range from $0.06 to $0.109 per minute. While the elements of the rate schedule most utilized by callers have not been affected by this change, the new rate schedule does represent an overall average increase of approximately 15%. Depending upon your personal calling patterns you may very well see no change to your bill. You may communicate with the California Public Utilities Commission regarding the proposed restructuring within fifteen days at the following address: Telecommunications Branch, Commission Advisory and Compliance Division, California Public Utilities Commission, 505 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102 As always, AT&T looks forward to serving all of your wireless long distance needs. ----------------------------------------- Well, AT&T may look forward to serving all of my wireless LD needs, but, they won't have the chance. I switched to MCI today. AT&T may communicate with rate increases, but, I'll communicate back by giving my business to someone else. Lawrence R. Schwarcz, Software Design Engr/NCD Internet: lrs@cup.hp.com Hewlett Packard Company Direct: (408) 447-2543 19420 Homestead Road MS 43LN Main: (408) 447-2000 Cupertino, CA 95014 Fax: (408) 447-2264 Internal-only WWW: http://hpisrhw.cup.hp.com/~lrs/homepage.html ------------------------------ From: robert@caliper.com (Robert Freimer) Subject: More Allegations About MCI Date: 11 Mar 1996 17:59:27 -0500 Organization: Caliper Corporation bhofkin@nyx10.cs.du.edu (Bob Hofkin) writes: > A customer service rep told me about the Friends and Family deal, and > signed me up. She forgot to mention the package included an personal > 800 number. (I discovered this bonus via InternetMCI.) The 800 > service rep claimed they had generated these numbers for ALL their > customers, and I should have gotten a letter explaining the whole > thing a week earlier. The rep also claimed that each customer got a > unique (ten-digit) 800 number, and that the "PIN" was only for > security. (My own quickie test suggests that around one in ten "PIN" > codes is accepted.) > Do they do this deliberately? Do they make it up as they go along? I > have no idea, but accuracy sure doesn't seem to be MCI's strong point. This stupidity is consistent with the MCI's behavior that I saw before I gave up on them and switched carriers. They insist on setting up the insecure personal 800 numbers without notification nor permission anytime you switch calling programs. I had been happily using MCI for a few years until one month last fall, I discovered by reading my monthly bill that they had raised their Primetime program rates from .11/min to .13/min, eliminated their Best Friends program, and lowered their the discounts I received with my international calling plan without prior notice. After talking with the service rep, I gathered they wanted to phase out these old programs and either milk their customers who didn't notice the change or else convince you to switch to their new programs. Their behavior caused me to compare rates and discover that Frontier had a much better domestic calling plan (.10/min except 8-5 M-F) for moderate domestic usage than either MCI or AT&T, and slightly better hours than Sprint, so I decided to switch. Frontier didn't have quite as good international calling plan, but their rep mentioned that I could still have a 10XXX account with another company. I called MCI and told them that I wanted to keep my account and enroll in their new international calling plan and access their network using 10222. Their rep said this would be fine. Of course he was wrong. I received a letter listing my new service, which included the undesired 800 number. When I called to complain, I was told that they had canceled all my discount programs since I no longer had 1+ dialing and claimed it was due to billing issues. At which point, I said that I would stop using them completely, but they would have give me the promised discounted rates on the international calls that I had already made. Those calls were billed correctly, but directly by MCI instead of NYNEX. So who knows what the supposed billing issues were that prevented them from having 10222 accounts. However, the next month I received a bill for something like $3, because they still had left the personal 800 number active and there is a monthly fee if that is your only service with MCI. One more call finally cleared that up. The following month, they send me a switch-over check for $50, thinking they could bribe me to return. Doesn't it ever occur to them, that if they treated their customers better to start with, they could save such expenses. The other interesting part of this experience is with Sprint, which I am now happily using for International calls. They had no problem with my request for an account with 10333 access. However, their scripts are geared to 1+ customers, since they tell you to call you local phone company, which of course should be unnecessary in such situations. I took this advice to mean I should get NYNEX to block switch requests from long distance companies. Luckily I did, since later Sprint sent me a postcard stating that they had tried to switch me, but could not. A call to the 800 number on the card, straightened up the problem but their rep warned me that their records indicated that I had been switched earlier that week. A final call to NYNEX showed that was not the case and the account has been correct ever since. After these experiences, I am now very cynical that the major long distance companies are intentional making everything as complicated as possible in the hope that most people will give up and just accept what comes. Robert Freimer robert@caliper.com Software Engineer Caliper Corporation Mapping the Way 1172 Beacon Street, Newton, Massachuessets 02161 USA (617)527-4700 (617)527-5113 (Fax) http://www.caliper.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #113 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue Mar 12 23:48:20 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id XAA14896; Tue, 12 Mar 1996 23:48:20 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 23:48:20 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199603130448.XAA14896@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #114 TELECOM Digest Tue, 12 Mar 96 23:47:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 114 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson 710 NCS GETS Explained in Detail (Shawn Travis) British Columbia 604/250 Split: End Date Advanced (Dave Leibold) More Details on the Western Union Clocks For Sale (TELECOM Digest Editor) Bell Altantic CID - 3 for 3 (Steve Granata) 800 Protection Deadline March 15 (Judith Oppenheimer) RAM/Mobitex 'Sweeping' Question (Daniel Heilman) 55 Octet BERT Pattern (Andrew Morley) Deadlock Detection In Distributed Systems (Bernard L. Bailey) Advertisement of 900 Numbers (Jan Ceuleers) 888 Appears in Advertisement (Carl Moore) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: stravis@glass.toledolink.com (Shawn Travis) Subject: 710 NCS GETS Explained in Detail Date: 13 Mar 1996 02:22:48 GMT Organization: Toledo Internet Access, Inc. Copied from the NCS-GETS website... HOW GETS LOGO WORKS The tremendous growth in the telecommunications industry has enabled Government users to expand services at reduced costs, which, in turn, has increased our reliance on the telephone. But this growth has been accompanied by an increased vulnerability to a variety of problems. Economic viability and technical feasibility have combined to produce such advances as nationwide fiber optic networks, high-speed digital switching, and intelligent features. Although backup systems are in place, the loss of a single fiber optic cable or the failure of a computer program can disrupt thousands of telephone customers for hours or days. GETS provides a cost-effective means to overcome network outages through the following key features: * Dialing Plan * Access Control Through PINs * Enhanced Routing * Priority Treatment * Signaling * International Calling * Interoperability with Other Networks * Transmission Augmentation and Restoration * Access Through "Number Translation" Calls * Protection of Records DIALING PLAN The dialing plan is based on the 710 area code that is reserved for NS/EP use. This area code is valid in the IECs and all LECs, cellular carriers, and foreign carriers. The normal access mode is through your pre-subscribed long-distance carrier by dialing the universal access number. If this is not successful, alternative long-distance carriers can be accessed by first dialing 10288 for AT&T, 10222 for MCI, or 10333 for Sprint, followed by the universal access number. Means of accessing GETS through FTS2000, DISN, or other Government capabilities are also available. ACCESS CONTROL THROUGH PINS GETS has been designed to ensure that only authorized users access the service through the distribution, use, and control of PINs. The GETS user will be provided with a unique PIN that must be used to access the service. After the universal access number has been dialed, the GETS user will be prompted to enter a PIN and destination number. If the PIN is valid, the call will be processed. If the PIN is not valid (for example, if you entered it incorrectly), you will be prompted to reenter the PIN. If the PIN, after three attempts, is again determined to be invalid, the call will be disconnected. If the access control system fails, the call will be processed and allowed to complete. PINs can be deactivated for fraud or abuse. ENHANCED ROUTING LEC, cellular, and foreign carriers will route 710 calls to one of the three IECs. AT&T has implemented an enhanced routing service for 710 calls in its network. Enhanced routing services for MCI, Sprint, and the LECs are under evaluation for benefits and cost effectiveness. PRIORITY TREATMENT GETS traffic receives priority treatment over normal traffic through: * Controls such as trunk queuing, trunk subgrouping, or trunk reservation. * Exemption from restrictive network management controls that are used to reduce network congestion. * High probability of completion (HPC) capability to provide: + NS/EP identification + Priority signaling. These features enhance the capability of NS/EP calls to be completed in congested networks. GETS will not preempt public traffic, nor are there levels of precedence in GETS. SIGNALING The normal signaling provided by the LECs, IECs, cellular carriers, and foreign carriers will be used for 710 traffic. This includes inband and common channel signaling. INTERNATIONAL CALLING GETS can be used to place or receive an international call. GETS routes the call to the appropriate international gateway switch for subsequent call completion to the destination country. For GETS calls that are originated overseas and destined for the United States, the foreign carrier assigns the call to the appropriate IEC in accordance with existing arrangements. After the call has reached the gateway switch in the United States, it is routed to access control for PIN validation and then to the destination. INTEROPERABILITY WITH OTHER NETWORKS You can access GETS through your FTS2000 or DISN circuits by first accessing these circuits and then entering the universal access number. The FTS2000 or DISN switch will automatically route the call to GETS. This direct access around potential PSN problems using facilities of FTS2000 or DISN is an important method of avoiding outages or congestion in the local carriers. TRANSMISSION AUGMENTATION AND RESTORATION GETS uses the following OMNCS-managed capabilities to provide improved connectivity and network management service during times of crisis. * Commercial Satellite, providing transmission augmentation through new and emerging satellite resources. * Commercial Networks, providing transmission augmentation through terrestrial, fiber optic, microwave, and transportable capabilities. * Cellular Priority Access, nationwide access/egress into GETS through commercial cellular services. * National Telecommunications Management Structure (NTMS) and Telecommunications Service Priority (TSP), providing network management and restoral. ACCESS THROUGH "NUMBER TRANSLATION" CALLS GETS provides called telephone number translations for users who require this type of service. PROTECTION OF RECORDS Carriers that provide access control capabilities protect PIN data bases and call record information by limiting access to selected trusted personnel. _________________________________________________________________ GETS Logo Return to the GETS Front Page NCS Logo Return to the NC-PP Home Page _________________________________________________________________ Last update: June 22, 1995 - National Communications System: oconnoj@cc.ims.disa.mil owensw@cc.ims.disa.mil [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So much for its 'top secret' status, huh? The universal access number referred to above is 710-NCS-GETS or in all digits, 710-627-4387. That is apparently the only number which is access- ible in the 710 'area code', usually defined as 'government special services' or 'special government services'. Obviously, if you do not have a valid PIN you should not be playing with it, and I think it is safe to assume calls to the number are logged or recorded using ANI, or a similar method. I suspect however there are other features and functions in 710 which the nice press release above does not discuss. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Dave.Leibold@superctl.tor250.org (Dave Leibold) Date: 11 Mar 96 20:49:10 -0500 Subject: British Columbia 604/250 Split: End Date Advanced; NXX Details Bellcore released an information letter on the upcoming NPA 604/250 area code split for British Columbia. The split will begin 19 Oct 1996, but the "mandatory" date (the date at which area code 250 must be used to dial BC areas outside the lower mainland - that is Metro Vancouver and surrounding communities) is now 6 April 1997, advanced from 1 June 1997. BC Tel claims that 604 is in jeopardy of exhausting all its exchange or NXX codes earlier than the original mandatory date. Changes to ANI (automatic number identification) will be completed by 7 March 1997. NXXes (central office codes) will split as follows as transcribed from the Bellcore Letter listing. (* following an NXX means it is new since 1 Jan 1996). I haven't had time to map places to the NXXes yet. Remaining in 604: 202 205 209* 215 217 218 219* 220 221 222 224 228 230 231 240 241 244 250 251 252 253 254 255 257 258 261 263 264 266 267 268 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 290 291 293 294 298 299 301 302 303 306 307 309 312 313 316 318 320 321 322 323 324 325 327 328 329 331 341 351 377 412 415 420 421 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 443 444 448 450* 451 452 454 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 469 473 482 483 485 486 487 488 501 514 517 520 521 522 524 525 526 527 528 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 538 540 541 543 550 551 552 555 556 572 574 576 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 588 589 590 591 594 596 597 599 601 602 603* 606 607* 608 612* 617* 618* 623 631 640 641 643 644 645 649 650 654 657 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 671 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 691 702 708 714 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 760 775 792 793 794 795 796 797 801 802 805 806 807 808 813 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 826 844 850 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 863 864 867 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 882 883 884 885 886 888 889 891 892 893 894 895 896 898 899 903 905 908 913* 915 917 918 921 922 924 925 926 927 929 930 931 932 933 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 951 961 970 975 977 978 979 980 981 983 984 985 986 988 990 Changing to area code 250: 203 212 216 223 225 226 227 229 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 242 243 245 246 247 248 249 256 259 260 262 265 269 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 292 295 296 297 304 305 308 314 315 317 319 326 330 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 413* 416 417 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 440 441 442 445 446 447 449 453 455 456 457 458 459 468 470 471 472 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 484 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 503* 523 529 537 539 542 544 545 546 547 548 549 553 554 555 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 573 575 577 578 579 587 592 593 595 598 613 614 615 616 620 621 622 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 642 646 647 648 651 652 653 655 656 658 659 670 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 690 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 706* 707 715 716 717 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 776 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 798 799 804 809 812 814 825 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 845 846 847 848 849 851 860 861 862 865 866 868 881 887 890 897 902 906 920 923 928 934 935 949 952 953 954 955 956 957 960 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 971 972 973 974 982 989 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 Fidonet : Dave Leibold 1:259/730 Internet: Dave.Leibold@superctl.tor250.org ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Mar 96 09:20 CST From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: More Details on the Western Union Clocks For Sale After mentioning last week that several clocks had been located and were available for sale, the seller reports getting quite a few inquiries from Digest readers. Below is the standard letter he is sending out to inquiries in case you are interested. Once this supply has been sold, I do not know when/where there will be more. I suppose they are around. You should write direct to eli@seldon.terminus.com to place an order or ask more questions. Please note that if you get a clock or two, obviously the setting circuit will be inoperative, considering Western Union discontinued that service about thirty years ago. However there are a couple of clever things you can do: 1) A program is available on the net somewhere which allows you to set the clock using your PC by making a call to NAVOBS. When NAVOBS returns the time, your PC clicks a relay that hits the clock and yanks the hand as needed. 2) If you are patient and careful in hanging the clock *absolutely level* and then *barely tweaking* the pendulum up or down as needed once a day for a few days and then once a week or so for a month afterward, you will in essence have it keeping perfect time anyway, or so close that it will be hard for your eye to discern any adjustment needed for a month or so at a time. 3) Run a nine volt battery in series through a doorbell button you hide under your desk somewhere, up to the setting circuit on the clock. Then once every month or two when you note the clock is possibly 30-45 seconds in error based on a phone call to NAVOBS, you tap the button at just the right time. 4) The little red light bulb in the center of the dial was intended to flash when the setting circuit was activated. You can leave it that way or if you prefer, wire the light so it illuminates on the winding rather than on the setting. Mine are all hourly winders; I think some of the ones he is selling are fifteen minute winders while others are hourly. One of mine has a sixty beat per minute mechanism and one has a ninety beat per minute mechanism. The ones he is selling are all sixties I think. There were various styles of clock as well as dial. He notes his are all sixteen inch dials. Oddly, the one large brown one in a metal case that I have does *not* say Self Winding Clock Company on the dial, although it has that stamped on the works. The one I have in a wooden case says Self Winding Clock Company on the dial and not a word about WUTCO, yet inside is a diagram from WUTCO about how to hang the clock, and using a pencil inside the cabinet someone wrote it was installed in the Board of Education lunchroom in May, 1939. Anyway, quite a few people have asked at one time or another about getting these; all I can tell you is do so now if you plan to. He can probably rustle up a few more clocks if the demand is there. PAT Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 04:41:54 -0800 From: eli@seldon.terminus.com Subject: Re: Round Western Union Self Winding Clock W/Sweep Sec Hand To: telecom@rci.ripco.com (Pat Townson) Thanks for interest. I have 9 (metal case) Western Union Clocks made by The Self Winding Clock Co Of NY. They all have 16" dials, run, keep very good time and are in good shape. The work needed is mainly cosmetic with nothing 30 minutes of cleaning and paint couldn't fix. This is no "rip off" or scam, these babies are great. You can take one out of a ups box, hang it on a wall, hook up to a 3 volt transformer or 2 of the old large and cylindrical 1.5 volt batteries and away it goes. If you collect and like Americana these Clocks are a must. I have 3 square and 5 round with sweep second hand, 1 square with no second hand. I am told they are all pre WWII. Each has a movement with a serial number and a matching tag in the case with the same number. The dials are very off white and say: Naval Observatory Time WESTERN UNION Self Winding Clock Co. Inc. New York There's a lightning bolt under Western Union and above Self Winding etc. The cases are brown and look nice. IMPORTANT: They must not have more than 3 volts DC used to wind them, I know a couple that didn't survive the shock (ouch, did I say that?). If you would like a picture in .GIF or .JPG, let me know and I will attach one to a return post for you. Now........the hardest part of the deal..............they are gonna go for $180.00 plus $10.00 for shipping and will be in working condition when they leave. If you don't get one, you'll wish you had when you see one. Thanks again. Jim Hill [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: He does not mention them having the little red light bulb in the center and there were a few models that did not have it, but I am pretty certain all of his do. Also, he says 'important must not have more than three volts to wind' and I have to say, this all depends ... if you wire the light bulb so it illuminates on the winding, it is a 3.2 volt bulb, so you want to use a six volt transformer. But otherwise as he says, use only three to be safe. I've never had trouble with mine not holding up well to slightly more than three volts; of course don't overdo it. If you use the tall cylindrical one and a half volt 'telephone cells' (two go in the case) they will last for *years* on the winding only but as soon as you wire the light bulb through them also, they tend to run down fast, which is why I use a small DC transformer instead. Also what he calls 'very off white' as the dial color, I refer to as 'cream'. If you order one or two of these, consider installing them in your office or in a public place where they'll be seen regularly, and watch the amazed looks they get from people who see them in operation. Most folks have never seen them; the ones who have, haven't seen them for years; they'll find them rather incredible. I might add they will find them rather tempting also, so make sure you mount it *well* and slightly out of reach of people who like to put their hands on things that don't belong to them. PAT] ------------------------------ From: sgranata@cais.com (Steve Granata) Subject: Bell Altantic CID - 3 for 3 Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 02:34:47 GMT Organization: Capital Area Internet Service, Inc. This is a follow-up to previous postings about the inability of Bell Atlantic subscribers to receive CID information from calls carried by AT&T long distance. I am a Bell Atlantic-VA local exchange subscriber, who recently signed-up for CID. My main purpose in having CID is to allow my out-of-town relatives to avoid tolls for leaving short messages on my answering machine. This past Saturday, the service went three-for-three. I received two long distance calls from Oregon, one carried by AT&T, the other by MCI. Both calls' numbers came through loud and clear, although neither call showed the name. For good measure, I dialed the landline number with my Sprint Spectrum PCS handset. Sure enough, CID displayed the handset number; what amazes me is that I can receive the number of a Sprint Spectrum phone, but I cannot receive CID information on calls placed by Bell Atlantic Mobile users. Steve Granata sgranata@cais.com http://members.aol.com/sgranata/index.htm ------------------------------ From: callbrand@aol.com (CallBrand) Subject: 800 Protection Deadline March 15 Date: 12 Mar 1996 16:03:25 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: callbrand@aol.com (CallBrand) Per earlier postings, there are currently approximately 375,000 toll-free vanity numbers set-aside -- grandfathered -- in the 888 area code. These 888 equivalents of existing 800 vanity numbers are protected, at least for the moment, from competition, trademark infringement, misdial costs, lost business and customer confusion, pending the FCC Rulemaking on replication. To add your 800 vanity number to this "protected" list, contact Database Services Management at 908-699-2100. If you are submitting fifty 800 numbers or less, submissions will be accepted in writing directly from subscribers. If your list exceeds fifty 800 numbers, DSMI asks that your submission be on disk. Email me directly for submission specs (both written and disk). No charge. Judith Oppenheimer, President, Interactive CallBrand A leading source of information on 800 issues. CallBrand@aol.com, 1 800 The Expert, (ph) 212 684-7210, (fx) 212 684-2714 http://www.users.nyc.pipeline.com:80/~producer/ [TELECOM Dgiest Editor's Note: And as per the discussion here last week, if you think this is all silly as some have noted, then respond by getting your various 800 numbers replicated in 888 today. Just a couple days remain for this exercise. PAT] ------------------------------ From: danh@rain.org (Daniel Heilman) Subject: RAM/Mobitex 'Sweeping' Question Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 21:34:09 GMT Organization: RAIN Public Access Internet (805) 967-RAIN Is there a way using MASC protocol (or otherwise) to force my Motorolla 435i modem to its 'sweep' mode so it can try to find a stronger base (tower)? Currently, I lock onto a tower in NY, and my vehicle drives to New Jersey. My signal strength plummets, but the unit will not sweep to find a potentially better tower. I've called RAM, and they can SOMETIMES ping my unit. RAM tells me I'm locked onto a tower in NY, but the closest tower would be in Elizabeth NJ. My battery strength is okay. So far, I shut down the modem and restart it (which takes extra time) and when the modem is brought back online, I get the closer tower and all my packets go out. ------------------------------ From: Andrew Morley Subject: 55 Octet BERT Pattern Date: Tue, 12 Mar 96 15:53:42 GMT Organization: Trend Communications Ltd. Reply-To: andym@trend.demon.co.uk Does anyone know where the 55 Octet BERT pattern is defined. Presumably it is in some ANSI or (possibly?) Bellcore document, but which? I'm sure I can remember reading such a doument but I can't remember what it was called. Can anyone help? Andrew Morley ------------------------------ From: bbailey1@osf1.gmu.edu (Bernard L Bailey) Subject: Deadlock Detection In Distributed Systems Date: 12 Mar 1996 23:48:02 GMT Organization: George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA My name is Bernard L. Bailey (bbailey1@gmu.edu), and I attend George Mason University. I am currently working on a paper concerning Deadlock detection in Distributed Systems, however, there is an issue I could use some advice on. In my research, I have yet to see the issue of how to determine which algorithm is best for your system. If anyone can email me some documentation at the above address it would be greatly appreciated. I am also welcoming any on the job expertise that readers would like to pass on e.g.. How did you make the decision to use a specific deadlock detection algorithm? Which algorithm is best used with what type of station? Does a limit exist on how many users a certain algorithim is good for, etc? Please email any responses to the above address. ------------------------------ From: Jan Ceuleers Date: Tue, 12 Mar 96 18:45:32 +0100 Subject: Advertisement of 900 Numbers 900 numbers, at least in Belgium, are numbers that carry a surcharge which is partly paid to the subscriber of the 900 number. This means that calling a 900 number is generally more expensive than calling other numbers, and that the called party makes money out of people calling him. I'd be interested in hearing about the regulations applying to the advertisement of 900 numbers or their equivalents in different countries, particularly with respect to the requirement or lack thereof to mention the price (per time unit) of a call in the advertisement. If such a requirement does not exist, is there a requirement to mention the price of the call during the first few seconds of the conversation, giving the caller time to hang up if he does not agree with the charges? Olease respond directly to: Jan.Ceuleers@f857.n292.z2.fidonet.org and I'll be happy to summarize. Thanks, Jan Ceuleers ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Mar 96 15:43:02 EST From: Carl Moore Subject: 888 Appears in Advertisement OK, it has happened; I have heard a radio advertisement for 888-ABS-4000. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, you are a day late. Danny B, reported here Monday that 888-VIRUS-NO was in service. I suppose that we will start seeing a flurry of 888 numbers now over the next few months in the same way that once the new style area codes became 'official' they started popping up all over the place. Anyone on the list called in yet to get their 800 number replicated, or put in an order for an 888 number? As always, stories welcome. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #114 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Mar 13 00:25:06 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id AAA18196; Wed, 13 Mar 1996 00:25:06 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 00:25:06 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199603130525.AAA18196@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #115 TELECOM Digest Wed, 13 Mar 96 00:24:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 115 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson 1996 ICFC Agenda (bdacxgr@newark1.bell-atl.com) Ohio ISDN Correction (Monty Solomon) US Phonebooks on the Web (RISKS via Jonathan Welch) WWW.Switchboard.Com (Dale Robinson) TAPI Bakeoff IV Announcement (Toby Nixon) Employment Opportunity: Manager RF System Engineering (Kossuth Associates) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BDACXGR@NEWARK1.BELL-ATL.COM Subject: 1996 ICFC Agenda Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 11:43:51 -0500 1996 INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS FORECASTING CONFERENCE THE GRAND KEMPINSKI OF DALLAS April 16-19, 1996 1996 ICPC PROGRAM Tuesday, April 16 1:00 - 2:30 Tutorial:Technology Substitution Larry Vanston,Ph.D Technology Futures, Inc. 3:00 - 4:30 Tutorial:Maket Share Simulation Winslow Farrell Coopers & Lybrand Wednesday, April 17 8:15 - 8:20 Opening Remarks: Dennis Trimble - GTE 8:20 - 8:25 Welcoming Speech: GTE President 8:30 - 10:00 Plenary Session: Dr. Alfred Kahn "Deregulation and Competition in the Telecom Industry" 10:35 - 12:20 Plenary Session: Dr. Alan Pearce "Telecom Act of 1996 and Future of the Telecom Industry" 12:00 - 6:00 Technology Showcase 2:00 - 3:00 Concurrent Sessions Issues in Wireless Evolution I Chair: R. Green - BellSouth "Wireless Communications and Technology Susbstituion: What S-Curves Reveal about Pending Cellular Competition" James Shaw Ph.D Director Applied Economics Program University of San Francisco "PCS in Peril: the Price of Complacency" Dr. Nettleton President NettWork Consulting International Toll: I Chair: C. Dineen - Bell Canada "Modeling Toll Demand in a Competitive Environment" Mohammed B. Abrar Chris Dineen Bell Canada "A Model of Spain-Europe Telecommunications" Teresa Garvin-Munoz, Universidad Nacional de Ecucacion a Distancia, Spain Teodosio Perez-Amarl Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain Forecasting with Real Time Data Chair: P. Cox - Bell Atlantic "Real Time Switch Capacity Information along with Current Customer Usage Trends Makes for Expert Forecasting in Today's Dynamic Environment" David Brogdon Bearcreek Technology "Daily Traffic Analysis and Seasonal Adjustment" Steve Guo Sprint Long Distance Division Enhanced Services Chair: T.Applebe - Bell Canada "An Econometric Demand Model of Non Published Number Messaging" Anderson Reynolds SBC Communications "Cross-sectional Analysis of Subscription to Call Waiting in Canada Using 1992 Data" D.L.Solvason Bell Canada 3:30 - 4:30 Concurrent Sessions Model Specifications Chair: F. Sabetan - PacTel "A Common Probit/Random Utility Framework for Conjoint Experiment: Formulation, Efficient Estimation, and Inference" Greg Duncan GTE Labs "LATA Toll Price Elasticity Estimators: Non-Parametric Methods" Armando Levy University of California, Berkeley International Toll II Chair: L. Thompson - SNET "Competition and the Regionalization of Tele- communications Demand" Michael Berlage EUTELIS Consult, Germany "An Alternative to Multiple Regression Methods II: Elasticities Estimation" Nelson Alvarez Telefonica, Spain New Forecasting Techniques I Chair: B. McGrory - NYNEX "Best Forecasting Practices and Benchmarks" Geof Wyght SRCI, Canada "Activity Based Forecasting" Peter Dilworth Bell Canada Local Competition I Chair: K. Bjornstad - Bell Atlantic "Criterion Based Cluster Analysis and Segmented Forecasting" Gary Sakihara GTE Telops "Customer Switching Behavior: Local Competition" Brian Staihr Sprint Local Division Thursday, April 18 8:15 - 9:45 Panel Discussion Bob Stoeffels-Moderator "Competition in the Local Loop; Who will it Help?, Who will it Hurt?, and How do we Plan for it?" Bob Casali-SBC, Victor Glass-NECA Tony Parella-MFS Vince Vittore-Cable News 10:15 - 11:45 Concurrent Sessions Issues in Wireless Evolution II Chair: M. Cristiani - Cincinnati Bell "Discrete Choice Analysis for Multi-Attribute Products and Services: A PCS Case Study" Terry J. Atherton Cambridge Systematics Moshe Ben-Akiva MIT "Forecasting Demand for Mobile Communications in a Simultaneous Equations Framework" Seuing Hee Choi Electronic & Telecommunications Research Institute, Korea Additional Residential Access Lines Chair: R. Williamson, SBC "Telephone Subscribership and Employment: A Simultaneous Probit Model" Emily Hoffnar FCC Michael Green University of North Texas "Empirical Investigation of Household Multiple Phone Line Demand" Daniel Tantum AT&T "Cross-sectional Analysis of Residential Telephone Susbcription and Additional Line Subscription in Canada using 1994 Data" D.L.Solvason Bell Canada California Toll Demand Chair: R. Jacob - Sprint "Effects of Large Price Reductions on Toll and Carrier Access Demand" Tim Tardiff NERA "Modeling Toll Demand in a Competitive Environment: A Case Study of California" Paul Rappoport Temple University Lester Taylor University of Arizona Don Kridel University of Missouri, St. Louis, Bill Newman PNR and Associates New Forecasting Techniques II Chair: R. Luginbill - Ameritech "Adaptive Forecasts for the Communications Industry" D.H. Phillps University of North Carolina, Charlotte "Competitive Intelligence into Forecasts: the Relevanceof Data Fusion and Posture Assessment Modeling" Paul Caldwell CEO PSYTEP "Market Analysis and Demand Forecasting using Neural Net Technology" Dr. Richard Hoptroff President Right Information Systems 11:45 - 12:15 Concurrent Sessions GDP Data Revisions Chair: R. Richardson - USWest "Gross Domestic Products Revisions: What Have They Done to Our Statistics" David K. Pitcher Bell Atlantic The Communication Fraud Perpetrator Chair: D. Jauchius - Bellcore "The Loyal Dark Side of Your Customer Base: the Fraud Perpetrator" Virginia Ferrara Bellcore Demand in Emerging-Market Countries Chair: C. Dineen - Bell Canada "Assessing Demand Forecasts for Emerging-Market Countries" Peter J. Macaulay Deloitte & Touche, Canada TV Transmission Techniques & Trends Chair: P. Cox - Bell Atlantic "Television Transmission Techniques, Technologies, Trends and Trades" Khalid Kahn MCI 2:00 - 3:00 Concurrent Sessions Issues in Wireless Evolution III Chair: M. Cristiani - Cincinnati Bell "Statistical Regressions among Dynamic Simulation Scenarios in Wireless Markets" Stephen Maloney Devonrue LTD "The Demand for Cellular Phone and Cellular Calls" Bill Newman PNR & Associates Paul Rappoport Temple University Lester Talyor University of Arizona Post Telcom Reform: Issues & Forecasting Chair: D. Jauchius - Bellcore "Competitive Telecommunications and Its Aftermath:Economic Policy Issues and Modeling Needs" Andy Banerjee NERA "Revenue-Based Capacity Management in Telecommunications" Randall S. Stanislav Bellcore Douglas A. Gray Sabre Decision Technologies Consumer & Marketing Strategy Chair: A. Parrish - SBC "Advertising and Marketing Strategies of Telecommunications Firms" Sandra D. Rhue Bellcore "Telecom Technology Acceptance and Aversion: an End User Perspective" Carl E. Batt Bellcore Local Competition II Chair: R.Richardson - USWest "Local Competititve Cost Structure" Lawrence J. Cataldo Laurie C. Spiegel Frank J. Szczurek Bellcore "The Implications of Cross-Industry Competition: A Comparison of IXC and LEC Positioning versus Electric Utilities" Kerry Diehl PNR & Associates 3:30 - 4:30 Concurrent Sessions New Products and Choices Chair: F. Sabetan - Pactel "Estimating Long-run Telephone and Cable TV Demand in Chile: A Multinomial Logit Approach" John S. Watters Phillp K. Clark Basile P. Goungetas, SBC Communications "The Introduction of a New Interactive Information Service:the Individual Demand for Telebanking" Massimo G. Colombo Universita degli Studi di Pavia, Italy Paola Garrone Politechnico di Milano, Italy Market Assessment Tools Chair: K. Bjornstad - Bell Atlantic "Finding Demand and Response "Truth" in Forecasts of New Telecommunications Products" Susan Higgins Rob Arnett The M/A/R/C Group "Predicting the Diffusion Path of a New Service via NEWSMART" Siddhartha R. Dalal Yu Yun Ho Robert P. Sherman Bellcore Competitive Simulation Games Chair: B. McGrory - NYNEX "And the Winner Is?: Simulation and War Gaming to Create Winning Competitive Strategies" Devereaux G. Dion Vice President Advanced Competitive Strategies Local Competition III Chair: R. Jacob - Sprint "One -Stop Shopping for Communications Services- Research Method and Design" John Colias The M/A/R/C Group "An Approach to Analyze a Wholesale Strategy" Michael N. Murphy Juan Carlos Ortiz Bellcore Friday, April 19 8:15 - 9:45 Plenary Session: Dr. Peter Huber "The Internet and Future of Telecom Industry" 9:45 - 10:00 Concluding Remarks/Next Year's ICFC Peter Chung - GTE 10:30 - 12:00 Tutorial: Forecasting Techniques Dr. Oral Capps Texas A & M University ************************************************************ Special Opportunity!!!!!! Technology Forecasting for the Telcom Industry Instructor: Larry Vanston, Ph.D. Technology Futures, Inc. Grand Kempinski Hotel Attend this class, immediatelly preceeding the 1996 ICFC, and receive a 10% discount on the normal seminar fee and the 1996 ICFC fee. For enrollment, call 800-835-3887, 512-258-8898 Fax=512-258-0087; Fee=$995 in US dollars ************************************************************ REGISTRATION INFORMATION Registration Fees: Early Registration: $500 in US dollars Before March 25,1996 Late Registration: $550 in US dollars After March 25, 1996 One Day Registration: $150 in US dollars Student Rate: $150 in US dollars for the Conference Hotel Accommodations: The Grand Kempinski Hotel of Dallas The conferees need to register with the Hotel Directly by calling: 800-426-3135 or 214-386-6000, FAX: 214-701-0342. The Hotel room rate (single or double) is $110.00 in US dollars. Conference fees: Methods of Payment: The preferred method of payment is a check or money order payable to: ICFC 96. However an optional credit card registration is allowed. BUT ALL CONFEREES SHOULD FILL OUT THE FOLLOWING FORM AND SEND IT ALONG WITH CHECK, MONEY ORDER OR CARD INFORMATION TO: Attn: Don Gorman 204 Murray School Road Tel: 610-469-0515 Pottstown, PA 19465, USA Fax: 610-469-0515 Registration Form: First Name____________________Last Name_________________________ Company Name & Title____________________________________________ Street________________________________City______________________ Prov/State__________________________Country_____________________ Post/Zip__________________________ Tel:______________________________ Fax_______________________________ InternetMail____________________________________ Check/Money order enclosed________$500, or_________$550, or _________$150 (One Day Pass) , or _________$150 (Student). For Credit Card Registration: Card:_____AMEX, _____MC, _____VISA ______OTHER, Please specify the card name____________________ Card No.____________________________, Expiration Date______________ Name on the card if different from the registration_______________________ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 23:33:04 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Ohio ISDN Correction Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM Begin forwarded message: Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 14:48:57 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: love@Essential.ORG From: James Love Subject: Ohio Correction Oops! I quoted the $26 distance charge for Ohio as the monthly fixed rate. It should have been $32.20. I'm sure there are a number of other problems with various tariffs, and I'll try to report some more states and some corrections by next week. some of the area which are a bit thorny to work out are figuring out what has been left in and left out of the various reports (local calling usage fees, state taxes, FCC network access fees, etc). jamie http://www.ameritech.com/products/data/rates.html AMERITECH ISDN DIRECT SERVICE - RESIDENCE CHARGES (Popular 2-channel configuration as used in Ameritech Professional Package) DESCRIPTION IL-A IL-B IL-C IN MI OH WI 1 STANDARD ACCESS LINE 2.55 5.53 9.00 - 8.01 6.70 5.40 2 SUPP LINE CHARGE 3.50 3.50 3.50 4.33 3.50 3.50 3.50 3 ISDN 2B VOICE/DATA * 22.00 22.00 22.00 90.50 22.00 22.00 22.00 ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 4 TOTAL MONTHLY CHARGE # $28.05 $31.03 $34.50 $94.83 $33.51 $32.20 $30.90 5 MONTHLY DIST EXTENSION $22.50 $22.50 $22.50 $22.50 $20.25 $26.00 $20.75 (if required)# 6 ONE-TIME INSTALLATION $135.00 $135.00 $135.00 $127.00 $122.00 $116.50 $113.05 * Subtract $4.00 month (IN=$37.50) and $15.00 one-time for a single voice/data channel (versus 2-channel configuration, priced above). # Does not include applicable taxes and state mandated 911 charges. Also standard residential usage charges will apply (except for Indiana, where voice usage is included as a flat rate monthly charge above, and data calls are charged at $.09 for first ten-minute period and $.09 for each five-minute increment thereafter.) Monthly distance extension charge applies for service to customer locations that are beyond 18,000 feet from the local telephone company exchange office location. IL: IL-A is for downtown Chicago, IL-B for the rest of Chicago and select suburbs, and IL-C is the rest of Illinois. To order Home Professional & ISDN service call: 1-800-419-5400. To order Business Professional & ISDN service call: 1-800-417-9888. For general information on ISDN call: 1-800-TEAMDATA (800-832-6328). James Love / love@tap.org / P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036 Voice: 202/387-8030; Fax 202/234-5176 Center for Study of Responsive Law Consumer Project on Technology; http://www.essential.org/cpt Taxpayer Assets Project; http://www.essential.org/tap ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 13:33:56 -0500 From: Jonathan_Welch Subject: US Phonebooks on the Web Pat, I thought you might be interested in the following article, which came out recently in RISKS Digest. Jonathan Welch VAX Systems Manager Umass/Amherst JHWELCH@ecs.umass.edu Subject: RISKS DIGEST 17.86 Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 09:11:41 -0500 From: Joseph125@aol.com Subject: New web page and risks to personal information The web page of the week in the most recent {Information Week} is www.switchboard.com. It is a compilation of the telephone white pages from all across the nation. You can search on combinations of last name, first name, city and state to find long lost friends, relatives or just interesting names. (A quick search found a Santa Claus in FL and a Bunny Easter in WA.) This kind of information is not particularly new, of course. What is interesting is that Switchboard allows you to register by identifying your listing and sending your email address. They send back a password. Now you can login and add or modify information in your listing or even make your listing "unlisted". It is clearly a very easy thing to use throwaway email addresses to modify any number of listings. Switchboard admits as much in their policy statement (http://www2.switchboard.com/policy.htm) saying that their security is "designed to discourage" such impersonation. They will correct any falsification with appropriate documentation and take steps (this seems to mean blocking access from the offending email address) to prevent additional occurrences including, if applicable, legal action. (I fear there is very little substance behind that claim.) Despite Switchboard's benevolent claims, the possibilities make me nervous. I should note that when a listing has been modified by a user, it appears with an asterisk. Joseph Richardson (Joseph125@aol.com) ------------------------------ From: Dale.Robinson@DWNPLAZA.NCOM.nt.gov.au Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 22:52:10 +0930 Subject: WWW.Switchboard.Com Pat, Thought this might be of interest! In a recent comp.risks digest (V17.86), a correspondant mentioned Switchboard.Com, which provides a electronic white pages. Now I'm not going to re-hash the risks mentioned, you can see the article at http://catless.ncl.ac.uk Anyway in the words of Switchboard.Com Web page (http://www.switchboard.com): "Find friends, colleagues, and old roommates for free. Any time, nationwide. Look up over 90 million names and get fast response to addresses, phone numbers, and personalized updates. Even send email to registered users." "Find over 10 million businesses across the U.S.A. for free. Whether or not they're on the web. Day or night with immediate results." It only seems to have U.S. people Regards, Dale ------------------------------ From: Toby Nixon Subject: TAPI Bakeoff IV Announcement Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 11:18:35 -0800 TAPI Bakeoff IV Announcement GTE Telephone Operations/GTE Hawaiian Tel and Microsoft will jointly host the next TAPI Bakeoff which will be held May 7-9 in Honolulu, Hawaii. The purpose of the "Bakeoff" is to provide a forum to test the interoperability of computer telephony software, hardware and network services. The event is open to developers of computer telephony applications and service providers that work with the Windows Telephony API (TAPI). TAPI provides a standard programming interface to integrate computer applications with telephone networks. The Bakeoff is a working event and participants must have products to test. Developers interested in participating in the Bakeoff can get more information by sending email to bakeoff@microsoft.com. An autoresponder will provide information about how to sign up and logistics. Space is limited and registration will be on a first-come, first-served basis. ------------------------------ From: kossuth@halcyon.com Subject: Employment Opportunity: Manager RF System Engineering Date: 12 Mar 1996 20:21:44 GMT Organization: Kossuth & Associates, Inc. MANAGER RF SYSTEM ENGINEERING COLORADO SPRINGS A leader in commercializing personal communications services, both as a major license holder and developer of technology and equipment, is looking for dynamic engineers to contribute to their fast-paced growth. The company's proprietary technology is suitable for a variety of digital wireless applications including mobile network systems and wireless local loop. The company is an FCC award winner for it's technological accomplishments in digital PCS systems. This opening offers the right candidate opportunity for career and financial growth with this newly public company. POSITION DESCRIPTION ** Lead the radio systems engineering staff for Omnipoint IS-661 PCS network development. ** Responsible for development of all radio system performance requirements including modulation/demodulation, coding, channel models, deployment models, hardware performance requirements, interference rejection, blocking, power control, handover, etc. ** Lead technical contributor in RF systems. ** Direct staff to perform analysis, simulation and testing of Omnipoint PCS systems to ensure compliance with market requirements. ** Document requirements and specifications to support both hardware/ software development engineering and marketing. ** Interact closely with counterparts in network systems engineering and hardware development engineering to ensure a cost-effective, deployable PCS network. QUALIFICATIONS ** MSEE/PhD Communications Theory ** 10+ years experience in radio systems engineering and analysis for commercial wireless applications, preferably cellular. ** Must be skilled in decomposing market/product requirements into detailed radio system performance specifications. ** Analysis skills to include link budget analysis, path loss modeling, deployment modeling, modulation techniques, handover algorithms, power control algorithms, multipath, adjacent and co-channel interference, blocking, etc. ** Strong analytical skills with extensive simulation and modeling experience (SPW and C). ** Must have excellent communication and presentation skills. ** Must be a strong leader with supervisory experience. Qualified candidates please send your resume to the company's search consultants at: Kossuth & Associates, Inc. 800 Bellevue Way N.E., Suite 400 Bellevue, WA 98004 fax (206) 450-0513 email kossuth@halcyon.com Kossuth & Associates, Inc. Is an executive search firm that specializes in the wireless communications industry. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #115 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Mar 13 13:03:12 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id NAA07477; Wed, 13 Mar 1996 13:03:12 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 13:03:12 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199603131803.NAA07477@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #116 TELECOM Digest Wed, 13 Mar 96 13:03:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 116 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Misuse of the Internet? (Benjamin Ellsworth) Re: Misuse of the Internet? (Phil Karn) Re: Misuse of the Internet? (David Hough) Re: Misuse of the Internet? (Steve Uhrig) Re: Misuse of the Internet? (Curtis Wheeler) Re: 888 Appears in Advertisement (Evan Ross) Re: 888 Appears in Advertisement (Bob Goudreau) Re: Maine Island Seeks Wider Calling Area (Wes Leatherock) Re: Maine Island Seeks Wider Calling Area (Stanley Cline) Re: Maine Island Seeks Wider Calling Area (Roavery) Re: Maine Island Seeks Wider Calling Area (Tad Cook) Re: NBA in Full Court Press (Bill Sohl) Re: NBA in Full Court Press (Atri Indiresan) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Benjamin Ellsworth Subject: Re: Misuse of the Internet? Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 08:10:30 -0600 Organization: Sapiens Technologies Ltd. > ... If it goes from Sound Blaster to Sound Blaster, then no > RBOC switches are involved. Hmmmmm ... how does it get between SB cards? Through RBOC switches you say? CB's are not at all analogous. Benjamin Ellsworth ben@sapiens.com ------------------------------ From: Phil Karn Subject: Re: Misuse of the Internet? Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 22:13:39 -0800 Organization: Qualcomm, Inc ACTA's "concern" over the load that packet voice puts on the Internet is a bit like the East Germans claiming they built the Berlin Wall out of sincere concern that West Berlin was becoming overpopulated. (Thanks to Mike O'Dell for this wonderful metaphor.) Phil ------------------------------ From: David Hough Subject: Re: Misuse of the Internet? Date: Wed, 13 Mar 96 08:50:30 GMT Organization: Chaotic In article sysop@cola.westmark. com (Rob Carlson) writes: > Why should the telcos suffer when they are forced to constantly > accomodate bandwitch-hungry 28.8bps modems which cannot be compressed? > I believe that perhaps they may be entitled to higher revenues for > high bandwidth calls, but that any collection methods (ie. a modem > tax) would be too intrusive and "tacky" for most customers to accept. > Think about it: a telephone call charge based on HOW you communicate > certain information? What is wrong with the telco detecting the use of data, putting their own modem on the line (and getting 28.8K data out), sending this as half a 64K channel to the far end, through another modem and out to the recipient. I understand that fax calls across the Atlantic are dealt with in this way. Dave djh@sectel.com Tel +44 1285 655 766 Fax +44 1285 655 595 ------------------------------ From: suhrig@bright.net (Steve Uhrig) Subject: Re: Misuse of the Internet? Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 00:43:25 GMT Organization: BrightNet Ohio sysop@cola.westmark.com (Rob Carlson) wrote: > Tom Crofford writes: >> We do a good deal of our equipment's service calls via modems. We >> make about four times the number of calls per extension as a >> non-information based company. >> So, do you think it is fair or unfair for a given telco to be required >> to support higher traffic levels without a revenue increase of some >> sort? > Its also crucial to consider that data calls prohibit telcos from > using one of the most potentially money saving technologies available > to them today -- voice compression. With inexpensive systems, it > would be possible for them to put six or seven (perhaps more) voice > calls in the same bandwidth as one with no audible loss of quality. Any telco that has any concern for the quality of service it provides to it's customers will opt for Concentration over Compression. The entire phone system is based on Concentration. I suppose that businesses should be happy with FAX speeds of 1200 or 2400 so some greedy telco can buy dirt cheap equipment. > Why should the telcos suffer when they are forced to constantly > accomodate bandwitch-hungry 28.8bps modems which cannot be compressed? > I believe that perhaps they may be entitled to higher revenues for > high bandwidth calls, but that any collection methods (ie. a modem > tax) would be too intrusive and "tacky" for most customers to accept. > Think about it: a telephone call charge based on HOW you communicate > certain information? 28.8 modems were designed to work over the majority of the telephone lines. It doesn't cost any more to option a subscriber line carrier for Concentration than it does to option it for Compression. In the 70s GTE was using concentrations of 2.3 to 1 and 3 to 1 concentration on all of their new Subscriber Carrier installations. In the last eight years, or so, everything has been 1 to 1. If a telco has an area that can't use Concentration, such as an Industrial Park, they should have enough brains to figure out that these businesses will be doing a lot of data calling and know that Compression is not a viable option either. Well, I will get off of my soap box now. Steve Uhrig Chillicothe, Ohio USA ------------------------------ From: C. Wheeler Subject: Re: Misuse of the Internet? Date: 13 Mar 1996 01:38:35 GMT Organization: CCnet Communications - Walnut Creek, CA I guess I am confused about how users of products like the I-Phone are denying carriers any revenue. Someone correct me if I am wrong on these points. Lets say I am a residential user. (1) I might be on a couple of hours a day. Probably dialed in to a local provider that has a modem pool nearby. The calls fall under my unlimited local calling. I pay my bill, so I am paying my LEC for the call. (2) My ISP is paying their LEC (or other legitimate carrier) for leased circuits from between their servers, routers, etc. They are also paying for all of the lines going into the modems pools, right? (3) My ISP is paying for circuits to connect them to other routers, servers, etc., I suppose. (4) The organizations that run the other routers, servers, etc. are paying for the facilities they use, right? (5) If any of these facilties go interLATA, an IXC is probably getting revenue for at least some of it. It would appear that ALL of the facilities that are being used are being paid for. Whose getting denied revenue? Am I thinking too simple of terms here? Maybe I just don't get it ... or maybe they have been giving it to me all along. :) Curtis ------------------------------ From: eross@terraport.net (Evan Ross) Subject: Re: 888 Appears in Advertisement Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 15:17:31 GMT Organization: Flashpoint Database Consulting Limited > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, you are a day late. Danny B. reported > here Monday that 888-VIRUS-NO was in service. I suppose that we will > start seeing a flurry of 888 numbers now over the next few months in > the same way that once the new style area codes became 'official' they > started popping up all over the place. Anyone on the list called in > yet to get their 800 number replicated, or put in an order for an 888 > number? As always, stories welcome. PAT] Pat, I put my order in for a vanity 888 for my company as soon as Bell Canada started accepting orders in February. About three or four weeks ago they let me know that the number is available, and it should be live sometime today. The Customer Service people actually knew what I was talking about when I called them -- will the miracles never cease?!? There is an American company also called Flashpoint that has 800-FLASHPT locked up, so they obviously didn't manage to replicate it. Evan Ross | 238 Davenport Rd., Suite 333, Flashpoint Database Consulting Ltd. | Toronto, ON M5R 1J6 +1-416-920-6926 | Fax +1-416-920-6936 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 11:00:20 -0500 From: goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) Subject: Re: 888 Appears in Advertisement Carl Moore wrote: > OK, it has happened; I have heard a radio advertisement for > 888-ABS-4000. To which PAT responded: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, you are a day late. Danny B, > reported here Monday that 888-VIRUS-NO was in service. Well, as long as we're trying to identify the first mass-media advertisement containing an 888 number, I suppose I had better mention one that predates both of the above episodes, although I imagine many readers out can cite even earlier ones. Sometime *last week* (March 4 or 5, I think), I heard a radio ad for 360 Communications, which is the new name for Sprint Cellular (in print ads, there's a degree symbol above the "360"). The phone number cited was 1-888-CALL-360. I tried it from my home phone (BellSouth), and it got through just fine. Bob Goudreau Data General Corporation goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive +1 919 248 6231 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, speaking of 360 Communications, I was going to run a small article I wrote about them later today but I guess I will mention them now. Although most people have never heard of them, they are planning to spend fifty million dollars this year to make sure that you know about them before the year is over. As you point out, it is the new name for Sprint's cellular service, which has been spun off as a company on its own. Their headquarters is in the Chicago area. Dennis Foster, president and CEO of the new 360 Communications noted the company 'plans to dominate the cellular market' before much longer. He said the company gained 462,000 new cellular customers in 1995, and they plan to have at least that many new customers come aboard in 1996. According to Foster, the company will expand tremendously in the cellular market this year, and he also expects the bottom line to improve as operating margins and cash flows increase, although he was not specific about how he intended to accomplish this. PAT] ------------------------------ From: wes.leatherock@hotelcal.com (Wes Leatherock) Subject: Re: Maine Island Seeks Wider Calling Area Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 14:26:00 GMT > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Do they *need* a new cable to carry > the traffic? Aren't we talking here more about bookkeeping entries > than we are any significant increase in traffic? Of course there is > a theory which says people do not need a particular telecom service > until they have it, then once it is available they use it a great > deal. So it is possible I guess that if the 'free' calling range is > expanded there will suddenly develop a lot more traffic than prev- > iously. But an entirely new cable being required? PAT] I remember many years ago when Nederland, Texas, finally got extended area service with Beaumont and Port Arthur. (Nederland is an exchange area located more or less midway between Beaumont and Port Arthur, and besides being a residential area also had quite a number of commercial and industrial installations, including the Beaumont- Port Arthur Airport, several major trucking company terminals that served both cities, and various other major employers. The EAS that was established was Beaumont-Nederland and Port Arthur-Nederland, but not Beaumont-Port Arthur.) Experience with EAS conversions was somewhat limited in those days, but usually 2 to 1 or at most 3 to 1 was the increase in traffic that occurred when a route became toll-free. The traffic engineers recognized that this was a little unusual situation, so they engineered generously with a 4 to 1 ratio. The office was in terrible shape right from cutover. When they finally got enough measuring equipment in to calculating the failing calls, they determined that the actual ratio was something like 12 to 1. It was a couple of years before they could finally get all the equipment and trunks in place, and in the meantime all the Plant supervisors had their raises held up because their indices had all kinds of failures. Of course, the bogeys set up were based on adequate equipment and trunking being provided, and failures in such cases indicated the plant was being poorly maintained. But it this case they were working their you-know-whats off just trying to keep it working under the overload but still got gigged. The results were so bad that they seriously affected the results for the division and had a significant impact on the results for the entire state of Texas. Wes Leatherock wes.leatherock@hotelcal.com wes.leatherock@baremetl.com ------------------------------ From: scline@usit.net (Stanley Cline) Subject: Re: Maine Island Seeks Wider Calling Area Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 01:46:25 GMT Organization: Catoosa Computing Services In comp.dcom.telecom, kd1nr@anomaly.ideamation.com (Tony Pelliccio) wrote: > In the longterm it's not very significant. It's just a typical Nynex > ploy to rape the consumer, and I do mean RAPE. What's funny about all this is that I got my BellSouth bill over the weekend, and guess what -- they were ADDING yet ANOTHER "rinky-dink" town, served by ALLTEL, to the local calling area. Right now I can call 30 miles south, 60 miles north, 25 miles east, and 25 miles west of home with NO LD charges (except for PART of one LEC -- see below.) It seems that BellSouth local calling areas are almost always huge -- Atlanta is the world's largest (so large that _multiple_ cellular carriers -- BellSouth and InterCel on B, AirTouch and two CellularOnes and US Cellular on A -- serve the "local" calling area!). Knoxville and Chattanooga are also large, including a number of independents; the Chattanooga, like Atlanta, local calling area contains multiple cellular carriers (who don't necessarily get along.) NYNEX is just playing games. > Of course there is hope. The folks that live in the Diamond Hill > section of Cumberland, RI fought like the devil with Nynex for several > years. Seems their calling area was only the extreme northern part of > the state with Providence, the capitol, being a toll. One telco in this area (Trenton GA Telephone) is LD to Chattanooga from all but one prefix (706-398). TTC charges nearly $60/mo for a "398" number for customers in the other prefixes (657 and 462) -- but over half of TTC's assigned numbers are 398; most residents have a "398" and a "657" or "462" number. Why? Everyone wants Chattanooga to be a local call. Worse, until recently those numbers only allowed calls INTO Trenton, NOT out to Chattanooga! OTOH, another independent, Ringgold Telephone, allows "local" calls that CROSS LATAs (to Dalton which is in the Atlanta LATA, but really shouldn't be!). They've been local to Chattanooga for nearly 35 years! Georgia State Reps. Mike Snow and Brian Joyce have pled with independent telcos (including Trenton) to expand calling areas. County-wide toll-free calling is now implemented in Georgia, but with some counties having as many as SIX telcos (Walker County before recently, for example), that was long, long in coming. "Communities of interest" in adjacent counties for some areas, such as Dalton/LaFayette, are still interLATA LD -- calls from LaFayette to Dalton often cost more than virtually any other call. US Cellular also has been troublesome and VERY uncooperative, charging Chattanooga/NW-GA CellOne customers nearly $1/min to "roam" in Dalton (with no call delivery to boot), while USCC's customers in Chattanooga pay less. BellSouth Mobility charges just 35c/min, and if the MFJ falls apart, Dalton may be LOCAL. Seems in this case, the big telco (BellSouth) wins out over small ones (Trenton, US Cellular, etc.) Stanley Cline (Roamer1 on IRC) ** GO BRAVES! GO VOLS! Catoosa Computing Services, Chattanooga, Tenn. mailto:scline@usit.net ** http://chattanooga.net/~scline/ CompuServe 74212,44 ** MSN WSCline1 ------------------------------ From: roavery@aol.com (Roavery) Subject: Re: Maine Island Seeks Wider Calling Area Date: 11 Mar 1996 12:13:17 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: roavery@aol.com (Roavery) Thanks for your replies to my original question re enlarging our island's calling area. (I am not a spokesman for our group.) I don't think Nynex or PUC claim that our limited calling area and the concomittant toll revenues we generate are directly linked to the cost of providing us phone service. Originally, the toll structure may have been based on actual costs, but it is now a mostly arbitrary structure designed to generate revenues in a predictable way while meeting customers' minimal expectations. As several people commented, the monthly service charge in each calling area is based on the number of telephones included in the calling area. By that standard, if Deer Isle received the larger calling area it seeks, its charge should go up several dollars per month. But the suggestion made to us is that we should pay much more than that, so as to totally compensate Nynex for the tolls we now generate. Under this approach, the more our toll calls increase with our current limited calling area, the more we would have to pay later to enlarge the area. Under the current system, Nynex is allowed so much state-wide profit; part of that profit currently comes from the tolls we pay. Suppose PUC decided to increase Nynex's total revenues; one way to do that would be to shrink some calling areas in the state and thereby generate more in-state tolls for the company. Unlikely of course, but the flip side of that approach is the status quo for Deer Isle. I think that rather alleging one group is subsidizing another, or that the "true costs" of service are such and such, the primary basis for allocating phone service should a standard of equivalent access at equivalent cost for all users; what is generally called "fairness." ------------------------------ From: Tad Cook Subject: Re: Maine Island Seeks Wider Calling Area Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 04:00:18 PST When adjusting the calling area for a small island, one thing to keep in mind is possible cross-subsidies for local service from toll. Providing local service to a small number of subscribers on an island is a lot more expensive (per subscriber) than providing service in the city. So already high local rates may be subsidized by all of the off-island toll calling. Eliminate most of the toll revenue, and basic rates may rise a lot. A few years ago Vashon Island was added to the local calling area for Seattle. I thought this was great, because it meant I wouldn't have to pay toll anymore to call my friend Elaine. It turns out that we US West customers in Seattle paid an additional 30 cents per month to have Vashon and also the community of Auburn (not really near Vashon Island) added to our free calling area. But guess what? Vashon Island isn't served by US West, its served by a small independent telco (now actually part of PTI) and in order to pay for the elimination of cross subsidy from all that local toll traffic to Seattle, PTI had to raise Vashon rates quite a bit. It seems to me it was six or eight bucks a month for residential and much more for business lines. As you would expect, because the rates and profits are regulated, for the average Vashon customer the change made no difference. The increase in rates was offset by the cost of the toll calls that were now free. People who didn't call Seattle were outraged, and those who made lots of calls were very happy. Now several years after the change Vashon even has its own internet provider which also serves Seattle. Tad Cook tad@ssc.com Seattle, WA ------------------------------ From: billsohl@planet.net (Bill Sohl) Subject: Re: NBA in Full Court Press Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 02:07:44 GMT Organization: BL Enterprises drosenba@panix.com (Daniel Rosenbaum) wrote: > I hope the NBA isn't thinking that they'll be able to steamroll STATS; > it's owned by Paul Allen -- co-founder of Microsoft, an NBA team owner > (Seattle Supersonics), and a man with a few spare bucks to defend > himself in court. One might wonder why the NBA thinks their game scores are in any way protectable under copyright. At any instant in time, the score of a game is a factual item, and (unless my understanding of copyright is flawed) the NBA can not copyright facts. The telephone industry had that hammered home in Feist vs. Rural tel. So, it wil be interesting to watch this case, but unless the pager delivery of game scores is also including play-by-play, I can't see the NBA winning this. Bill Sohl (K2UNK) billsohl@planet.net Internet & Telecommunications Consultant/Instructor Budd Lake, New Jersey [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: When does 'reporting' actually become 'broadcasting'? As I understand it, they are not including play-by- play of the games, except perhaps in the case of certain very extraordinary plays which causes one team or the other to go into the lead or win the game, etc. They are merely reporting the score as it changes throughout the game. Can you legally do this as it occurs without violating the copyright? In order to be 'reported' instead of 'broadcast' must there be some time delay of more than just the few seconds required for the transmission itself? Memories: anyone around here remember years and years ago when the radio stations 'reported' (or did they broadcast?) baseball games using the Western Union ticker? Now, this goes back to pre-television days, and/or the very early days of television when major league baseball games were covered on radio like they are on television now. But usually a local radio station only offered 'live', or on location coverage of 'home' games. They did not want the expense of sending their announcer to a distant city. So these 'away' games were covered by the Western Union operator at the city in particular and sent back to the radio station in the 'home' city. For example, when the Chicago Cubs were playing at home, they were broadcast live by WGN Radio, 720 on the AM dial. The White Sox were broadcast by WCFL, AM-1000. As an aside, we know that WGN's call letters refer to the "World's Greatest Newspaper", i.e. the {Chicago Tribune}, the owner of the station. WCFL on the other hand referred to the Chicago Federation of Labor which was the owner of the station known as 'the voice of Labor in Chicago'. If either team was playing out of town, an announcer in the studio covered the game by literally reading the paper as it came out of the WUTCO printer. The announcer would read whatever was sent, and the WUTCO operator assigned for instance to travel with the Chicago Cubs would just type verbatim whatever happened; 'Ernie Banks hit a line drive to center field; he is running to first base; he is safe; he is running on to second base; tagged him out at second base.' And the local station announcer would read it the same way. The WUTCO machine had a tendency to run in spurts. That is, it would print continuously for two or three minutes, then pause for a minute or two, then print some more. There were always pauses of a minute or so as new batters came up to home plate for their turn. So the guy in the radio station would say whatever action had taken place and as long as the machine was printing he would just keep reading. When the machine came to a halt and he had caught up with reading what was there, the announcer might say, 'well, that's all I have on the wire right now, I'll start reading again when the wire starts moving again ...' and he would put on a record and play music for a couple minutes. Usually by the time the song ended the wire had 'started moving' again and he had another five or ten minutes of reading to do. It was hard for one person to sit there and read out loud for the two or three hours the game was in progress, so after an hour or so the announcer might say 'I am going to take a break for a few minutes and while I am gone, will read the wire. I will be back in about fifteen minutes to take over again.' New person would take over and read a few minutes, then the regular announcer would be back. There were a couple of very small, rinky-dink radio stations whose only reason for existence was to read the wire from the local horse racing tracks. That's all they did. In between races they played music. Those stations mostly were listened to by illegal betting parlors, etc. The WUTCO operators assigned to the race tracks had to be very good, very fast typists, feeding accurate and quick information to the stations, but so did the ones at the baseball games. Once live, remote coverage from distant cities became practical and less expensive, all the radio stations (by then it was mostly the television stations) began covering the games with their own person and their own equipment at the location. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: NBA in Full Court Press Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 12:38:44 -0500 From: Atri Indiresan TELECOM Digest Editor said: > I think this lawsuit is going to have major implications in > the area of new technology and how information can be > delivered. The core issue is whether the pager technology, > which can send out the updates as quickly as two minutes > after some action or event being reported, is giving too much > information too quickly for a company that is not paying > rights to broadcast. > A wide range of technologies -- including everything from > cable and phone companies to online services and the Internet > -- could wind up testing the copyright law that was enacted > in 1976. In fact the whole question of copyright infringement > in cyberspace is one that we will be hearing a lot more about > during the months ahead. At present, the cricket World Cup is taking place in India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. In addition to direct telecast on PPV and specially arranged satellite hookups, a minute-by-minute game update is available on IRC and on the web. The web locations are http://www.cricket.org and http://jade.indiaworld.com. The service is free, but, IndiaWorld does sell advertising at their web site. As far as I know, no royalties are paid to the World Cup organizers. Would this (and the pager updates of NBA scores) be no more than reporting on the matches in progress? I assume that a newspaper does not pay royalties to NBA to cover a match, and so, why shouldn't I be free to post to UseNet, or update a web site as I watch a game progress on TV? While the actual transmission is copyrighted, I doubt if the scores can be copyrighted too. Atri Indiresan [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think the answer to your question is that newspapers of necessity have a delay between the event taking place and their report of what occurred. Also, in any event they only summarize the activity and do not report it in detail on a time- delayed basis or otherwise. In the long ago days when radio stations read the Western Union ticker report of the literal game as it was occuring, they also had to pay royalties to the organizers of the sporting event, just as television and radio stations do now. Why should you not be free to update your web site as you watch the event? Well, in the case of Major League Baseball at least, because they give a firm warning at the start of the game that the broadcast is for the exclusive enjoyment of the viewers and may not be rebroadcast or re-transmitted without the express consent of the organization. All this has to be taken in the proper context. Again, at what point does a 'report' of something happening become a 'broadcast' of what is happening? That is why we have courts and lawyers I guess. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #116 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Mar 13 14:40:53 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id OAA17917; Wed, 13 Mar 1996 14:40:53 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 14:40:53 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199603131940.OAA17917@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #117 TELECOM Digest Wed, 13 Mar 96 14:40:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 117 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Global Spectrum Regulation/Spectrum Efficiency (101335.772@compuserve.com) NJ ISDN Proceeding (Monty Solomon) Reservation of 888 Toll Free Number (Steve Bunning) 800 Protection Process - User Comment (Judith Oppenheimer) AT&T, AOL, the Baby Bells and the Internet (Bill Sohl) Ameritec ISDN Bulk Call Generator (Bruce Joren) WorldCom/LDDS/WilTel: Comments? (Mark Kushigian) Sound Output Direct to Phone (Bill MacIntosh) Seeking Voice Technologies FAQ (David Bertagni) Caller ID/Calling Card Question (Art Kamlet) "Send" Key Patented? (A.N. Ananth) Telephone Line Monitor (David Neal) Telephone Pioneers Offer Service Vehicle Replica (Van Heffner) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: 101335.772@compuserve.com Subject: Global Spectrum Regulation/Spectrum Efficiency Date: 13 Mar 1996 09:08:56 GMT Organization: CompuServe Incorporated Summary Of Programme Posted By The Conference Producer - Hugh Roberts - hugh.roberts@itu.ch Announcing an International Conference to be held at the London Marriott Hotel on 28th - 31st May 1996 STRATEGIES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT AND FREQUENCY ALLOCATION IN A GLOBAL MARKETPLACE An up-to-the-minute examination of the potential impact on your business of: Resolutions passed at WRC '95; Regulatory initiatives from around the world; Converging and competing wireless, cordless, cellular and satellite technologies; Recent trends in spectrum pricing and licensing; The economics of spectrum management and allocation; The potential for the global harmonisation of spectrum management and frequency allocation; Including 41 Speakers from 18 countries. The first day's technical briefing - Optimising Spectrum Efficiency and Technology Choice - focuses on the cellular and wireless technologies which underpin the development and roll out of radio based trunk, fixed radio access and mobile cellular and wireless systems. The second and third days - Global Spectrum Management & Frequency Allocation - will concentrate on exploring and discussing the latest regulatory initiatives from around the world, and includes a particular focus on the emerging LEO and MEO global mobile satellite systems. Opening with a review of the outcomes and implications of WRC '95, other key areas to be discussed include an examination of the ways in which spectrum pricing and licensing is developing and a detailed discussion on the extent to which economic factors should determine how the radio spectrum is managed. The conference ends with a panel discussion on the potential for the global harmonisation of spectrum management. Finally, the fourth day's workshop - Preparing A Successful Bid For A Radio Licence - will provide the opportunity to question the experts in a fully interactive environment on how to prepare and submit an application for a radio licence. Although concentrating on the US and Europe, the day's proceedings will also be of great benefit to regulators from emerging markets who would like to gain a clear understanding of the procedures employed. PROGRAMME SUMMARY TECHNOLOGY BRIEFING - TUESDAY 28TH MAY 1996 OPTIMISING SPECTRUM EFFICIENCY & TECHNOLOGY CHOICE 8.45 - 9.20 Registration 9.20 - 6.15 Programme 6.15 Cocktail Reception Chair: SMITH SYSTEM ENGINEERING, DELOITTE & TOUCHE CONSULTING GROUP Technology Update: FINNET GROUP, QUALCOMM, HUGHES NETWORK SYSTEMS, PCSI, TETRA MoU/TELEDANMARK, NATIONAL BAND THREE Spectrum Usage And Efficiency: DELOITTE & TOUCHE CONSULTING GROUP Frequency Hopping & Reuse: NORTEL GSM WIRELESS NETWORKS, TADIRAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS Spectrum Allocation & Network Planning: ALCATEL TELECOM Third Generation Mobile Systems: NOKIA MOBILE PHONES, ERICSSON RADIO SYSTEMS Modulation Techniques: SIEMENS CONFERENCE DAY ONE - WEDNESDAY 29TH MAY 1996 GLOBAL SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT & FREQUENCY ALLOCATION 8.45 - 9.20 Registration 9.20 - 6.15 Programme 6.05 Cocktail Reception Chair: RADIOCOMMUNICATIONS AGENCY (UK), SMITH SYSTEM ENGINEERING The Implications Of WRC '95: ITU, Richard Butler Mechanisms For Allocating Spectrum Licences: FCC (USA) The Economics Of Spectrum Management: INDUSTRY CANADA, N/E/R/A (NATIONAL ECONOMIC RESEARCH ASSOCIATES), RADIOCOMMUNICATIONS AGENCY (THE NETHERLANDS) Global Satellite Systems: ICO GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS, IRIDIUM, ODYSSEY, GLOBALSTAR, TELEDESIC Regulating A Global Satellite Market: COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS, LESLIE TAYLOR ASSOCIATES CONFERENCE DAY TWO - THURSDAY 30TH MAY 1996 GLOBAL SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT & FREQUENCY ALLOCATION 8.45 - 9.20 Registration 9.20 - 5.00 Programme Chair: CEPT ERC, SMITH SYSTEM ENGINEERING Regional Updates: Trends In National Spectrum Management: FCC (USA), SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT AGENCY (AUSTRALIA), RADIOCOMMUNICATIONS AGENCY (UK), DEPT. OF POSTS AND TELECOMMS (SOUTH AFRICA), GENERAL INSPECTORATE OF COMMUNICATIONS (HUNGARY), TELECOM NEW ZEALAND Moving From Analogue To Digital Broadcasting: EUROPEAN BROADCASTING UNION The European Harmonisation Of Frequency Allocation: EUROPEAN RADIO OFFICE, RAM COMMUNICATIONS/ETSI, LUCENT/ETSI The Potential For Integrated Global Spectrum Management, Mr A. M. Joshi (INDIA), Mr A. Berrada (MOROCCO) WORKSHOP - FRIDAY 31ST MAY 1996 PREPARING A SUCCESSFUL BID FOR A RADIO LICENCE 9.00 - 9.30 Registration 9.30 - 4.15 Programme The timing of this highly interactive workshop programme will remain flexible to meet the needs of the participating delegates. Attendee numbers will be limited to ensure a fully participative event. Applications for attendance will be accepted on a first come, first served basis. Workshop Led By: INTERCONNECT COMMUNICATIONS Further contributions will be made by: FCC (USA), RADIOCOMMUNICATIONS AGENCY (UK), RADIOCOMMUNICATIONS AGENCY (NETHERLANDS) and others WHO WILL YOU MEET? This Telecoms World Congress is a high level forum designed specifically for Government Officials, Regulatory Administrators, Directors, Heads and Managers of Companies whose business depends on achieving an intimate understanding of this key area of communications policy and technological development. Attendees will be drawn from the areas of Spectrum Management and Frequency Allocation, Radio Systems & Access, Engineering, Transmission, Mobile & Cellular Services, Network Planning, Business Development & Strategy, Software, Marketing and Research & Development from within the telecommunications, radio, satellite and broadcasting industries - both public and private - together with those responsible for forming and implementing national and international radio spectrum policy. (Call +44 (0)171 915 5055 for details of the 20% additional discount available to members of National & International Radio & Spectrum Regulatory Authorities) GLOBAL SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT BOOKING & CONTACT INFORMATION REFERENCE NUMBERS : Conference G24259 Briefing G24260 Workshop G24261 Please contact the Institute For International Research Customer Services on: +44 (0)171 915 5055 (Telephone) +44 (0)171 915 5056 (Fax) Or by post at: Customer Services, The Institute For International Research 29 Bressenden Place, London Sw1E 5DR, United Kingdom The producer of the conference (HUGH ROBERTS) can be contacted on +44 (0)171 915 5092 (Telephone) +44 (0)171 915 5001 (Fax) hugh.roberts@itu.ch (Internet) 101335,772 (Compuserve) VENUE THE LONDON MARRIOTT HOTEL Grosvenor Square, London W1A 4AW Tel: +44 (0)171 493 1232 Fax: +44 (0)171 491 3201 Due to unforeseen circumstances the programme may change and IIR reserves the right to alter the venue and/or the speakers. COPYRIGHT INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH (IIR) B.V. 1996 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 02:57:46 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: NJ ISDN Proceeding Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM Forwarded to the Digest, FYI: Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 19:08:01 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: love@Essential.ORG From: James Love Subject: NJ ISDN Proceeding TAP-INFO - An Internet newsletter available from listproc@tap.org INFORMATION POLICY NOTE - NJ ISDN proceeding March 11, 1996 The State of New Jersey agrees to accept comments on Bell Atlantic's proposed residential ISDN tariffs by electronic mail or by fax. The NJ Board of Utilities will decide on March 13, 1996, if it should review the Bell Atlantic tariff filing. The NJ State ratepayer advocate and several consumers have written to ask the Board to require Bell Atlantic to provide reasonably priced residential ISDN services. The CPT comments on this are given below. Bell Atlantic's residential ISDN tariffs are among the highest in the country. For example, it would cost more than $1,200 per month to use a residential ISDN connection for a personal Web page server, and about $200 per month for 100 hours of 2B+D service. By charging by the minute, and by channel (ISDN service can be split into two 64 k channels), consumers be discouraged from using the service as it was designed). - In contrast, Ameritech, Bellsouth and Northern Arkansas Telephone Company offer flat rate residential ISDN service in Arkansas, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee, and Wisconsin for $17.90 to $34.50 per month. - Comments on the NJ ISDN case may be sent by electronic mail to NJ Board of Public Utilities staffer Jose A. Selaya, at: selaya@pilot.njin.net The fax number for the Board is 201/777-3330. You should indicate that your comments are in reference to: Bell Atlantic's proposed residential ISDN tariff, R-ISDN-TT-9509453 ---------------------------------- CPT March 9, 1996 letter to NJ State Board of Public Utilities regarding Bell Altantic's proposed residential ISDN tariffs. Consumer Project on Technology P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036 http://www.essential.org/cpt Voice: 202/387-8030 March 9, 1996 Herbert Tate, President New Jersey Board of Public Utilities 2 Gateway Center Newark, NJ 07102 RE: Bell Atlantic's proposed residential ISDN tariff R-ISDN-TT-9509453 Dear Mr. Tate: We are writing regarding the Integrated Services Digital Network ("ISDN") tariff filed by Bell Atlantic which is on the Board of Public Utilities agenda for Wednesday March 13, 1996. The Consumer Project on Technology ("CPT") was created by Ralph Nader in 1995 to represent the rights of consumers on telecommunications and other technology intensive matters, and we have been active in advocating reasonable flat rates for high speed Internet access via ISDN. We believe Bell Atlantic's proposed ISDN tariff is exorbitantly priced and will lead to limited use of this technology which represents the next step in bringing to fruition the promise of the information superhighway. No other service offers ubiquitous high speed Internet access on a proven technology. We urge the Board of Public Utilities to hold hearings on the tariff and require Bell Atlantic to offer reasonable ISDN rates on a flat rate basis. Bell Atlantic has based its pricing not upon ISDN service costs, but on how much they can extract from a handful of upper-income users. As you know, ISDN is delivered to consumers over the existing copper wire infrastructure, and most of its costs are the fixed sunk costs of the existing local loop. We have never seen an independent study of residential ISDN deployment costs that would support as much as $10 per month in terms of the incremental cost of the service. If residential ISDN is deployed as a second line, the cost to Bell Atlantic is even lower. Further evidence of the low cost of providing ISDN is found in a filing by US West, where the company estimated that the non-traffic sensitive cost for an ISDN line is $18.52. This was only $1.18 more than the company's estimate for the cost of providing a POTS line. [In the Matter of End User Common Line Charges, FCC Docket No. 95-72, Appendix A (filed June 29, 1995)] Attached is a survey of various ISDN tariffs which demonstrates that other local exchange companies (LECs) that are similarly situated to Bell Atlantic have implemented affordable ISDN rates. [http://www.essential.org/cpt/isdn/survey.txt] For example, in six states, Arkansas, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee, and Wisconsin,residential ISDN is available at a flat rate for $17.90 to $34.50 per month. These include tariffs by Bellsouth, Ameritech, and Northern Arkansas Telephone Company. Moreover, in the District of Columbia, the Public Service Commission is considering an Office of People's Counsel recommendation for a flat rate ISDN tariff for Bell Atlantic of $32 per month, and the states of Maryland and Virginia have written Bell Atlantic requesting that the company file an affordable flat rate option. In our analysis, we calculated the cost to the consumer of using an ISDN line for 100 hours of 2B+D service, or as a full time connection, such as if the line was used as a server for a home web page. The Bell Atlantic tariff would cost the consumer $198 per month for the 100 hours of service, or $1,206 per month for the full time connection. These rates are clearly excessive, and will prevent NJ consumers from benefiting from broader deployment of ISDN technology. In his book, The Road Ahead, Microsoft founder Bill Gates says that ISDN is the most important here and now technology for getting Americans on the information superhighway, and that the LECs should price the service below $20 per month, flat rate.[page 101]. At least one LEC, NATCO, has deployed the service below $20 per month to residential consumers. Clearly $198 or $1,206 per month, our estimate of the cost to various consumers under Bell Atlantic's proposed tariff, is unreasonable. Someday consumers may have access to alternative methods of obtaining fast connections to the Internet. As you know, telephone companies are experimenting with fast ADSL services, and cable television companies are experimenting with cable modems. Both of these technologies are promising, yet neither are widely available. Moreover, even under the most optimistic deployment scenarios, analysts expect that for large portions of the population, ISDN delivered over the existing copper wire infrastructure, will be the only available high bandwidth connection to the Internet for five to ten years. It is important that residential ISDN be priced correctly for those consumers who will have to wait many years for the newer and still unproven alternatives. As such, we urge the Board of Public Utilities to call hearings and establish a reasonable flat rate option for ISDN service. For more information on this topic, the Consumer Project on Technology is the sponsor of an Internet discussion list on ISDN pricing, and publishes a Web page on the Internet with additional information about ISDN and other high bandwidth technologies. The discussion list ISDN is available for subscription from LISTPROC@ESSENTIAL.ORG. The CPT Web page is at http://www.essential.org/cpt. Sincerely, Todd Paglia James Love Staff Attorney Director tpaglia@tap.org love@tap.org Attachment: CPT March 8, 1996 Survey of Residential ISDN tariffs. Note: The CPT ISDN survey is a available on the Internet at: http://www.essential.org/cpt/isdn/survey.txt INFORMATION POLICY NOTES is a free Internet newsletter sponsored by the Taxpayer Assets Project (TAP) and the Consumer Project on Technology (CPT). Both groups are projects of the Center for Study of Responsive Law, which is run by Ralph Nader. The LISTPROC services are provide by Essential Information. Archives of TAP-INFO are available from http://www.essential.org/listproc/tap-info/ TAP and CPT both have Internet Web pages. http://www.tap.org/tap http://www.essential.org/cpt Subscription requests to tap-info to listproc@tap.org with the message: subscribe tap-info your name TAP and CPT can both be reached off the net at P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036, Voice: 202/387-8030; Fax: 202/234-5176 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 11:24:28 -0400 From: Steve Bunning Subject: Reservation of 888 Toll Free Number Just thought you might want to hear a report from the toll free 888 front lines. Our company was interested in getting a particular 800 toll free vanity number. We checked into its availability and found the number was already assigned to another company. When the news came out regarding the 888 exchange opening up, we made sure our carrier put in a reservation request for the corresponding 888 number on opening day. We recently heard back that the 888 number is unavailable. The holder of the corresponding 800 number exercised the early reservation option and took the number out of circulation. I'll be curious as to how many 888 numbers are consumed purely as place holders for the 800 number owners. No doubt this phenomenon will continue as subsequent exchanges open up. All of this gives me an idea for a new telecommunications service. To appreciate this service, think back to the times when the U.S. Government paid farmers to not grow crops. The service is for all of the 800 number holders who now have the corresponding 888 numbers they don't really want to use. The service will charge a nominal fee for each 888 number, but the 888 number holders must promise they do not want to have any traffic on the number. The service companies slogan could be "Zero Percent Call Completion on 888 Toll Free, Guaranteed!" As the service company will have no facilities to buy or maintain and no access charges to pay, the rates for the 888 numbers will be extremely competitive ;-). Steve Bunning | ACE*COMM | 301 258-9850 (voice) Product Manager | 209 Perry Parkway | 301 921-0434 (fax) TEL*COMM Division| Gaithersburg, MD USA 20877 | bunning@acec.com "CDRs collected and managed in real-time." ------------------------------ From: callbrand@aol.com (CallBrand) Subject: 800 Protection Process - User Comment Date: 13 Mar 1996 11:50:42 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: callbrand@aol.com (CallBrand) Pat, you asked for comments from users who availed themselves of the FCC-mandated direct access to DSMI for 800 set-aside. Personally, I have never seen a more efficient and straight-forward group, both at DSMI and NASC. No double-talk, no difficulty, no attitude. They offer concise and accurate instructions, and deliver prompt execution, timely verbal confirmation, and understandable written follow-up. Plus they're genuinely helpful and friendly. All this, from a group pulling duty far above and beyond it's normal chores. Clearly Resp Orgs are very well served by these people. (Our SNAC experience also bears this out.) My question is, why can't they pass along this excellent service to subscribers? Judith Oppenheimer, President, Interactive CallBrand A leading source of information on 800 issues. CallBrand@aol.com, 1 800 The Expert, (ph) 212 684-7210, (fx) 212 684-2714 http://www.users.nyc.pipeline.com:80/~producer/ ------------------------------ From: billsohl@planet.net (Bill Sohl) Subject: AT&T, AOL, the Baby Bells and the Internet Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 05:43:25 GMT Organization: BL Enterprises OK, so AT&T has put together a deal with AOL to further enhance its marketing effort to attract new users to its own, recently annouced, World Net internet access. So what's it mean? Well, here's my two cents worth. There are in any consumer marketplace, many tiers of customers. Internet access is no different. What makes some folks buy a Rolls Royce, vs. a BMW vs a Chevy Caprice or a Geo Prism will be similar for the universe of internet users. What makes me go to my local hardware store for some items as opposed to a Home Depot? Answers: Convenience, price, service, etc. I truly expect the major forces such as AT&T to make their presence felt as providers of internet service, but I thnk more newcomers will be brought to the internet through AT&T's efforts than those of us already on the internet who might jump ship from a current provider. Certainly AT&T's free service for one year is attractive, even accounting for the fact that it only provides 5 hours of cnnectivity per month before you start the meter running at $2.95 an hour for hours over the first five. But as anyone that has done any net surfing can tell you, the time races buy when you are browsing the net with any graphical browser. Doing so can and has lead some folks to a rude awakening when that monthy bill shows up for $50+. It really will depend on the uses one has for their internet access. If short connect times simply to upload/download mail and/or newsgroup headers is the majority of your use, then the AT&T connection will be a practical and (at least for the first year) a very cheap way to get connected. But if any amount of browsing the internet is part of your use, then watch that hourly meter, because it is going to quickly exceed what most traditional Internet Service Providers offer at rates of between $25 and $35 a month for daily connect time of several hours a day. Bill Sohl (K2UNK) billsohl@planet.net Internet & Telecommunications Consultant/Instructor Budd Lake, New Jersey [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The word now from AT&T is that the response has been so heavy to their offer that they are far behind in filling orders and responding to inquiries. 250,000 inquiries have reached AT&T over the past two weeks, of which about 200,000 resulted in orders for their new service. AT&T says it is now hiring and training new employees specifically to handle the large number of people who are signing up for service, but it is expected several weeks will pass before the backlog of orders now waiting for attention will be cleared. The company says that on a daily basis 'several thousand' new accounts are being added and the associated software mailed out. Well, you old timers, it looks sort of grim doesn't it ... ... and you thought the flood of new users coming on board from America OnLine on a daily basis was going to finally bring around the much heralded and long-expected 'death of the net'. Can you imagine -- even imagine -- two hundred thousand new users in the first two weeks of operation? Wait until AT&T actually begins advertising this in the phone bills they send out, etc. And watch every one of these new users bring with them all the spams, junk mail, chain letters and random assortment of nonsense and foolishness they assume none of the rest of us have ever seen before. It will make those folks we laughed at years ago when they looked all over their keyboard and could not find a key marked 'any' (as in press any key) seem like experienced Unix hackers. How many small ISPs are there in operation today who would be thrilled to have *one day's worth* of AT&T's new customer base as their *total* subscriber base? Any of you out there be willing to accept 'several thousand' new customers and just let it go at that? ... here on the local front, I am getting on average about ten to fifteen new subscribers to the mailing list on a daily basis with a net increase in readers of five to ten per day after removing the ones who drop their subscriptions, or whose mail bounces back addressee unknown, etc. Ah, that even one percent of them bothered to help financially. Maybe the day will come when I have to hire someone merely to process the mailing list. Or maybe the day will come when I have another heart attack instead. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Bruce Joren Subject: Ameritec ISDN Bulk Call Generator Date: 13 Mar 1996 11:52:27 GMT Organization: Harris If anyone out there has experience setting this test set up on a 5E Custom Multipoint please get in touch. I can set it up fine on a DMS-100 but cannot get SPIDs on a 5E to initialize. Thanx in advance. Bruce Joren ------------------------------ From: Mark Kushigian Subject: WorldCom/LDDS/WilTel: Comments? Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 07:24:59 -0500 Organization: Normac, Inc. We're looking to put in a point-to-point 56K line between Michigan and North Carolina, and WorldCom has by far the best price (beating MCI by $200/month). Does anyone have any experience with this company? Is their service reliable and their tech support good? Thanks for any comments. Mark Kushigian Normac, Inc. 704.684.1002 ------------------------------ From: WK01739@worldlink.com (Bill MacIntosh) Subject: Sound Output Direct to Phone Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 10:05:20 -0700 Organization: Orbital Industries I want to send my audio creation for a voice mail answer message directly from my Power Mac to the phone. I tried holding the mouth piece up to the speaker, but the sound was very poor. What will I need to do this? Bill MacIntosh WK01739@Worldlink.com Politicians are like diapers, both should be changed regularly and for the same reason. - graffito on a wall in Yeovil ------------------------------ From: dgb4@haven.ios.com (David Bertagni) Subject: Seeking Voice Technologies FAQ Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 17:28:50 GMT Organization: DGB Consulting Subject covers it. Any information greatly appreciated! ------------------------------ From: kamlet@infinet.com (Art Kamlet) Subject: Caller ID/Calling Card question Date: 13 Mar 1996 00:07:56 -0500 Organization: InfiNet When I'm called from phones in Chicago and Detroit, I get caller ID showing up just fine. (I'm in Columbus.) The IEC is AT&T. But when these same phones use an AT&T calling card to make the same call to me, no caller ID shows up. (I get: Out of Area.) If this has been covered, I apologize for asking, (and could someone please email me a simple answer) but if not, is this how it is supposed to work, and if not, why is it happening and is it likely to "be fixed" soon? Art Kamlet Columbus, Ohio kamlet@infinet.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: One thing to remember is that you are in Ameritech territory on both ends of the call; they seem to have their act together pretty well throughout their five state territory regards interconnectivity and exchange of information, etc. The other thing to remember is that calls placed on Calling Cards technically are placed 'through an operator'. Even if all you get is the robot operator, there is still a level of handling or an intermediate step or two which does not occur on 'direct-dialed' calls. Right now I do not think any operator handled calls anywhere show caller-id. Am I wrong on this anyone? PAT] ------------------------------ From: ananth@access.digex.net (A N Ananth) Subject: "Send" Key Patented? Date: 13 Mar 1996 10:51:11 -0500 Organization: Prism Communications Inc, Gaithersburg MD Is anyone aware if the "Send" key on cellular handsets is patented? Different models seem to have different labeling such as "Yes"/"Send". Also, is anyone aware of any patents on techniques of backlighting keypads? We are thinking of using a fiber bundle (light-pipe) illuminated by a couple of LEDs. ananth Phone: (410) 765-9281 Prism Communications Inc "See the colours" Which Prism is for you? http://www.universe.digex.net/~prism ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 17:08:48 -0500 From: David Neal Subject: Telephone Line Monitor MCM Electronics (800-543-4330) is selling a kit called the Telephone Monitor Kit that "records outgoing call activity including number dialed, time and length of call. Records incoming call activity including time, date and length of call. Connects to parallel port on PC." This is exactly what I need except for two things. I need to record incoming caller I.D. info and preferrably interface with the ISA bus rather than the parallel port. Can you offer help finding this gizmo? Thanks, (Hi, O.P. !!) David Neal cga00016@mail.wvnet.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 02:05:24 -0800 From: vantek@northcoast.com (VANTEK COMMUNICATIONS) Subject: Telephone Pioneers Offer Service Vehicle Replica The De Anza Chapter of the Telephone Pioneers of America have released the first in a series of classic replicas depicting telephone service vehicles of the past. The first model, which has just been released, is a limited-edition scale replica of a classic 1949 Chevrolet Pacific Telephone Panel Truck. The replica is built from diecast parts, and is approximately 1/34 scale. Each truck comes in classic "Bell Green", with the Pacific Telephone and Telegraph - Bell System logo on the side panel. Authentic detailing of each vehicle is done to accurately represent the classic service vehicle. The Telephone Pioneers will release a complete series of classic Bell Telephone vehicle replicas if sales of this first model warrant it. The limited-edition replica is being produced by First Gear for the Pioneers. The Pioneers are currently offering the panel truck replicas for $32, plus $3 for shipping and handling (total of $35). The Telephone Pioneers of America is an organization comprised mainly of retired Bell employees. All proceeds from sales of this series go directly to the Pioneer's fundraiser program. For more information on ordering, please contact the Pioneer's Mission Chapter Fundraiser Thelma Hawk at (818) 345-6065. This is her home phone number, so if you get an answering machine, just leave a message with your phone number so that she can return your call. I have set-up a WWW page for those who would like to see what the truck looks like. You can access it at the below address. The page also includes a mailing address, if you wish to order by check (they can't accept credit cards). Van Hefner http://www.webcom.com/longdist/66/66-1.html [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: God bless the Telephone Pioneers. Their work over the years has been outstanding, and the stories of what they have accomplished in working with persons with physical impairments so that they can use the telephone could fill this Digest for many days. For those not aquainted with the organization and its hundreds (?) of chapters, a brief summary follows: Originally it was the charter employees of AT&T, going back to the beginning of this century; those employees who had at least twenty years or more of service with 'the company'. As the years passed and all the original or 'charter' employees passed away, the organization became one for employees with at least twenty years of service. The idea of doing good for others was not unique to those folks, and there soon were groups called 'The Independent Pioneers' for employees of the 'independent' telcos who were similarly situated. In more recent years, there have been changes in the membership requirements -- at one point the rule that you had to be employed by telco for at least twenty years to be a member was strictly enforced -- and now I think the organization welcomes members with much less longevity with a telco. They take on many interesting and challenging projects in their commun- ities to help better the community they live in. They do it on their own, with their own money, save possibly small gifts from their employers in some instances. They were best known years ago for developing very unusual and one-of-a-kind applications for persons who were physically handicapped to use the phone. Some of their achievements have been really amazing. If you are not a member, and have a Telephone Pioneers chapter at your telco, I encourage you to inquire about membership. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #117 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Mar 13 15:28:03 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id PAA24362; Wed, 13 Mar 1996 15:28:03 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 15:28:03 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199603132028.PAA24362@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #118 TELECOM Digest Wed, 13 Mar 96 15:28:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 118 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: PCS Phones Disrupting Hearing Aids? (Edward A. Kleinhample) Re: PCS Phones Disrupting Hearing Aids? (Ed Ellers) Re: PCS Phones Disrupting Hearing Aids? (Georg Oehl) Re: PCS Phones Disrupting Hearing Aids? (John Gilbert) Re: PCS Phones Disrupting Hearing Aids? (Paul Wallich) Re: CallerID, AT&T and Bell Atlantic (Lynne Gregg) Re: CallerID, AT&T and Bell Atlantic (John Sullivan) Re: CallerID, AT&T and Bell Atlantic (Mike P. Storke) Re: CallerID, AT&T and Bell Atlantic (William C. Bonner) RE: CallerID Only For Some Local Calls (Lynne Gregg) Re: CallerID Only For Some Local Calls (Steve Uhrig) Re: Directory Assistance Without Knowing City? (omni@cy-net.net) Re: Directory Assistance Without Knowing City? (Ken Levitt) Directory Assistance Thru Prepaid Calling Card in Other City (Hongkuan Li) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 13 Mar 96 14:40:50 EST From: Edward A. Kleinhample <70574.3514@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: PCS Phones Disrupting Hearing Aids? The FCC has time and time again come in on the side of the licensed broadcaster when cries of interference of any kind are raised, either with electronic devices or otherwise. Many year ago, as I was growing up in the north suburbs of Pittsburgh, my family lived less than five miles from the transmission antenna for KDKA radio, which was one of the most powerful AM station in the U.S. On cold mornings, we could often hear a rhythmic boom-boom sound eminating from the steel window-frames of the house that coincided with drum beats of music being played on KDKA. I don't recall any discussion of limiting power of broadcast stations in order to reduce interference with steel window frames. The real problem here is not a fault of the sophisticated modulation schemes employed in digital cell-phones, but rather in the poor design of many consumer electronic devices. As an earlier post points out, most hearing aids consist of a tiny electronic circuit molded into a plastic shell designed to fit into the ear. A thin layer of metalic foil would probably eliminate 90% of the audio noise induced by a pulsed cell-phone transmission. Portable (and may non-portable) CD players are often affected by cell-phones. I own an Onkyo CD changer that goes nuts everytime my cell-phone rings, but my portable Sony C player which is encased in a rugged metal case (and is a little hefty to clip to one's belt) is unaffected. The stiff competition in consumer electronic devices in the last decade has forced manufacturers to cut costs wherever possible in order to lower prices. Unfortunely, one of the easiest ways to lower costs is to cut corners in circuit design and in shielding of the device. With many modern home electronics devices, it doesn't a cell phone to introduce interference, just turn-on a home computer in the same room. My father's Uniden 900Mhz cordless phone won't function when my computer is turned on, even if you carry it into the next room, (the phone is enclosed in a plastic case with little or no shielding of the RF circuits), while my Tropez 900Mhz phone works correctly even if positioned only inches away from the computer. A little probing around with a scope showed that interference from the clock circuit in the computer is modulating onto the IF circuit in the phone's transmitter, which is changing the carrier frequency at the final stage of the transmitter (I am surprised that a circuit this sensitive to external interference was able to obtain type acceptance from the FCC - spurrios off-frequency emmisions are a big no-no). The Tropez, on the other hand, has considerable metalic shielding around it's RF components. My advice to the hearing aid manufacturers -- spend two cents on some tin foil. Ed Kleinhample Consultant - Land O' Lakes, FL. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Perhaps it is time to reprint an article which appeared in this Digest several years ago entitled 'Praise the Lord and Pass the RF Filters'; the story of residents in Hammond, Indiana and their complaints about a local radio station WYCA. In fact I think I will look for it in the Archives and reprint it soon. PAT] ------------------------------ From: edellers@shivasys.com (Ed Ellers) Subject: Re: PCS Phones Disrupting Hearing Aids? Date: 13 Mar 1996 06:27:29 GMT Organization: Pennsylvania Online [Usenet News Server for Hire] In article , pteng@postoffice.ptd. net says: > WOAH!!! > Before anybody goes off half cocked and starts a national furror over > this lets get something straight. > 1. According to the articles I have read in the trade > magazines, it is only GSM handsets that cause interference with hearing > aids. > 2. Although they use somewhat similar technology, cellular > phones are NOT PCS phones. They operate in an entirely different > portion of the spectrum. > Whoever you are and whatever your purpose in posting this article, get > your facts straight first. GSM transmitters are not the only source of this sort of RF interference. My boss has a Motorola Micro TAC (I don't have the model number at hand) that seems to interfere with his hearing aids, which he didn't have when he got the phone. When he traded cars recently he was going to try to use the Micro TAC instead of having a mobile phone installed, but had to go the latter route due to interference. This may be a problem in his hearing aids rather than excessive RF from the phone. ------------------------------ From: g_oehl@informatik.uni-kl.de (Georg Oehl) Subject: Re: PCS Phones Disrupting Hearing Aids? Organization: University of Kaiserslautern, Germany Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 09:50:41 GMT In article , pteng@postoffice.ptd.net (Palmerton Telephone Co. - Engineering) writes: >> In article , monty@roscom.COM >> says: >>> Please consider sending your own variation of this letter it to your >>> local newspaper before PCS 1900 digital phones end up causing >>> disruption to your aids when you are a bystander and make it >>> impossible for you to use an ALD. [..] >> WOAH!!! >> Before anybody goes off half cocked and starts a national furror over >> this lets get something straight. >> 1. According to the articles I have read in the trade >> magazines, it is only GSM handsets that cause interference with hearing >> aids. >> 2. Although they use somewhat similar technology, cellular >> phones are NOT PCS phones. They operate in an entirely different >> portion of the spectrum. >> Whoever you are and whatever your purpose in posting this article, get >> your facts straight first. >> Tom Lager Palmerton Telephone Company It's not the used frequency range of the digital phones that cause problems to people using hearing aids, but the nature of the "bursts" that PCS and GSM phones use to transmit voice and data. Such a burst occurs 217 times a second which is what the hearing impaired hear through their hearing aids. These interferences occur for both GSM and PCS phones even though they use different frequency bands. Georg ------------------------------ From: johng@comm.mot.com (John Gilbert) Subject: Re: PCS Phones Disrupting Hearing Aids? Organization: Motorola LMPS Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 12:07:29 -0600 My personal opinion of of this issue is that much of this is pure politics. It appears to me that the leaders of several supposed "lobbying groups for the deaf" are actually using this issue to promote their own agendas. For example, one "leader" manufacturers an add-on product to retrofit phones for compatibility with hearing aids. Another "leader" has a large stake in CDMA system development and is trying to block TDMA implementation in his market. RCR has been reporting this issue in depth for some time. John Gilbert johng@comm.mot.com Motorola Trunked Systems Architecture Schaumburg, IL. ------------------------------ From: pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich) Subject: Re: PCS Phones Disrupting Hearing Aids? Date: 13 Mar 1996 11:54:53 -0500 Organization: Trivializers R Us In Dan Pock writes: > Rob Levandowski sent this reply to me so I am forwarding it to the > Digest since the discussion originally started here. My latest > response follows Mr. Levandowski's, [snip] >> Is it fair to say that personal convenience is more important than other >> people's use of their own senses? >>> I think that if you succeed in making the problem known a solution >>> will be found. However, don't be surprised if that solution turns out >>> to be reengineered hearing aids that are sheilded or filtered so as to >>> block the offensive signals. >>> If you think that such a law suit needs to be filed, my suggestion to >>> you would be that you go after the hearing aid manufacturers. Because >>> if you try go after every manufacturer of digital technology you are >>> going to have to file alot of law suits. >> You don't need to go after every user of digital technology -- only those >> who knowingly make equipment that radiates strong RF harmonics at audible >> frequencies, like TDMA. My mother has no problem watching TV, or working >> on a computer, or using a standard cellular phone, or operating any of >> the other myriad devices out there which use digital technology. It's >> mainly security systems that stymie her. I'm concerned that TDMA cellular >> phones will become a further bane of her existance. > I do sympathize with your mother. To the extent that security systems > and cell phone manufacturers can "reasonably" produce products that > accomodate the hearing impaired they should do so. That is the > wording that the ADA uses. The key word is "reasonably". > The difference between your perspective and mine is one of econimic > philosophy. You clearly embrace socialism in which we go running to > the government everytime we have a problem like a child taddling on a > sybling. "Mommy, make Johnny stop bothering me." The problem is that > we are not children and the government is not Mommy. "Big Brother" > would be more accurate under socialism. > Capitalism on the other hand would dictate that we give our patronage > to the hearing aid manufacturer who rises to the occasion and produces > an aid that sheilds RF. This is an interesting set of definitions of capitalism and socialism, but it's baloney. If I were to come up with a wonderful new communications device that just happened to broadcast on the frequencies currently reserved for FM radio, I'll bet no one would say that the onus was on makers of radios to build filtering equipment. For a real world example, no one says that cell-phone and laptop users should be allowed unrestricted use of their equipment aboard aircraft, simply because Boeing could if it chose add more shielding to avoid interference with the flight control system.. The FCC is pretty clear on this: make a device that emits RF that inter- fere's with other people's electronic equipment, get it confiscated. If you want the government to preserve your ostensible "right" to beam whatever RF radiation you want in my direction without taking responsi- bility for deleterious results, that sounds a little like socialist whining to me. paul ------------------------------ From: Lynne Gregg Subject: Re: CallerID, AT&T and Bell Atlantic Date: Wed, 13 Mar 96 16:52:00 PST hovig@ai.uiuc.edu (Hovig Heghinian) wrote: > Do any wireless carriers deliver name and number? Will they? Must > they? In order to get Caller ID through the network and onto a wired or wireless phone, ISUP (ISDN User Part) is a must. Many wired phone companies have or are proceeding with network interconnection upgrades to ISUP trunks. Smaller cellular carriers may not be. AT&T Wireless has already deployed commercial Caller ID service in many of its markets. Caller ID will be available throughout all AT&T Wireless by 4Q96. If a carrier -- wired or wireless -- lays ISUP trunks, according to the FCC, they MUST send Calling Party Number (CPN) and comply with the rest of the FCC Order. This means that cellular carriers must send notification to their customers that their cellular numbers could be disclosed. The carrier must detail blocking options (complying with the FCC Order and blocking specifications). In addition to AT&T Wireless, I believe Cellular One in Chicago and Southwestern Bell Cellular offer Caller ID services. I anticipate that other cellular carriers will offer the service as they upgrade their networks to support ISUP connects. Today's cellular Caller Name implementation goes this way: when CPN is delivered to the phone, the phone performs a search on speed dial memory locations to attempt a match on the number. If a match is successful, the alpha tag is presented on the phone. A network-based Caller Name implementation (i.e., Bellcore spec) is a tad trickier, to say the least. Regards, Lynne ------------------------------ From: pp001983@interramp.com Subject: Re: CallerID, AT&T and Bell Atlantic Date: Wed, 13 Mar 96 22:03:01 GMT Organization: PSI Public Usenet Link In article , splichta@instalink. com (Scott Plichta) wrote: > I am suprised that I haven't heard anything about Bell Atlantic and > DCS suing AT&T recently. It appears that AT&T's switches won't talk > to Bell Atlantic's for exchanging long distance caller id. Bell has > sued AT&T saying that it has decreased the usefullness of it's caller > ID. As a Bell Atlantic caller ID user, I get significant amount of > NO CID AVAIL on my caller id from callers who use AT&T (there are > alot of you). Until these issues are resolved, I have a nice > paperweight to sit next to my phone. The lawsuit doesn't claim that there is a current technical problem preventing passage of CPN from AT&T to Bell Atlantic. The suit is trying to recover profits Bell Atlantic claims it lost before the FCC passed the Interstate rules. Their argument is that, during the period between the introduction of caller ID and the implementation of the interstate rules, they could have sold Caller ID service to many more people if it had been able to deliver long distance numbers. The only reason it couldn't do that is because the IXCs, who received the numbers from the originating LECs, wanted to be paid for passing them along, and refused to do so for free. The FCC interstate rules force them to do so. Although, granted, I still get a lot of out of area messages too. John Sullivan Editor, Advanced Intelligent Network News a Phillips Business Information Publication jsullivan@phillips.com ------------------------------ From: storkus@heather.greatbasin.com (Mike P. Storke) Subject: Re: CallerID, AT&T and Bell Atlantic Date: 13 Mar 1996 01:18:03 GMT Organization: Great Basin Public Access UNIX, Reno, NV In article , Hovig Heghinian wrote: > I am a Bell Atlantic/MCI customer in Philadelphia: > * My folks are NYNEX/AT&T customers. I receive number, no name. This is probably not the fault of AT&T. Here in Pacific Telesis (Nevada Bell) territory, the switches (mostly Northern Telecom DMS-100's I believe) only deliver numbers over CID, not names. This may be the case with NYNEX as well. Mike P. Storke N7MSD Snailmail: 2308 Paradise Dr. #134 Inet: storkus@heather.greatbasin.com Reno, NV 89512 ------------------------------ From: William C Bonner Subject: Re: CallerID, AT&T and Bell Atlantic Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 17:35:07 -0600 Organization: Logix Consulting, Inc. Hovig Heghinian wrote: > I am a Bell Atlantic/MCI customer in Philadelphia: > * My folks are NYNEX/AT&T customers. I receive number, no name. > * My in-laws are Ameritech/MCI customers. I receive both name and number. > * We are Comcast Metrophone (wireless) customers. I get nothing from them. > (They use Sprint for LD, if that makes a difference.) Well, I've got Southwest Bell Mobile Systems, and they deliver CallerID on my digital Nokia Phone, plus about five other Digital phones. Works well. Wim. ------------------------------ From: Lynne Gregg Subject: Re: CallerID Only For Some Local Calls Date: Wed, 13 Mar 96 07:01:00 PST jonathan@NrgUp.Com (Jonathan Bradshaw) wrote: > I live in Ameritech Land ... Indianapolis, Indiana to be exact. > Although CallerID is offered and works from some out of state calls > such as Michigan and Kentucky etc. it doesn't work from any of the > outlying areas that are still local calls for me such as Greenfield. > There is little doubt these places are on older switches but the > question is, is Ameritech required to pass this information? If the > LD companies must, does this not mean they should too? Your statement that "these places are on older switches" is a part of the answer. The FCC ordered telcos who ARE equipped to pass CPN to do so. They DID NOT order phone companies to BE equipped (i.e., incurring the expenses of upgrade old gear, software, interconnects, etc.). It's reasonable to assume that most phone companies will swap out the old iron in the future, making Caller ID available. Regards, Lynne ------------------------------ From: suhrig@bright.net (Steve Uhrig) Subject: Re: CallerID Only For Some Local Calls Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 05:01:11 GMT Organization: BrightNet Ohio jonathan@NrgUp.Com (Jonathan Bradshaw) wrote: > I live in Ameritech Land ... Indianapolis, Indiana to be exact. > Although CallerID is offered and works from some out of state calls > such as Michigan and Kentucky etc. it doesn't work from any of the > outlying areas that are still local calls for me such as Greenfield. > There is little doubt these places are on older switches but the > question is, is Ameritech required to pass this information? If the > LD companies must, does this not mean they should too? If these switches are older switches they may not be capable of CID. For a switch to transmit CID information it must have three things. 1. It must be a Stored Program Common Control Switch. 2. It must be equipped with CID software. 3. It must have SS7 trunking to the IXCs. The LECs are not required to change out old switches just to provide CID. I have two SXS offices in my area that are not capable of CID. One of them is not scheduled to change out until after the year 2000. BTW, AT&T has not converted their trunks into my base unit to SS7, so they can't send CID. Ameritech and MCI have both converted their trunking from MF to SS7. Steve Uhrig Chillicothe, Ohio USA ------------------------------ From: omni@cy-net.net Subject: Re: Directory Assistance Without Knowing City? Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 17:50:23 GMT Organization: Cybercom Corporation Reply-To: omni@cy-net.net bparker@interaccess.com (Ben Parker) wrote: > When you call Directory Assistance (esp long distance xxx-555-1212) to > ask for a number of a business, the operator's first response is "What > city, please?" > If I don't know the city (and don't know anything about the area to even > make a dumb guess) it seems impossible to get any help. > Will we ever get to on-line (web page type) automated lookups? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: AT&T offers nationwide directory > assistance on 900-555-1212. They say you do not need to have any area > code; just the name and general location of the person. I do not know > what they charge for the service. It appears to be intended as direct > competition to the telcos offering 555-1212 in each area code. PAT] Talking of on-line lookup, try "Switchboard" it's a free web-based directory of phone numbers nationwide. The URL is: http://www.switchboard.com/ I've tried it: it helps if you know the city you are looking for, though its not necessary. Also, listing are not entirely up-to-date. Regards, Irfan [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: switchboard.com was discussed in the Digest earlier Wednesday in case you missed the references to it. They allow you to create and modify your own entries on line. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Mar 96 12:49:43 EST From: levitt@zorro9.fidonet.org (Ken Levitt) Subject: Re: Directory Assistance Without Knowing City? In TELECOM Digest Volume 16 : Issue 108 John Cropper writes: >> If I don't know the city (and don't know anything about the area to even >> make a dumb guess) it seems impossible to get any help. >> Will we ever get to on-line (web page type) automated lookups? > Try http://www.switchboard.com. > It does a search on all US white pages for personal AND business > listings (tho some are up to one year old). Brand new, and featured in > several local papers. I tried www.switchboard.com with the following results: 1. I looked up my own name. I have had the same listed number for about 20 years. There was no match. 2. I looked up my partner's name. She has had the same listed number for about 20 years. There was no match. 3. We have one business line with two separate telephone book listings under two different company names. These listings have not changed in the past five years. There was no match on either company name. We are in area code 508 serviced by Nynex so I'm sure there would be no problem in getting proper listings. Switchboard.com does offer a method for callers to update their own entries and statements that the information will not be sold to others. However, I am skeptical of these statements because there is no indication of how this company makes any money. I find it hard to believe that they are just offering this service out of the goodness of their heart, incurring expenses for the services with no way to gain any revenue from it. Because of my privacy concerns, I did not choose to update our entries. Ken Levitt - On FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390 UUCP: zorro9!levitt INTERNET: levitt@zorro9.fidonet.org or levitt%zorro9.uucp@talcott.harvard.edu ------------------------------ From: Hongkuan Li Subject: Directory Assistance Thru Prepaid Calling Card in Other City Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 14:26:30 EST I am just curious to know how does the directory assistance charges the fee to someone who called from a public payphone using a prepaid calling card. I tried once with a card from NTC (Sure$aver), I called from NYC to (818) 555-1212, and I am charged for more than $0.70/min. I called up the customer service at the card company, it looks like the representative is poorly informed on this matter. Could any professional give us some details? Henry Li (212) 681-1486 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #118 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Mar 13 17:13:08 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id RAA06389; Wed, 13 Mar 1996 17:13:08 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 17:13:08 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199603132213.RAA06389@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #119 TELECOM Digest Wed, 13 Mar 96 17:13:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 119 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Feds Target 900 Numbers as Latest Scam (Tad Cook) Pyramid Scam? (Tad Cook) FCC Revamps its Web Site (Kevin Werbach) New 937 Area Code For Dayton (David Laney) Updated GSM List 03/10/96 (Jurgen Morhofer) New Telecom Internet Conference For Your Review (izim@wire.co.uk) Dates of Modulation Standards? (Frank da Cruz) Email From Sarajevo (Chris Gettings) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tad Cook Subject: Feds Target 900 Numbers as Latest Scam Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 00:25:14 PST Federal Authorities Target 900 Numbers As Latest Scam By LAURA MECKLER Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) -- Anthony McClendon figured it was an easy way to make big bucks: his very own 900 number. In the end, he lost almost $5,000. Federal authorities say McClendon and thousands of others were caught in the "scam du jour," where investors are promised large returns for virtually no work by operating 900 numbers. The Federal Trade Commission said Thursday that it has filed court cases against seven companies. The FTC alleges that three companies lied about the profit potential and six failed to substantiate their profit claims, as federal law requires. "I was looking for an investment to get a nice return on my money," said McClendon, 35, who owns a grocery store and a gas station in Chicago. "I knew 900 (numbers) was big money." He wasn't alone in losing big money, federal officials say. "Basically no one made what was promised and hardly anyone made anything at all," said Allen Hile, assistant director of the FTC's Division of Marketing Practices. Here's how it works: Companies lease investors 900 telephone numbers, where callers pay to hear sports trivia, sex talk, horoscopes and the like. The company handles all the paperwork and collections. All investors have to do is advertise, and they are told, "the money rolls in," Hile said. But it doesn't, he said. "The numbers simply didn't generate the kind of volume to make the kind of money that was promised," he said. The FTC began its investigation while following up on a case against fraudulent vending machine and display rack business opportunities. Investigators noticed that classified advertisements for business opportunities were down overall, but ads for 900 numbers were skyrocketing. "That seems to be the ... scam du jour," Hile said. The FTC has won temporary restraining orders halting the practices and freezing the assets of two companies: --Genesis One Corp., which does business as Bureau One out of Los Angeles. --William Szabo, who has done business as Gold Leaf Publishing and Distributing Co., out of Orlando, Fla. It alleges that these companies, along with Innovative Telemedia of Boca Raton, Fla., have made false earnings claims. The FTC also charges that Genesis One, Szabo and four other companies fail to disclose information about their companies and their financial histories, as required by law. These additional companies are: --Bureau 2000 International and Malibu Media of Los Angeles. --Pioneer Communications of Nevada, based in Los Angeles. --J.P. Meyers Co. of Southhampton, Pa. --Ad-Com International of Valley Village, Calif. The corporate officers of all seven companies also are named as defendants in the suits, which have been filed in federal courts across the country. In each case, the FTC is asking the court to order that defendants reimburse investors and refrain from engaging in similar deceptive practices in the future. None of the companies in question could be reached for comment. Messages left for Genesis One, Bureau 2000 International and Ad-Com International were not returned. There were no telephone listings for J.P. Meyers, Szabo or Pioneer Communications. There was no answer at the number listed for Innovative Telemedia. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The reputation of 900 numbers has really hit rock bottom hasn't it? One thing none of those people told you in their advertising to get *you* to buy into the plan and do advertising of 'your own 900 number' was that it really was not your own number. The line for sports commentary had but a single published number as did the line for horoscopes. What you added in your adver- tising was your 'extension number' to be entered by the caller to the same sports commentary or horoscope line everyone else was advertising. That is, a person who saw the advertisement you circulated would dial the 900 number and receive the command, 'please enter the extension number you wish to reach'. This is how the companies who brokered the service kept track of which co-operative advertiser was entitled to the commission on that call. It is much like now when you order something in the mail and are told to write 'department XXX' on the envelope or give a certain number to the rep taking your call. This tells them *where* you saw the ad since the 'department number' is different in each place the ad appears. If the caller punched in the 'wrong' extension number he would still get the service he was calling, but some other co-operative advertiser would get the credit for the call and the resulting commission. Everyone who was in this program gave out the same 900 numbers; just different 'extensions' identifying themselves and their efforts. Naturally the company which operated the 900 numbers to start with still made the lion's share of the profit. They also offered one called 'Date Line' where all the co-op advertisers were issued extension numbers for use by their customers. Customers looking for new husbands/wives/life partners called up the 900 number, entered your extension number so you would receive the credit and resulting commission, and then they were free to leave their own recorded message for others to hear and presumably respond to. I think the way they had it set up was it cost nothing to put up an announcement of your own (or at least it cost nothing for women) but you had to use the 900 number to retrieve any possible replies left for you in the voicemail box which had been assigned to you. If any of you are old enough to remember the little monthly magazine called {Cupid's Destiny} this is what it resembled, only over the phone instead of in print. In the old {Cupid's Destiny} magazine/club the company which actually printed the magazine was in Las Vegas, Nevada. But as a co-operative advertiser, you bought a certain number of copies of each issue which had *your name* printed on the cover (there was *never* any reference to Destiny Syndicate in Las Vegas). It appeared as though it was your magazine, with you as the publisher. You sold these or gave them away to your customers as you pleased. Each issue contained pictures and stories from people all over the USA who were looking for new partners in life. Your customers submitted their pictures and articles to you with their money. You in turn submitted these to Destiny Syndicate less your commission. The next issue would contain the stuff sent in by co-op advertiser/publishers all over the country. How did the person doing this make money? Well, with each issue of {Cupid's Destiny} came a separate list of the true names and addresses of the people (usually women) who were pictured therein. The magazine itself only had code numbers. You made your money by selling that list of names and addresses which matched the pictures and stories in the magazine. I think the list sold for five dollars each month although the magazine itself was a give-away or sold for twenty-five cents as a come on. Some successful adult 'paper dealers' as they were known sold hundreds of {Cupid's Destiny} code sheets every month to match the same number of magazines that were out there. The idea was of course that each cooperative publisher/advertiser -- that is, the person whose name was on the cover of each issue as though it were his own thing -- benefitted by all the women's pictures the other co-op's had submitted to the syndicate which ran the whole thing. Cupid's Destiny/Destiny Syndicate operated for many years from the 1920's through sometime in the 1970's, and some of the co-op publisher/ advertisers were with them the entire time. Of course, I suspect some of their uglier, less pleasant end-users were with them most of that time also, resubmitting their pictures month after month in the hopes the man for their life would eventually respond. And although the end-users were full of scams and tricks (one was a sixty-five year old woman who kept submitting pictures of herself from when she was in her twenties; always asking men to send money to her so she could come and visit them in person), the Syndicate itself was clean as a whistle. Postal inspectors were never able to get a case against the syndicate or the co-op publishers as long as they followed the rules exactly that the syndicate gave when they let you buy in as a co-op publisher/advertiser. So the Boca Raton outfit in the story mentioned above took the whole thing into the new technological era by getting people to advertise the in-common 900 number, sell space on the voicemail system to interested parties and collect the commissions. End-users calling daily to find out if the man of their dreams had left a message in their voicemail box at $3.99 per minute. At least it was supposed to work that way. Obviously most of the advertisers (or more correctly, co-op 900 operators) were not getting the commissions they had been led to believe were possible. Why is it South Florida is such a big fraud-hive? Is it something to do with the weather there? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Tad Cook Subject: Pyramid Scam? Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 00:47:15 PST Oregon, Hawaii Investigate World Class Network of Irvine, Calif. By Ronald Campbell, The Orange County Register, Calif. Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News Mar. 7--Regulators in two states are investigating an Irvine-based travel business as a possible pyramid scheme. Officials in Oregon and Hawaii launched their investigations to determine if World Class Network Inc. is selling a real product or merely selling the right to sell something, which could make it an illegal pyramid scheme. World Class chairman Daniel Dimacale said there's an important difference between his company and a pyramid scheme: "The only way our people can make money is through sale of our products," he said. World Class sells to a nationwide audience a travel-agent tutorial consisting of a text, videotape and audio tape, for $495 each. The buyers become independent travel agents for World Class. For an additional $49 buyers can become distributors, with the right to sell the tutorial and other products. Distributors earn $100 for the sale of each tutorial. Although they earn no commission on the sale of distributorships, they do share commissions from product sales made by the distributors they recruit. World Class likens the arrangement to the multilevel marketing network pioneered by Amway. World Class says it has signed up 12,000 distributors so far and hopes to have 50,000 by the end of the year. Currently the company generates 60 percent of its revenue from the sale of the tutorial and other products, such as a debit card for long-distance telephone services, Dimacale said. But the company hopes to switch its emphasis later this year to the sale of travel services. "Our goal for the year is $100 million in travel (services) and $50 million in products," Dimacale said. "So it's going to change." World Class currently operates in 11 states, he said. The Oregon Department of Justice warned World Class in January that it might be violating that state's law against pyramid schemes. The investigation is pending, department spokesman Jan Margosian said Wednesday. The Hawaii Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs also is investigating, staff attorney Patricia Moy said. At issue there is whether the company is selling securities that should be registered with the state, she said. Company attorney Scott Warren said he believes both investigations will be resolved soon. He said the company had dismissed some Oregon distributors who had misrepresented the company's services. Warren attributed the investigations to traditional travel agents, whom he said are fearful of competition from a legitimate multilevel marketer. "The nature of the industry has created a suspicion of any company that's in multilevel marketing," Warren said. There have been multilevel travel scams, he added, and "the principals (in World Class) left companies like that because they didn't want to be involved in anything like that." ON THE INTERNET: Visit RWorld, the World Wide Web site of The Orange County (Calif.) Register. Point your browser to http://www.ocregister.com ------------------------------ From: kevin@werbach.com (Kevin Werbach) Subject: FCC Revamps its Web Site Date: 13 Mar 1996 13:26:35 GMT Organization: Werbach Propaganda I just wanted to let folks know that the FCC has redesigned its home page and several other parts of our Web site to make them more comprehensive and easier to use. We have also added a page of information about the implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The FCC home page is at: http://www.fcc.gov/ I encourage everyone to visit and send comments and suggestions; we want to make the FCC's Internet resources as valuable to the public as possible. We are in the midst of an ongoing process of enhancing the FCC site, and reactions from the user community on what's important to you are extremely helpful. You can send comments either via the email link on the home page, or to me directly at . Kevin Werbach (speaking for myself, not the FCC) kevin@werbach.com The -k- Page http://werbach.com/home.html Bare Bones Guide to HTML http://werbach.com/barebones/ ------------------------------ From: david_laney@reyrey.com Subject: New 937 Area Code For Dayton Date: 13 Mar 1996 16:10:58 GMT Organization: CompuServe Incorporated It has been reported in the {Dayton Ohio Daily News} that Cincinnati Bell has announced that the 513 area code which includes Dayton and Cincinnati will split starting September 28, 1996. The Northern part of the 513 which is handled by Ameritech and other independents is going to move to 937. With cell phones not needing a move till September 28, 1999 and permissive for landline lubbers ending June 14, 1997. 937 -- what an ugly code. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 15:25:51 +0100 From: Jurgen Morhofer Subject: Updated GSM List 03/10/96 For the latest edition of this list look at my Web-Site: http://www.cs.tu-berlin.de/~jutta/gsm/gsm-list.html kindly supplied by Jutta Degener. And if you're already on the Web, take a look at my commercial site: http://www.pobox.com/~globaltel. I really would appreciate your business! (Changes in the list marked by "*") Date 03-10-1996. Country Operator name Network code Tel to customer service ------ ------------- ------------ ----------------------- Andorra STA-Mobiland 213 03 Int + 376 824 115 Argentina Australia Optus 505 02 Int + 61 2 978 5678 Telecom/Telstra 505 01 Int + 61 18 01 8287 Vodafone 505 03 Int + 61 2 415 7236 Austria PTV Austria 232 01 Int + 43 1 79744 Bahrain Batelco 426 01 Belgium Belgacom 206 01 Int + 32 2205 4000 Brunei Bulgaria Citron 284 01 Cameroon China Guangdong MCC Guangxi PTB Liaoning PPTA Croatia Cyprus CYTA 280 01 Int + 371 2 567 764 Czech Rep. Denmark Sonofon 238 02 Int + 45 80 20 21 00 Tele Danmark Mobil 238 01 Int + 45 80 20 20 20 Egypt Estonia EMT 248 01 Int + 372 639 7130 Int + 372 524 7000 Radiolinja Eesti 248 02 Int + 372 639 9966 Fiji Vodafone 542 01 Finland Radiolinja 244 05 Int + 358 800 95050 Telecom 244 91 Int + 358 800 1 7000 France France Telecom 208 01 Int + 33 1 44 62 14 81 SFR 208 10 Int + 33 1 44 16 20 16 Germany D1, DeTeMobil 262 01 Int + 49 511 288 0171 D2, Mannesmann 262 02 Int + 49 172 1212 Gibraltar GibTel 266 01 Int + 350 58 102 000 G Britain Cellnet 234 10 Int + 44 860 321321 Vodafone 234 15 Int + 44 836 1100 Jersey Telecom 234 50 Int + 44 1534 88 28 82 Guernsey Telecom Manx Telecom Greece Panafon 202 05 Int + 30 944 00 122 STET 202 10 Int + 30 93 333 333 Hong Kong HK Hutchinson 454 04 SmarTone 454 06 Int + 852 2880 2688 Telecom CSL 454 00 Int + 852 2803 8450 Hungary Pannon GSM 216 01 Int + 36 1 270 4120 Westel 900 216 30 Int + 36 30 303 100 Iceland Post & Simi 274 01 Int + 354 96 330 India PT SATELINDO Airtel 404 10 Essar 404 11 Maxtouch 404 20 BPL Mobile 404 21 Command 404 30 Mobilenet 404 31 Skycell 404 40 RPG MAA 404 41 Indonesia TELKOMSEL 510 10 Int=A0+ 62 778 455 455 Satelindo 510 01 Iran T.C.I. Ireland Eircell 272 01 Int + 353 42 31999 * Digifone Israel Cellcom Israel Ltd Int + 972 2 795944 Italy Omnitel 222 10 Int + 39 2 41431 Telecom Italia Mobile 222 01 Int + 39 6 615 20309 Japan Kuwait MTC 419 02 Int + 965 484 2000 Laos Latvia LMT 247 01 Int + 371 2256 7764 Int + 371 2256 9183 Int + 371 2934 0000 Lebanon Libancell 415 03 Liechtenstein Natel-D 228 01 Lithuania Comilet Luxembourg P&T LUXGSM 270 01 Int + 352 4088 7088 Lybia Orbit Macao CTM 455 01 Int + 853 8913912 Malaysia Celcom 502 19 Binariang 502 12 Malta Advanced Marocco O.N.P.T. 604 01 Int + 212 220 2828 Mauritius * Monaco France Telecom 208 01 Int + 33 1 44 62 14 81 SFR 208 10 Int + 33 1 44 16 20 16 Namibia MTC 649 01 Int + 264 81 121212 Netherlands PTT Netherlands 204 08 Int + 31 350 688 699 Libertel 204 04 Int + 31 6 0500 New Zealand Bell South 530 01 Int + 64 9 357 5100 * Telecom NZ Int + 64 4 801 7400 Nigeria Norway NetCom 242 02 Int + 47 92 00 01 68 TeleNor Mobil 242 01 Int + 47 22 03 03 01 Oman Pakistan Mobilink 410 01 Phillipines Globe Telecom 515 02 Islacom 515 01 Portugal Telecel 268 01 Int + 351 931 1212 TMN 268 06 Int + 351 1 793 91 78 Qatar Q-Net 427 01 Int + 974 325 000 Rumania Russia Mobile Tele... Moscow 250 01 Int + 7 095 915-7734 United Telecom Moscow =20 NW GSM, St. Petersburg 250 02 Int + 7 812 528 4747 SaudiArabia Saudi Telecom=20 Singapore Singapore Telecom 525 01 Int + 65 738 0123 Slovenia South Africa MTN 655 10 Int + 27 11 445 6000 Vodacom 655 01 Int + 27 82 111 Sri Lanka MTN Networks Pvt Ltd 413 02 Spain Airtel 214 01 Telefonica Spain 214 07 Int + 34 1 336 3300 Sweden Comviq 240 07 Int + 46 586 686 10 Europolitan 240 08 Int + 46 708 22 22 22 Telia 240 01 Int + 46 771 91 03 50 Switzerland PTT Switzerland 228 01 Int + 41 46 05 64 64 Syria SYR MOBILE SYR 263 09 Taiwan ROCLDGSM 886 92=20 Tanzania Thailand TH AIS GSM 520 01 Int + 66 2 299 6440 Turkey Telsim 286 02 Int + 90 212 288 7850 Turkcell 286 01 Int + 90 800 211 0211 UAE UAE ETISALAT-G1 424 01 UAE ETISALAT-G2 424 02 Uganda Vietnam MTSC 452 01 Zimbabwe Many thanks to Kimmo Ketolainen, Robert Lindh and Alex van Es for their precious help ! ------------------------------ From: wire@pavilion.co.uk (wire) Subject: New Telecom Internet Conference For Your Review Date: 13 Mar 1996 14:45:31 GMT Reply-To: izim@wire.co.uk As a keen telecoms & internet enthusiast, excited about the flattening and globalising potential of all that is ahead, I thought this Telecoms and Internet conference: http://wire.co.uk/conferences/tel-inet/ looked very relevant, current and interesting. Check it out and let me know what you think: izim@wire.co.uk ------------------------------ From: fdc@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Frank da Cruz) Subject: Dates of Modulation Standards? Date: 12 Mar 1996 21:05:21 GMT Organization: Columbia University Who knows the year in which each standard was approved or (in the case or corporate standards) became operational? Who can fill in the missing dates (or correct the ones that are wrong)...? Note: where a range of dates is given, it goes from the date of first approval to date of last amendment. ITU-T V.34 1994 ITU-T V.32bis 1991 ITU-T V.32 1985 ITU-T V.29 1976-84 ITU-T V.26ter ITU-T V.26bis 1972-84 ITU-T V.22bis ITU-T V.22 1980 Vadic VA3400 Bell 212A ITU-T V.23 1972-84 ITU-T V.21 1964-84 Bell 103 Thanks! Frank ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 15:51:29 GMT From: gettings@econnect.net (Chris Gettings) Subject: Email From Sarajevo I have a good friend, Hank Valentino, working in Sarajevo who is using email to keep in touch back home. Hank works for a private contractor to the government setting up elections. Although not strictly telecommunications, these first hand accounts from that area may be interesting to Digest readers. 3/2/96 Hi Everybody, I had a good flight all the way from DC to here. Everything was on schedule, which I am told that is unusual. I spent Wednesday night in Zagreb which is the capital of Croatia. I had a chance to walk around the town and it was very interesting. There was a huge underground mall right next to the hotel. They had everything in there. I bought some fruit and water. I was surprised at the variety of things there. It was nothing like Kazakhstan. Almost like something you would find in Germany. The Germans do have a great influence here. In Croatia they have a local currency, but they use Marks (German money) like other places use dollars. The merchants won't accept dollars there or here. Here they also have a local currency, but nobody wants it, they all want Marks. I took a UN flight from Zagreb to Sarajevo. The plane does not fly a direct route, but goes to the Adriatic Sea and then southeast to a place near the city of Split, which is on the seacoast and border between Croatia and Bosnia, before it turns toward Sarajevo. Once it makes the turn toward Sarajevo, you are flying the same route that Scott O'Grady flew when he was shot down. It is also the same track they followed when they rescued him. You almost have no choice in that route because of the mountains all around. Sarajevo from the air looks like a nice town, with snow on the ground and high rise buildings in the center of town. When you land, you begin to see the devastation from the war. It's hard to believe all this happened from a civil war and not from a war between countries. From the airport through the city was one of the front lines of the war and all the high rise buildings are just shells, some are burned out, none of them have any windows. Most of the homes have no roof. As you get into the central part of the city and just a few blocks from the front line, they have cleared the rubble and replaced broken windows with plastic and are basically living as normal a life as possible. Shops and stores are beginning to open now. Each day as you walk through the area a new shop is open. People here seem to have adjusted and are trying to get things together. Not many of them speak or understand English. Electricity is on is most places but power outages are common. The city has been divided in half and one day heat is available in one section of the city and in the other section the next day. Our office sits right by the river on a street that was the front line because the other side of the river is where a mountain or hill begins and the Serbs control the mountain and that's where they were shelling the city. You can see marks from mortar shells on the sidewalks and streets all over. Buildings are all pockmarked from bullets. Our office building is in good shape and warm even though we have heat every other day. The people I work with are from all over, but mostly from Europe -- Norway, Sweden, Netherlands, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Russia, France, Turkey, UK, Canada and US. English is the language spoken in the building. The basic organization is called OSCE, Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. We have direct support from the military NATO unit called, IFOR (eye for). This organization is basically going to manage the election. There is a Provisional Elections Commission which is chaired by the Ambassador who heads this mission and includes the senior people from each of the warring factions. The Dayton Peace Agreement requires the election to be held within six to nine months after it was signed which was December 14. We are working seven days a week to try to make it happen. The situation is complicated because the Agreement specifies that all citizens over the age of 18 must have the opportunity to vote and this includes refugees and displaced persons. There are approximately 900,000 refugees located in 15 different countries. Germany has over 300,000 of them but they don't know where they are located. The problem is how to reach the refugees since they are being assimilated into the host countries. Nobody has an accurate figure on the number of people displaced by the war, but it also totals in the hundreds of thousands. They had more than 10,000 displaced last week as a result of their city, a suburb of Sarajevo, being turned over to multi-national police for protection. They don't trust the multi-national police force. Anyway, the Agreement says they must vote in the jurisdiction where they lived in 1991, before the war, unless they want to change their registration to a new location. One of my jobs is to figure out how to get the information to these people so they know they can change their registration and how to do it and then where and how to vote. The OSCE has a budget of $50 million and that's not going to be enough. Nobody is counting the military budget to support the effort. That has to exceed $100 million. The population in 1991 was less than five million. The house where I'm living is about a 15 - 25 minute walk from the office. The problem is it's all uphill from the office. So when we walk to the office in the morning, it's about 15 minutes, but going home it's 25. There is one stretch where it is steeper than our old driveway and about five times as long. Part of it is cobblestone so with ice and snow it is very slippery. The boots I got keep my feet warm but they have no traction on ice. I couldn't believe that and almost fell a couple of times. There is a shortcut but it is even steeper and the guys from the house refer to that route as suicide hill. We haven't taken it. The house is nice. It is a four bedroom house, but it only has one bathroom. That hasn't been a problem. The problem is there is no hot water. Last night the water was warm so I decided to shave and shower before going to bed. I started to shave and the electricity went out and I had to use candles. I had to be careful not to burn my nose with the candles. The electricity came back on just as I finished shaving. The warm water did not last through the shower. I just got lathered up and it turned to ice water. Needless to say, I didn't take a long shower. Vincent's thermal underwear has been very nice at night. 3/3/96 It's Sunday morning and I thought I would finish this before I send it. It has snowed almost every day, but mostly at night and in the morning. Then the sun comes out and it gets in the high 30's. I went to mass at the cathedral which is only two blocks from the office. The Bishop said the mass. The church is a nice church without too much damage, some of the stained glass windows have holes in them and the outside has some bullet marks, but other than that the church appeared okay. 3/5/96 Hi Everybody, This will be a short note since I want to try to get this off before Mom goes to work. It's 2:30 in the afternoon here. I've been in meetings all day. They have a staff meeting at 9:00 every morning and then today the Provisional Elections Commission (PEC) met and I went to lunch with one of the people in the media section and had another meeting after that. It was interested to sit in on the PEC meeting. The Serb representative has a full military escort since he is theoretically coming into "enemy" territory. He has a jeep with military and machine guns in front and behind his car. They wait outside the building while he is in here attending the meeting. The military escort is from the NATO command here. Today is the first day we didn't have snow. The sun is shining but it is still in the 30s. Last night I went to dinner with a retired State Department guy who was the Deputy in Barbados. He came in on Sunday and we were talking. He said he was from Nebraska and I asked him if he knew Allen Beerman. He said of course I know Allen. I told him about meeting Allen and his family on the way to Las Vegas. He was invited to Allen's reception in Washington, which he is hosting on the 22 or 23. Anyway, we went to eat at a nice restaurant here. It is a restaurant frequented by writers, or as some refer to it as a meeting place for intellectuals. It reminded me of some of the media restaurant's in Washington. They had sketches on the wall of all the famous people who frequented the place. The food was good. We finally had a little more heat in the house and a little warmer hot water. The landlord lit a coal fire in the furnace. He had been relying on gas but it wasn't working and I think the heating element in his hot water heater is burned out. We reported it yesterday to the people responsible for housing and they called the landlord. We'll see what happens. They are having a hard time keeping citizens in the suburbs when control of the area is turned over to the multi-national force. Of the three large suburbs, less than 15,000 remain out of a population of 150,000. They have more than two million people in the category of displaced citizens and that's out of a total population in 1991 of 4.5 million. They estimate between two and five hundred thousand were killed in the war. They have over 900,000 refugees that went to more than 15 foreign countries. The reason so many are displaced is because of the ethnic cleansing policy. Basically all the Christians are going to end up in one area and the Moslems in another and the Croats in another. They lived together before but they are being pressured to separate now. A lot of propaganda is being put out and the Mission here hasn't done anything to counteract it. I'm giving a plan to the Ambassador on this subject this week. --------------- Chris Gettings Internet: gettings@econnect.net Tel: (416) 585-2626 Fax: (416) 585-2242 Visit us on the World Wide Web: http:/www.econnect.net [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Admittedly off-topic, but an interest- ing report none the less. I feel very sad at times for the millions of innocent victims over there. What if the situation there were to become more and more difficult; American involvement more and more complex, and eventually it wound up like Viet Nam all over again? Some say that could never happen; but I just don't know. I do know I have become so weary in recent years of the constant battles around the world. Bosnia, Ireland, Israel and the rest of the middle east ... Will we ever in our lifetime see a world totally at peace? Did you ever wonder, as I often do, what value there is at all to the many technological improvements in our lifetime when there are so many really serious problems in the world which show no signs of abating anytime soon? I mean, so what with all of our computers and phones and ways of communicating when so many people around the world are living in horrible situations such as that in Bosnia? Thanks for sending that correspondence along, and send my regards to your friend. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #119 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Mar 14 13:06:25 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id NAA05489; Thu, 14 Mar 1996 13:06:25 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 13:06:25 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199603141806.NAA05489@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #120 TELECOM Digest Thu, 14 Mar 96 13:06:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 120 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Radio Interference With Electronic Devices (Digest Reprint 6-23-89) Re: PCS Phones Disrupting Hearing Aids? (Jeff Joslin) Re: PCS Phones Disrupting Hearing Aids? (Alfonso C. Fuller, Jr.) Re: More Allegations About MCI (John Higdon) Re: More Allegations About MCI (Lowell Kim) Re: San Jose Mercury Strikes Again (Ron Parker) Re: Buffalo (NY) War On Drugs (Lisa Hancock) Re: Maine Island Seeks Wider Calling Area (Robert Holloman) Re: ISP Profitability (was Re: Misuse of the Internet?) (Bill Sohl) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 11:43:03 EST From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Subject: Radio Interference With Electronic Devices To begin this issue of the Digest, a reprint of an article which appeared here several years ago about RF interference. It is reprinted more for your amusement than anything else. After this article appeared in Volume 9 Issue 208 on June 23, 1989, there appeared the usual REplies from readers and these were printed in the remaining days of June, 1989 and the start of July the same year, in issues 209 through 250 if anyone wants to go back to the Telecom Archives to review them. There were responses by John Higdon, Fred Goldstein, and a few other readers whose names would be familiar today. Please remember this article is seven years old; you should take no action based on the names and addresses as they appear herein. PAT --------------- TELECOM Digest Fri, 23 Jun 89 00:00:34 CDT Volume 9 : Issue 208 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Praise the Lord and Pass the RF Filters (TELECOM Moderator) How to put an answering machine on a System 25 (Roy Smith) Re: Automatic Conversation Recording Device (Dave Platt) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 22 Jun 89 19:23:26 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Praise the Lord and Pass the RF Filters Indiana Bell service in the northeast section of Hammond, IN has gone to hell, but the telco says its not their fault, and they are trying to work with the people involved to correct the problem. For instance, consider the case of Steve Gescheidler, a resident of north Hammond, living just a few blocks from the Illinois/Indiana state line: he shares a party line with Jesus. When he picks up his telephone, a voice will often be on the wire reading from Ephesians, or bellowing at him to repent before he Burns In Hell forever. Sometimes the voice is trying to sell him spiritually enlightening audio tapes -- Visa and MasterCard accepted, of course. His neighbor around the corner, Judy Maruszczak, has a heavenly instrument also: When she tries to make a phone call, it will often times be drowned out by hand-clapping gospel music. Her VCR also likes to preach to her. The Hammond legal firm of Efron and Efron owns a pious dictaphone machine. When the secretary is in the midst of transcribing legalese, threats of fire and brimstone suddenly are heard on the tape. In addition, their phone system is electronic, and when they put calls on hold, as often as not a few seconds later the hold is broken and the call is lost. Several times per day the phone will ring, and no one is on the line at all. Linda Reynolds, another resident in the area said her television, her VCR and her cordless phone all began urging her down the righteous path last fall. She said sometimes at night the cordless phone begins ringing by itself, and going off hook for no reason, tying up their wire-line. Nine year old Tommy Kotul learned how to find salvation while he was trying to play 'Sports Baseball', an Atari game cartridge. He also said that one day in school, a choir started singing hymns over the school's public address system, which is in the form of speakerphones connected to the intercom phone on each teacher's desk. Although the sanctified interference shows up in the damndedest ways, on all sorts of electronic gizmos, it invariably is on the phone lines of the good (and presumably by now, God-fearing) residents of North Hammond, an Indiana community which straddles the Illinois state line with the communities of Burnham and Calumet City, Illinois to the south and west, and Chicago at it's northwest tip on the state line. So people began asking Indiana Bell, "what the heck is this, anyway?"... WYCA-FM Christian Broadcasters, Inc....that's what it is.... this religious station, operating at 92.3 on the dial, licensed in Hammond, IN, with transmitter facilities in Burnham, IL is the culprit. Operating with an antenna height of 500 feet, and 50,000 watts of radiated power, the folks at WYCA-FM Christian Broadcasters, Inc. are literally *saturating* a two mile area around the northern end of the Indiana/Illinois state line, 24 hours per day, seven days per week. Gescheidler lives about four blocks from WYCA's transmitter. He first began noticing the sanctified interference last fall, and it became louder and louder as the months went on, always on his end. "It seems like when I am in the middle of an important conversation, some preacher always comes on and tells me I'm going to Hell," he said, adding that the phone lines had already gone to hell, and no one seemed to give a damn about it. After complaining several times to Indiana Bell, Gescheidler and his neighbors complained to the Federal Communications Commission, the Indiana Utilities Regulatory Commission, and finally to the radio station itself. No one, he realized, least of all the radio station, was willing to take any responsibility for the problem. WYCA isn't breaking any broadcasting rules according to Paul Gomell, an FCC Chicago office technician whose duties include periodic examination of WYCA's equipment. "The home equipment is probably not adequately filtered," he said. "The problem has nothing to do with Indiana Bell's equipment," said Delores Steur-Wagner, Indiana Bell's community affairs manager for Hammond. "If there are complaints, they should go to the FCC." Chris Alexander, Dallas-based Vice President-Engineering for WYCA-FM Christian Broadcasters parent corporation said, "The signal is so strong, you expect this kind of interference in devices that are not well-shielded. We try to advise people as best we can, and we have worked closely with Indiana Bell and Illinois Bell to resolve complaints." In November, 1986, the station raised its antenna to 500 feet from 400 feet, and increased its power from 30,000 to 50,000 watts, Alexander said. "We made these changes only after receiving permission to do so from the Federal Communications Commission." Alexander said that this change in power and antenna height created a so-called 'blanketing area' -- an area of about 1.7 miles in any direction of the transmitter and antenna -- where the signal is so strong and so permeating, it is literally everywhere, in everything. "Indeed this is the case," said one neighbor five blocks from the site. "I have gone for early morning walks in the open field where the antenna is constructed. In the crisp, early morning air, you can almost feel the signal; smell that ozone; sense the corona." Alexander said, "We operate completely within the law. We observe all FCC regulations at all times." He noted that one condition for the change in antenna height and power output being granted by the Commission was that WYCA was ordered to assume responsibility for correcting certain types of radio interference in an area 1.7 miles in any direction of the station for a period of *one year* afterward. Alexander said during that time they worked closely with the telcos involved and "....anyone who complained about interference was given free of charge the filtering devices they needed...some of our people helped install them....just what the FCC said we had to do, we did it, in the geographic area required, for the length of time required...." Alexander noted one of the first complaints about the increased power came when prosecutors in a federal drug trial in Hammond tried to play wiretap evidence for the jury: instead, the tape recorder offered up hymns and homilies. Paul Gomell of the FCC noted that they have received complaints about the station relating to answering machines, speed-dialing equipment, cordless phones, cheapie phones, hold buttons, Touch-Tone service, and VCR's. These appurtenances and others -- like the preaching Atari game -- lend to the appearance that God is everywhere, at least in Hammond. One Indiana Bell service representative spoke, on the condition that she could remain nameless, saying that the telco had handled over 130 WYCA- related problems in the past year, but Bell spokeswoman Steur-Wagner said the company does not keep track of such things and she had no way of confirming this report. The next step to reduce the interference -- with no guarentees that it will completely end -- is to have all the interior phone wire shielded in steel casings, said Tim Timmons, Indiana Bell's regional maintainence manager for northern Indiana, "...plus of course have good filtering where the phone lines come into the building..." "What a deal!", said Gescheidler. He recently priced the job at $300 per phone from an independent contractor. "Indiana Bell said *maybe* they could do it a little cheaper for us...but they say it is not their obligation to resolve the problem any further." He mentioned that, "...one day some guy from WYCA came here with a phone man; they had some cheapie looking filter they plugged in...it didn't seem to do any good." Although the parent corporation of WYCA in Dallas may have good public relations, the neighborhood says local staff at WYCA-FM Christian Broadcasters, Inc. isn't at all concerned any longer. "They have heard so many complaints I guess they quit listening to them any longer," said a neighbor. "When I called one day -- one day when it seemed like they were much louder than usual -- and asked them in a nice way couldn't they modulate their signal a little better, a lady there told me I was being blasphemous. She told me it was anti-religious to complain. She said I should be thankful that I was able to hear the Word of God, and she hoped I would someday realize I would Burn In Hell without accepting Jesus as my Savior. That's the last time I bothered calling *them* to complain. Now the FCC and Indiana Bell say *they* can't do any more either?" No madame, they cannot. As Chris Alexander, VP-Engineering has explained time and again when asked, the Corporation follows all FCC rules at all times. "We ALWAYS do exactly what the government tells us to do," he said. And Indiana Bell brings the wire to the drop by your house. They say the line is as clean as it can be at that point. You do the rest. An old folk-prayer says, "My Lord....nothing is going to happen that You and I can't handle together. Amen." But one can have too much togetherness, as the residents of North Hammond will attest. Said Steve Gescheidler, "On the radio, they are praying for me. Meanwhile, I am praying for a phone line I can talk on without being disrupted by the choir and the organist." Radio Station WYCA-FM Studios and Executive Offices 6336 Calumet Avenue Hammond, IN 46301 92.3 on FM dial throughout northern Illinois and northern Indiana. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note added 3-14-96: There have been many changes and improvements there over the past few years with the result being the interference is mostly gone. Before it was totally corrected however, it had gotten to the point that people with hearing aids were hearing the preaching and hymn-singing, etc almost continuously in their heads. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 16:32:50 +0000 From: jeff joslin Subject: Re: PCS Phones Disrupting Hearing Aids? Organization: Nortel Technology In article , John Gilbert wrote: > My personal opinion of of this issue is that much of this is pure > politics. It appears to me that the leaders of several supposed > "lobbying groups for the deaf" are actually using this issue to > promote their own agendas. For example, one "leader" manufacturers an > add-on product to retrofit phones for compatibility with hearing aids. > Another "leader" has a large stake in CDMA system development and is > trying to block TDMA implementation in his market. RCR has been > reporting this issue in depth for some time. As someone who wears hearing aids, I can assure you that the core issues are _not_ pure politics. GSM phones do indeed cause interference with some hearing aids. Also, keep in mind that there are two types of interference being discussed: the first is interference with hearing aids being worn by third parties, i.e., by someone in the vicinity of someone else using a GSM phone. This type of interference is due to a combination of EM emissions by the phone and poor EM rejection in certain models of hearing aids. The other type of interference occurs when someone with a hearing aid tries to use a GSM phone. In this instance, the user switches the hearing over so that instead of receiving its input from a microphone, it uses a flux coil instead. Regular telephones have corresponding coils in them to create an EM signal that is picked up by the flux coil. Because of the strong 217 Hertz EM emissions by GSM phones, the voice EM signal is drowned out. PCS phones have a similar problem, but the noise is at, I believe, 500 Hertz. There are a couple of implications of the above. The first type of interference can fairly be laid at the feet of hearning aid manufacturers. But the second type of interference can't be eliminated at the hearing-aid end without also eliminating the voice signal. Therefore, the GSM manufacturers are the ones who must deal with this problem. Actually, let me qualify that last remark. That remark is true if the signal being picked up is actually the 217 Hertz emission. But it's possible that the phone is emitting, for instance, a 1 MHz signal which is amplitude modulated by a 217 Hz sinusoid, and the hearing aid is somehow demodulating the 1 MHz carrier. I'm not sure how likely this is, however. Jeff Joslin Nortel Technology ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 10:51:17 -0500 From: Alfonso C. Fuller, Jr. Subject: Re: PCS Phones Disrupting Hearing Aids Ed Kleinhample Consultant - Land O' Lakes, FL. Wrote: > My advice to the hearing aid manufacturers -- spend two cents on some tin > foil. My question is: Given that the hearing aid manufacturer does that, who will pay the $2000 / H.A. which the consumer pays?? [Note: usually, Medicaid and private insurers will not pay for hearing aids, despite the fact that they are medical devices.] Al Fuller Attorney at Law, Washington, D.C. ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 00:35:18 -0800 From: John Higdon Subject: Re: More Allegations About MCI robert@caliper.com (Robert Freimer) writes: > The other interesting part of this experience is with Sprint, which I > am now happily using for International calls. They had no problem > with my request for an account with 10333 access. I have had a secondary (10333 access) account with Sprint for about ten years. At no time has Sprint ever attempted to become PIC on any of the lines involved, nor have they ever pressured me into any particular plan or usage. In months where there is no usage (most of my calls are made through another carrier), there is no bill. There are no minimum monthly charges as with AT&T; no "mystery" charges as with MCI. I also have a Sprint calling card that was issued back in the US Telecom days before the merger with Sprint. After all this time, and even after months of inactivity, it always works. Even though Sprint's rates are not as low as I have been able to negotiate elsewhere, it is nice to have the backup account. Neither AT&T nor MCI would be suitable for such standby service. AT&T has its minimums (and soon, an eighty-cent surcharge on carrier-code usage), and MCI constantly attempts to become PIC and applies constant pressure to this effect. John Higdon | P.O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX: john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | +1 500 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407 | http://www.ati.com/ati | ------------------------------ From: lowellkim@aol.com (Lowellkim) Subject: Re: More Allegations About MCI Date: 13 Mar 1996 18:01:37 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: lowellkim@aol.com (Lowellkim) What is it the MCI commercials say? Real savings, Real Simple. Yea. Right! LK Heusel, Indianapolis ------------------------------ From: parker@olympus.net (Ron Parker) Subject: Re: San Jose Mercury Strikes Again Date: Thu, 14 Mar 96 23:55:19 GMT Organization: Internet for the Olympic Peninsula In article , John Higdon wrote: > There are new, very tough, Federal laws about being called by any > person or business after you have duly notified them of your wish not > to be called. I would like to hear from anyone who has been called by > the San Jose Mercury News AFTER they have asked to be put on the "do > not call list". I want to document as many hits as I can, not only > from myself, but from others in the same situation. I have complete > records of all incoming calls so my case is in the bag--but the more > the merrier. John, Here in Washington state we have a telephone solicitation law (RCW 80.36.390) that covers just what is bugging you. In my case it's AT&T's attempt to get my long distance business that's driving me up the wall. IAC, all I do is ask for confirmation that it is/is not AT&T, pry out of them their company name if not (which they are supposed to provide within the first 30 seconds) and then tell them I am notifying the state Attorney General. My calls have diminished somewhat. The AG of course won't act on *my* complaint alone but I am assured that they are building a file on AT&T. Anything like this available in CA? Patience, Ron P. ------------------------------ From: hancock4@cpcn.com (Lisa) Subject: Re: Buffalo (NY) War On Drugs Date: 14 Mar 1996 01:52:27 GMT Organization: Philadelphia City Paper's City Net Philadelphia is attempting the same thing with certain pay phones, only the situation is a bit different. The phones in question, located on public street corners, are privately owned. A phone on a corner is supposed to get a city permit and pay a license fee since the corner is city property. While Bell Telephone has always abide by city rules and has fully paid fees (which includes NOT putting a phone where the city wouldn't like one), the private operators put them whereever they wanted. The City tried to remove these phones, and the private operators promptly filed a lawsuit against the city blocking any removal. Technically, the city should have the right to rip out any such illegal phone and bill the owner for the expense. But the city does not have the resources to fight a protracted legal battle, so the phones remain. ------------------------------ From: Holloman@cris.com (Robert Holloman) Subject: Re: Maine Island Seeks Wider Calling Area Date: 14 Mar 1996 07:44:06 GMT Organization: Concentric Internet Services Mike Fox (mjfox@raleigh.ibm.com) wrote: > Sorry for the flame. I'm just annoyed by the notice that my Raleigh, > NC phone bill is going up so that Pittsboro can be added to our local > calling area. Our bills are only going up a few pennies, but if the > Pittsboro were paying for it, it would cost each of them a lot more. > It's a classic case of a small constituency widely distributing the > costs of something whose benefits will be concentrated on them. It's > how our government got into the mess it's in now, IMO. I suspect Pittsboro (and Franklinton and Louisburg, which will become local on the 23rd) residents are going to pay a lot more for it. If not, I'm sure folks in Benson, Four Oaks, Selma, and Smithfield would like to know why. Their bills increased by $.50 to 1.30 when those exchanges became local to Raleigh in Dec '94, but Raleigh's increased only 2 cents or so. (The exact values varied from exchange to exchange, but were within that range.) Over 90% of returned ballots were in favor of becoming local to Raleigh. Raleigh customers didn't get to vote. It's interesting that these small-town exchanges, which are served by BellSouth and Sprint/Carolina Telephone, can so easily become local to Raleigh (BellSouth), even though some of them are a good 20 miles or more from even boardering the Raleigh exchange. Yet, Durham and Creedmoore (both on GTE South), which do boarder Raleigh's exchange, remain long distance, though at a 50% discount. ------------------------------ From: billsohl@planet.net (Bill Sohl) Subject: Re: ISP Profitability (was Re: Misuse of the Internet?) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 02:42:28 GMT Organization: BL Enterprises keith@tcs.com wrote: > the early telcos had large capital requirements, which > constituted a substantial barrier to new entrants. In fact, many > economissts called them natural monopolies. > While it is true that the ISP market is exploding, the barriers to > entry are practically nonexistent now. Which, from a consumer point-of-view is an excellent situation. > Unless ISPs work together with the government to create some > barriers, those gazillions of earnings will not materialize. Sorry, if it is an easy thing to become an ISP, we don't need arbitrary governemnt regulation to change the playing field into one that requires major capital investment. > Instead, this will be a low-margin high-volume business, having more > in common with gasoline stations than with today's utility companies. As above, nothing in our capitalist economy demands that new busineses must always make people rich. As long as there is a reasonable amount of money to be made, the future of the Internet will be fine. Really now, what's wrong with an internet that is structured along the lines of thousands of individual business ventures (ISPs) rather than an oligopoly arrangement such as the utilities. Bill Sohl (K2UNK) billsohl@planet.net Internet & Telecommunications Consultant/Instructor Budd Lake, New Jersey ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #120 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Mar 14 15:17:05 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id PAA18536; Thu, 14 Mar 1996 15:17:05 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 15:17:05 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199603142017.PAA18536@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #121 TELECOM Digest Thu, 14 Mar 96 15:17:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 121 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Sprint in California (Jim Lawson) Sprint Sense California (Linc Madison) Re: Sprint Extends Fridays are Free (Kimberly Berryman) Re: Sprint Wants Asian American Customers (Steven Lichter) Re: Sprint Extends Fridays are Free (lande@wolfenet.com) Re: Sprint Extends Fridays are Free (Arvinder Malhotra) Are All 800/888 Numbers Free? (jtassi@cts.com) Re: Reservation of 888 Toll Free Number (Judith Oppeneheimer) New 888 Number Order Gets Mixed Up (George Goble) STS Marketing Calling Cards (Becky K. Franklin) Telephony Works Bi-Weekly (Leslie Farrell) Seeking Information on Excel Communications (David Fernald, Jr.) Re: WorldCom/LDDS/WilTel: Comments? (Mike Fletcher) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lawson@crl.com (Jimbo) Subject: Sprint in California Date: 14 Mar 1996 14:25:35 GMT Organization: Home I rang up Sprint last night to sign up for the long distance plan listed below. They told me that in April they will be offering local telephone service. Rate information TBD. From: http://www.sprint.com/sprint/product/home_dom/ssca.html [Image] [Image] Get Simple Savings with Sprint Sense California[Image] [Image] [Image] You live in a pretty big state. The fact is, Californians make twice as many in-state long distance calls as other folks around the country. So why shouldn't you save on calls both out of state, AND within California? We asked ourselves the same question, and have come up with an answer. It's called Sprint Sense California. And it's simple long distance, designed just for the Golden State. We're giving our California customers extra hours of discount calling, and an even bigger break on long distance rates. (Your cost of living is high enough, right?) And in addition to these great new rates and extended calling periods, you'll also get a yearly cash back bonus on your in-state and state-to-state long distance calls. Check out the details below and you'll see that it pays to stay with Sprint Sense California. At last, a simple, straightforward calling plan that doesn't confuse you with complex structures. In other words, you'll always know what you're paying. Sprint Sense California offers low, flat rates per minute and just two easy-to-remember calling periods: * Californians save on in-state long distance at 5 cents a minute. Call up and down the state. San Diego to Lake Shasta. Chico to Chula Vista. Whether you're calling forty or four hundred miles away, you'll pay just 5 cents a minute for Sprint's long distance calls within California, Monday through Friday, 5 p.m. to 7 a.m. Your peak period calls will cost 15 cents a minute (Monday through Friday, 7 a.m. to 5 p.m.) * 10 cents a minute every evening starting at 5 p.m. and all weekend long. Pay a flat rate of 10 cents per minute for all your Dial 1 state-to-state long distance calls, including domestic FONCARD calls. And now, California residents get this great rate starting at 5 p.m. until 7 a.m. Monday through Friday and all weekend.* Just imagine. You can call your friends and loved ones on the East Coast when they're still awake. With Sprint Sense California, everybody wins. * 25 cents a minute for daytime calls, Monday through Friday. With Sprint Sense your state-to-state calls from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m.--Monday through Friday--cost 25 cents per minute. * 10 cents a minute to Canada on weekends. We've recently included Canada into our Sprint Sense California plan. So when you call Canada Friday, 7 p.m. to Monday, 7 a.m., you'll pay just 10 cents a minute for your call, the same great weekend rate you pay in the U.S. * Cash back! Yes, you heard correctly. Sprint Sense California customers earn a 10% cash back bonus every year**. All you have to do is call us and tell us you want in on our Sprint Sense California cash back program. At the end of your year with Sprint, you'll experience firsthand how it really does pay to stay with Sprint Sense California. Sprint Sense with cash back, another example of simple savings. * Basic rates apply to your other long distance calls. For all other types of calls--including international, operator- assisted, directory assistance, etc.--you're still billed at Sprint's basic, competitive rates. And you'll still experience Sprint's first class quality and convenience. * You don't have to sign anyone else up, call a specified area code, or call at inconvenient hours. Sprint savings are simple. * Sprint's 100% digital, fiber optic network provides unsurpassed voice and data transmission clarity on every call you make. To sign up for Sprint Sense California please click here, or call one of the following numbers: ... 1-800-366-1044 if you are not currently a Sprint Customer and want to sign up for Sprint Sense California with our cash back program. ... 1-800-877-4646 if you are already a Sprint Customer, and want to sign up for Sprint Sense California with our cash back program. *FONCARD surcharges apply. Rates apply to domestic FONCARD or voice FONCARD calls with Dial 1 service. ** Minimum spending requirements apply to cash back. [Image] [Image] | Home | Welcome | Sprint Stuff | Internet Ahead | Cyber Diner | Rec Room | Road Map | Copyright) 1995 Sprint Communications Company, L.P. | webmaster@www.sprint.com -- Jim Lawson lawson@crl.com http://www.crl.com/~lawson/ mst3k#3801 - "What're quantum mechanics?" - "I don't know. People who repair quantums, I suppose." -- (Terry Pratchett, Eric) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 23:41:15 -0800 From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Sprint Sense California I got a mailing today from Sprint telling me about their new program "Sprint Sense California." It's mostly pretty good, but they've dropped the ball yet again on a couple of points. I called the 800 number in the letter. The first two times I called, I was connected to a recording which told me the exciting news that Sprint now offers paging services, gave me a different 800 number to call for more information on that, and then disconnected. The third try finally connected me to their customer service droids. The little recording telling me to please hold because my call will be handled by the first availalble representative, had the sound of a person tapping a computer keyboard at the beginning, which gave the disconcerting impression that my call was handed to a rep who just immediately dropped me back into the hold queue. (I don't think that was the case, though, because the typing sounded identical each time I heard the recording.) "Sprint Sense California" ("SS-CA") tinkers a bit with the hours and rates of the original "Sprint Sense" ("SS") plan. HOURS OUT OF STATE IN-STATE* Day (7am - 5pm) $0.25/min. $0.15/min. Eve/Nt/Wkend $0.10/min. $0.05/min. *the in-state rate applies also to "local toll" (intra-LATA) calls dialed with the "10333" prefix. The salient features of the new plan: (1) cheap rate begins two hours earlier on weekdays. Very good for California, because 7 p.m. here is getting pretty late in Eastern or even Central time zones. (2) to make up for (1), the day rate has increased from 22 to 25 cents per minute for interstate. That's pretty lousy for a "discount" plan. I can get 17.5 cents/minute on a calling card with no surcharge, and I don't doubt I could do better. Also, between 7 a.m. and 8 a.m., they are without exception the MOST EXPENSIVE residential long distance company in the United States. It's only five hours a week, but it doesn't make much Sense[TM] to me. (3) the cheap rate for calls in California is lower. So much for the good old days when San Diego was a more expensive call than Maine. The "SSC" cheap rate for "Local Plus" calls is cheaper than Pacific Bell for most evening and night calls. (4) the day rate for calls within California is quite high. In particular, for calls within a LATA, the "SSC" rates are *ALWAYS* higher than Pacific Bell's highest undiscounted rates. The very highest rate charged by Pacific Bell is 14.7 cents for a one-minute call over 40 miles (add'l minutes are 12.5 cents (41-70 miles) or 13.6 cents (71+ miles)) Does Sprint *REALLY* think I'm going to take the trouble to dial five (or seven) extra digits for the privilege of paying HIGHER rates on EVERY call? (5) the "Sprint Sense Cash Back" plan still applies to "SSC." You get back 10% of your qualifying calls after a year. (6) options are available for callers who make lots of international calls. I didn't inquire about those. (7) you get $10 off each of your next three invoices for signing up. The whole mess leaves me with a complicated algorithm for choosing how to dial a given call. The "day/evening/night" definitions are those used by Pacific Bell, the same as the pre-divestiture AT&T except that night/weekend rate applies all day Sunday. LOCAL (up to 12 miles) ......................... Pac Bell ZONE 3 (13 to 16 miles) Day or Night rate ........................... Pac Bell Evening, up to 1 minute ..................... Sprint Evening, over 1 minute ...................... Pac Bell LOCAL PLUS (17+ miles, same LATA) 7 a.m. to 8 a.m. ............................ Pac Bell Day rate .................................... Pac Bell Evening rate ................................ Sprint 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. 17 - 20 miles, under 3 minutes .......... Sprint 17 - 20 miles, over 3 minutes ........... Pac Bell 21+ miles ............................... Sprint OTHER CALLS WITHIN CALIFORNIA (different LATA) 5 p.m. to 7 a.m. and weekends .............. Sprint!!! 7 a.m. to 8 a.m. ........................... MCI 10222+ 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. ........................... Sprint CALLS OUTSIDE CALIFORNIA 5 p.m. to 7 a.m. and weekends .............. Sprint 7 a.m. to 8 a.m. ........................... MCI 10222+ 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. ........................... ATN/LDDS calling card Gosh, I can sure see why they call it "Sprint *SENSE*"! Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com ------------------------------ From: kb@pcsi.cirrus.com Date: 11 Mar 96 14:43:00 PST Subject: Re: Sprint Extends Fridays are Free Reply-To: kb@pcsi.cirrus.com I received a copy of your comments about Sprint's Business Sense calling plan special (Fridays free to anywhere in the world). Based on some of the comments I read, I thought you might be interested to know that I had a very hard time signing up for this, since I am not listed as a business. I do *not* have an accent, either. What they said, in the end, was that I could do it, but I had to be listed as a business customer with Sprint (I was already listed as a residential customer), and they strongly warned me that I was breaking a rule by getting business long distance specials without paying the local phone company for business service. They said my local phone company might see the long distance plan and force me (somehow) to either cancel that long distance plan or pay business rates for my regular phone service. Kimberly Berryman PCSI Legal Department (619) 535-9505 Ext. 1433 (619) 678-1340 Fax [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think they are starting to squirm a little on this one now that they realize how big of a hit they are going to take on it from people signing up just to get those free calls on Friday. PAT] ------------------------------ From: slichte@cello.gina.calstate.edu (Steven Lichter) Subject: Re: Sprint Wants Asian American Customers Date: 14 Mar 1996 09:37:13 -0800 Organization: GINA and CORE+ Services of The California State University Maybe these people should look at how Sprint treated those who worked for the company in San Francisco before doing business with them. SysOp Apple Elite II and OggNet Hub (909)359-5338 2400/14.4 24 hours, Home of GBBS/LLUCE Support for the Apple II. slichte@cello.gina.calstate.edu [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I say its all the more reason to do business with them ... or should I say give them the business ... but Sprint has finally wised up to the gag and they are starting to make it very hard to get on the Business Sense program. Note what the other articles in this issue have to say. PAT] ------------------------------ From: lande@wolfenet.com Subject: Re: Sprint Extends Fridays are Free Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 02:27:28 GMT Organization: Wolfe Internet Access, L.L.C. > Sprint's "Fridays are Free" program, which was originally scheduled This program is new to me. Can Sprint customers make calls for free on Fridays? If so, does it include international calls and how many Fridays does the program run? Thanks. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You need to sign up with Sprint on their 'Business Sense' program. On doing so before the end of March, you will then get up to a thousand dollars in free calls each month on calls you make anytime during the 24 hours of Friday each week. Calls can go anywhere, including international. This will go on for one year from the date you sign up. You agree to pay them fifty dollars per month in minimum billing for long distance service. They may try to insist that you have to default a line to them; I think you can refuse to do so, and use only the 10222 code to reach them. After signing up, allow at least a few days for the 'Friday Free' billing to kick in, and someone said you need to have at least one call billed to you before that time. I am going to ask Les Reeves to summarize all this one last time for anyone who has not yet heard about the program. The bottom line is $12,000 less $600 = $11,400 in free calls over the next year if you sign up now for Business Sense with Sprint. PAT] ------------------------------ From: apsm@pcsi.cirrus.com Date: 13 Mar 96 11:22:00 PST Subject: Re: Sprint Extends Fridays are Free Reply-To: apsm@pcsi.cirrus.com Hello Pat, I called the Sprint guys to have me switched over to the "Sprint Business sense" program. They said that I need to have a business running at home and asked for a federal tax id. Is that true? Please let me know because I see this as blatant case of racism whereby they discourage people with foreign accents from having this service. Is it mandatary to have a business running from home or are the residential customers also eligible for it? I would appreciate any advice or info. Thanks, Arvinder PS Malhotra, apsm@pcsi.cirrus.com PCSI, 9645 Scranton Road, San Diego, CA 92121 Tel: +1-619-535-9505 x2085, Fax: +1-619-535-9235 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: A home business is what you yourself detirmine it to be. This thing about a federal tax id is a new kink they are tossing in to discourage the 'wrong people' from signing up for the program. A 'federal tax id' is the *very same thing* as a social security number where individuals are concerned. Where the SSN is parsed xxx-xx-xxxx a federal tax id number looks like xx-xxxx-xxx. If you are not a corp- oration you do *not* need a federal tax id. Your SSN serves the same purpose. All the numbers are on the same computer at the Internal Revenue Service. Your 'business name' is simply your own name. Therefore when/if they ask for a 'federal tax id', without hesitation you read them your social security number. If they want to know what your home business is, you respond that you are a 'consultant'. If they claim you will 'get in trouble' using a business tariffed service on a residential phone, ask they how do *they* know how your phone is billed? Just because a phone is in a residence and just because it is non-published does *not* mean it cannot be billed at business rates; furthermore, many telcos such as Ameritech (and perhaps yours?) encourage people to work at home using second lines for fax machines, etc. If they want to know more about your business, I think you can legitimatly tell them it is none of their business; but if you happen to feel like rubbing their noses in their own mess, you can always say that you consult with international callers in the Nation of India every Friday for hours at a time on topics pertaining to their phone service. :) In conclusion, but only if you absolutely need to do so, ask a supervisor if they are prepared to justify refusing service to you in formal complaints filed with the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission. A good way to put them on the defensive is by asking a supervisor, "How far do you intend to keep pushing this? Will it require filing a formal Commission complaint in order to assure that you meet the promises made in your advertising, etc?" Les Reeves reports that he has had a lot of people write direct to him saying Sprint was refusing to allow them on the Business Sense program and generally for no reason other than their obvious Indian or other middle-east accent. A way to get around that might be by having your English-speaking with an American accent 'assistant manager' call in the order. You as the business owner are far too busy to spend time working directly with telephone service reps yourself. :) A couple more weeks remain to sign up for the program. PAT] ------------------------------ From: jtassi@cts.com Subject: Are All 800/888 Numbers Free? Date: 13 Mar 1996 19:35:11 GMT Organization: CTS Network Services Are all 800 numbers free? The question came up during a recent discussion. I said YES, my friend said no. He claims that if you dial 1-800-976-xxxx you will get charged. So, as a test we dialed 1-800-976-5565 (just a random number). A voice came on line and said "Please enter your numeric message". I did nothing else and just hung up. So ... in about three or four weeks I will find out who was correct. As a side note to our discussion, with all the overlay stuff going on, is 976 a valid area code? If so, and a person was slow at typing, (i.e. physically challenged) (9....7....6....2....3.....4.....5..BING YOU ARE CONNECTED TO XXX WORLD) when actually the number wanted was 1(976)234-5678. I actually have money riding on this bet (25 cents), so I'd like to know ahead of time if I am going to be the big winner or the big wiener. Thanks. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: 976 is not presently assigned as an area code. It is unlikely to be assigned as such anytime soon. Part of the reason might be as you have described it: failure to include the '1' at the start could lead someone to reach a premium call number in error. Ditto with 900; I have never heard of a local exchange numbered that way. There are just too many opportunities for confusion in dialing. 800/888 numbers are free of charges for the carriage of the call to the caller. The called party pays for the call itself. What does sometimes occur is that the called party then attempts to sell you something -- typically 'information', and in particular, begin an activity known as 'phone sex' with you in which there *is* a charge, and frequently a hefty one at that. The called party is supposed to clearly state all this at the time you call the number and give you a chance to hang up immediatly without being charged in the same way the law requires they do with calls to 900 numbers. Often times they speak rapidly or their message is slurred and the only part that comes out plain is: 'hangupnowifyoudonotwanttobechargedforthiscallattherateoffivedollars perminuteotherwise, to continue, PRESS ONE NOW'. People press the requested key and unwittingly get billed. Then they later claim they were 'billed for a call to an 800 number' ... when in fact legally what they did was agree (by taking the positive action of pressing a button on their phone) to accept whatever 'information' followed and to pay for it at the specified rate. So you are correct and your friend is wrong; however in real life the distinction becomes blurred at times. All this is little comfort to the PBX administrator who thought he was safe from excessive unwanted charges by blocking out 900/976 on his switchboard while leaving 800 open. In your specific example, although 976 is typically an extra charge or premium service, the 800 in front of it takes precedence in terms of billing, meaning that even if 976 were premium in that case, it would still be the *called* party paying it rather than the caller. I do not think in the case of 800 that 976 has any significance. PAT] ------------------------------ From: callbrand@aol.com (CallBrand) Subject: Re: Reservation of 888 Toll Free Number Date: 14 Mar 1996 15:14:39 GMT Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: callbrand@aol.com (CallBrand) > I'll be curious as to how many 888 numbers are consumed purely as place > holders for the 800 number owners. As of March 11th, the exact number of 888's placed in replication-pending set-aside is 377,299. Judith Oppenheimer, President, Interactive CallBrand A leading source of information on 800 issues. CallBrand@aol.com, 1 800 The Expert, (ph) 212 684-7210, (fx) 212 684-2714 http://www.users.nyc.pipeline.com:80/~producer/ ------------------------------ From: ghg@cidmac.ecn.purdue.edu (George Goble) Subject: New 888 Number Order Date: 14 Mar 1996 10:49:00 GMT Organization: Purdue University A blending plant for some refrigerants I invented is being built near Clearwater, Florida. They use AT&T for other company 800 services. During mid-February, they argued and argued with AT&T to get an 800 "vanity" number; they had one that was not in use, but AT&T could not seem to get it set up, so they got a temporary 800 non-vanity number, with a promise their "vanity" number would be working on 3/1/96 under 888. Around 3/7 AT&T enabled 1-888-762-XXXX and disconnected the 1-800 number. Calling the 800 number produced a recording (with SIT) of "number disconnected - no further information available". You would think AT&T could setup a recording to point to the new 888 number for a while. Around 3/8, dialing 1-888 from W. Lafayette, IN (GTE) started working. As expected, PBXes, COCOTS, etc, none worked. The Purdue PBX, big enough to be a "CO" did nothing. I called the switchroom (GTE employees) people I know and asked them what they knew about 888 to see if they had heard of it. They had (vaguely) heard of it, but had no idea of when it was supposed to start (this was on 3/7 or so), so I had to explain it to them. They have not gotten "official" orders to add it yet, and it still does not work like 1-800 does. I did get it to work from Purdue by dialing "22+888+7D". "22" is used to make an AT&T credit card call and routes to AT&T. AT&T was smart enough to recognize the 888 and not play the "bong" or ask for a card number; just complete the call. This method does not work for "800" calls. 22+800+7D ends up in some 812 switch (Purdue is area 317) as "cannot be completed" ... Cellular-ONE (Indy switch) still does not allow 1-888 dialing. It says "dialing a 1 is not needed for this call", omitting, the one, routes the call to some poor sucker within the 888 NXX (probably in 317 NPA) in the Cellular-ONE calling area. Talking to Dave Schmidt, the local Cellular One branch manager, I was told that 1-888 is "still blocked" as Cellular ONE thought that the new 888 was possibly an extension to 900 numbers instead of 800 numbers and they didnt want to get involved with fraud. Cellular one blocks 900 calls now. (They can't get ANI'd). Calling an ANI number (or my 800 number) from Cellular One just shows some landline number of their access trunk on a local switch (not dialable - returns number not in service). 1-888 works fine from GTE Mobilnet. Both Cell carriers operate their switches out of Indianapolis. ghg [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In your reference to 'cannot be completed as dialed ... 812 ...'. I think 812 is south of you in the Terre Haute, and Bloomington, Indiana area. Maybe that is where your call to an 800 number went for handling. I notice here that 888 anything works fine on my Frontier (i.e. Ameritech) cellular line, however 888-555-1212 is not in service. Other calls to 888 complete however. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 10:33:16 EST From: Becky K Franklin Subject: STS Marketing Calling Cards I'm looking for information on a company named STS. They are new to the business of promoting your name and advertising on LD calling cards. They admit to being the same kind of marketing approach at AMWAY. They don't give any information as to the price-per-minute rates or which LD carrier they process through. From what I can deduce, they seem to be promoting a type of pyramiding scheme where you keep getting other people underneath you to sell to keep a commission check each week. Of course, they say, you can just sit back and watch the $$money roll in! Any information will be appreciated. Becky Franklin email franklinb@utelfla.com or ozzy@ozone.net ------------------------------ From: twbiweekly@aol.com (TWBIWEEKLY) Subject: Telephony Works Bi-Weekly Date: 14 Mar 1996 13:17:58 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: twbiweekly@aol.com (TWBIWEEKLY) We are doing a story on what early retirees and downsizing candidates have found after leaving their full-time, permanent jobs with major Telecom companies. If you would like to share your experience with others faced with a decision to leave their current employer, please share it with us and we will include it in our April '96 issue. The March issue of TWB is available on 3/22/96. Those of you who requested a free copy of our employment newsletter in February will also receive March. Anyone interested in placing your own Job Wanted ad free of charge may do so by faxing your resume to 817/444-8137. We have jobs summarized from the classifieds monthly and many new job opportunities for telecommunications companies. This is a forum by and for industry workers looking for alternative employment options. TWB is only available in hard copy at present so we will need mailing instructions to send you a free copy. Good luck! Leslie Farrell Publisher/Editor 817/444-8125 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Couldn't these guys sign on as distrib- utors for STS or Amway or Excel and then sit back and watch the money roll in? Speaking of Excel, still another inquiry about them has come to me and follows next in this issue. PAT] ------------------------------ From: David Fernald, Jr. Subject: Excel Communications? Organization: U.S. Army Armament Research Dev. & Eng. Ctr, Dover NJ Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 17:22:48 GMT Hi All, My mother has a friend who is thinking about working for a company called Excel who apparently do long distance. The friend is located in Florida. Does anyone know anything about this company? I'm sorry I don't have more information about the company name, but my mom didn't seem to know a whole lot about it. Her only concern was that her friend seemed a little uneasy about working for this Company. TIA, df [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Some say Excel is a multi-level marketing organization more interested in signing up new dealers than they are in providing phone service. We have heard here from people involved with Excel who insist this is not the case, and that the company is quite legitimate. I do not know what the truth is in this. Suffice to say, there is much controversy about Excel in the same way there is controversy about Amway. Some think it is a wonderful company and that if people like Becky Franklin (see earlier in this issue) and former telco employees who have been pensioned-off would sign up with them they could sit back and watch the money roll in, along with, I assume, the good times. A couple readers have noted that Excel uses the time-tested and proven effective 'Scientology Technique' to purge criticism of their company on the internet; i.e. they sue anyone and everyone they can find. I have not seen this to be the case, but I recall the last time a negative mention of Excel appeared here, one of their reps was quick to respond which of course is their right, and it is my obliga- tion to present a little of both sides on an issue. PAT] ------------------------------ From: fletcher@gate.net (mike fletcher) Subject: Re: WorldCom/LDDS/WilTel: Comments? Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 12:19:08 GMT Organization: CyberGate, Inc. On Wed, 13 Mar 1996 07:24:59 -0500, Mark Kushigian wrote: > We're looking to put in a point-to-point 56K line between Michigan and > North Carolina, and WorldCom has by far the best price (beating MCI by > $200/month). > Does anyone have any experience with this company? Is their service > reliable and their tech support good? I have used them [LDDS] for several years for 800 and 1+. I also know a few fairly extensive users of point to point services from them who have indicated that they were happy with the service. They have several T1s etc. spread around Florida. I have noticed that during their mergers with various companies the procedures keep changing and the contacts we had kept disappearing. Make sure that you get some 1+ numbers for one of their repair centers. I have had a couple of occasions where their 800 switch crashed and took out my 800 numbers and the LDDS repair 800 number at the same time. Overall good service and good rates. Mike Fletcher AD4HV 813-622-9102 President,Tampa Bay Amateur Radio Society 95-96 Florida Certified Fire Alarm Contractor # EF-0000028 E-Mail to fletcher@gate.net Homepage **coming soon** ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #121 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Mar 14 15:59:02 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id PAA23541; Thu, 14 Mar 1996 15:59:02 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 15:59:02 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199603142059.PAA23541@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #122 TELECOM Digest Thu, 14 Mar 96 15:59:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 122 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: 888 Appears in Advertisement (Ron Schnell) Re: 888 Appears in Advertisement (Shawn Travis) How About the 193rd Bit in Digital Telephony (Steve Alexandre) Seeking TR303 Information (Paul Rheaume) Seeking v.24 Specifications; Where to Find? (O. Bodin) Re: ATT and Long Distance Information Services (Stanley Cline) Re: ATT and Long Distance Information Serivces (Wes Leatherock) Re: Unlimited Local Calling For New York Area (John R. Grout) Re: Houston AC: It's Not Over (Edward Marion) Seeking Sales Opportunity (Gene Price) Employment Opportunity: Position as Switching Engineer (smoklere@bah.com) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ronnie@twitch.mit.edu (Ron Schnell) Subject: Re: 888 Appears in Advertisement Date: 14 Mar 1996 07:03:04 GMT Organization: MIT > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: ... Anyone on the list called in > yet to get their 800 number replicated, or put in an order for an 888 > number? As always, stories welcome. PAT] I did, indeed, call LCI to get my 800 number replicated. When I called on January 30th, I mentioned to the agent about the importance of getting the order in before the "deadline", and he, of course, had never heard of any deadline. He also couldn't fathom why I wanted the same number in 888. He really tried hard to cancel my 800 number. Anyway, I tried it as of this morning, and both numbers now work (last week, only the 800 number worked). Actually, I'm not really sure why I did it either. I think it is just because there existed a deadline, after which I couldn't necessarily do something ... therefore, I'd better do it! Speaking of stories (!) ... I had a customer call me early in February, because he couldn't reach my 800 number from Canada. I thought this was odd, since I opted for the Canada plan. I immediately called LCI, and the business customer service rep "listened" to my story, and told me that there is no problem, as the number is flagged to accept Canada calls. I politely informed her that there actually was a problem, because people in Canada could not reach me. She said she would investigate it and get back to me. Two weeks later, I asked my customer to try the 800 number again ("What kind of outfit am I dealing with," he probably thought), and it still didn't work. I reached another CS agent at LCI who looked up the record, and spoke with the original agent. She told me it was "fixed" because the record "now" reads that it is flagged to accept Canada calls. "Ma'am, what I am trying to tell you, is that your computer might be flagged, but it ISN'T WORKING!!" She said she would open a trouble ticket, and the original agent would call me back within 24 hours. One week later (it still didn't work), I called again, immediately asking for a supervisor. The male CS rep refused to give me one, and insisted on helping me himself: LCI: I need to know the number that is trying to call you. ME: I've already given all this information. I need to speak with a supervisor to get this straightened out. I've spent money on advertising in Canada, and people are getting a disconnect message. I don't want to get the attorneys involved. LCI: Sir, the only way this is going to get resolved is to open a trouble ticket. ME: No, that will not get it resolved. I have already done that. LCI: Your trouble ticket number is ... ME: When will I be able to find out the status of this trouble ticket? LCI: I can't give you a date when it will be fixed. ME: I want a date when I can check the status of the ticket. LCI: Call back in 24 hours. I got busy for a few days, and a week later, my customer let me know it still wasn't working. ME: I need to check the status of a trouble ticket. LCI: (sounds like the same guy!) Ticket # After I gave him the number, he put me on hold for 25 minutes (I timed it). I was programming, so I just had it on speakerphone, and it was their dime, so I let it go. After 25 minutes, I hung up, and called them back. The same guy answered the phone (I wrote down his name last time). ME: You just put me on hold for 25 minutes. LCI: Yeah. ME: What happened? LCI: How can I help you? ME: You didn't answer my question, why was I put on hold for 25 minutes? LCI: The trouble ticket says "checked, no problem" ME: I insist on speaking with a supervisor, right away. He put me on hold for five minutes, then a supervisor came on. ME: I'm trying to remain calm, here ... [Ron's Note: I have found that the opening line I used works *very* well with supervisors. It makes it seem like you can be a rational person, and can also become irate, and they don't want you to become irate.] To shorten a long story, she already knew the whole situation, and told me there was some "conflicting information" between the "trouble investigation" people and the "network control" people. She said she would get it fixed that day, which she did. She told me the problem was within one of the phone companies that they contract out to carry the Canada calls. She also gave me a $25 credit for my trouble. Rather than tell her what I thought of the $25 credit, I graciously thanked her, for I was relieved that the problem was fixed. Ron Schnell Driver Aces, Inc. http://www.driver-aces.com (800/888) 511-UNIX ------------------------------ From: stravis@glass.toledolink.com (Shawn Travis) Subject: Re: 888 Appears in Advertisement Date: 13 Mar 1996 16:25:32 GMT Organization: Toledo Internet Access, Inc. The CBC have been running commercials telling people that 888 is just the same as 800, using businesspeople who have 888 numbers to convey the message. BellCanada has apparently agreed to let these people use their real 888 numbers in these ads, as none of the numbers are 888-555 or similar "dummy" numbers. This started about a month ago, and the ads have primarily been running in prime time. Steve Brack stravis@glass.toledolink.com ------------------------------ From: salex@imo.qc.ca (Steve Alexandre) Subject: How About the 193rd Bit in Digital Telephony Date: 14 Mar 1996 19:36:00 GMT Organization: In digital telephony, we used the time division multiplexing. We multiplex 24 lines. 24 lines with 8 bits => 192 bits. A 193rd bit is added to assume the synchronisation. So, my question is how is the bit coded to be detect by the receiver? Thank you for your time. Send me the answer at salex@imo.qc.ca Steve ------------------------------ From: prheaume@toucan.net (Paul Rheaume) Subject: Seeking TR303 Information Date: 13 Mar 1996 12:57:16 GMT Organization: Toucan Internet Publishing Can somebody tell me where I can find documentation for the TR303 - Integrated Digital Loop Carrier System. I would like to get a general overview and specifications for the system. Thanks in advance, Paul ------------------------------ From: o.bodin@canit.se (rjan Bodin) Subject: Seeking v.24 Specifications; Where to Find? Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 00:24:35 GMT Organization: CanIt Public Access, Stockholm Reply-To: o.bodin@canit.se I wonder if anyone please could tell me where i can find specifications of the v.24 protocol. Thanks, o.bodin@canit.se ------------------------------ From: scline@usit.net (Stanley Cline) Subject: Re: ATT and Long Distance Information Services Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 01:44:40 GMT Organization: Catoosa Computing Services On 7 Mar 1996 15:04:19 -0500, was written: > maybe just don't have access to it?) from Lexington because it is a > "Independent Telephone Company (GTE)". Hummm ... GTE operates their own DA services. When Dalton, GA was operated by GTE, dialing 1+706+555-1212 for Dalton numbers resulted in a transfer to GTE. However, when ALLTEL acquired GTE's Georgia properties, they farmed DA out to BellSouth. Same happened when Citizens Telecom acquired GTE's former exchanges in Tennessee. Interstate Telephone (owned by the same company as InterCel and MindSpring) in West Point, GA also operates their own DA. They have only ~10k landline customers, though! What's really surprising about BellSouth doing DA for other telcos: There are five independent telcos (Century, ALLTEL, and Ringgold, Trenton, and Chickamauga (GA) Telephone) included in the Chattanooga main local calling area. (In outlying parts of the area, other telcos are local.) I would guess that since BellSouth "holds" DA listings for ALL of these communities, that Caller ID would display name/number from the *DA* database for calls from these areas. Lo and behold, it doesn't! Calls from Atlanta, GA and Winston-Salem, NC -- BellSouth areas -- DO show name, however. Chickamauga is not SS7 capable yet, so they show out-of-area, but the other telcos, all SS7 capable, show number and CITY/STATE only -- no name. When I asked BellSouth about it, they said that their Caller ID would show ONLY BELLSOUTH CUSTOMERS' names -- even though they already have easy access to the other telcos' listings! They even operate the company that distributes some of the telcos' directories! Stanley Cline (Roamer1 on IRC) ** GO BRAVES! GO VOLS! Catoosa Computing Services, Chattanooga, Tenn. mailto:scline@usit.net ** http://chattanooga.net/~scline/ CompuServe 74212,44 ** MSN WSCline1 ------------------------------ From: wes.leatherock@hotelcal.com (Wes Leatherock) Subject: Re: ATT and Long Distance Information Services Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 14:25:00 GMT glnfoote@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Glenn Foote) wrote: > I recently had occasion to contact several Chambers of Commerce in > Kentucky. When I called (my LD service is through ATT) 1.606.555.1212 > and asked for a listing in Lexington, and one in another city, I was > told that ATT could provide the second city, but they would have to > transfer me for the Lexington Number. Why? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: A number of years in the past when the > 555-1212 service was first getting started, quite a few telcos just > contracted with the local predominant carrier -- usually Bell -- to > provide their directory assistance service. Many also over the years > found it was more economical to contract out their operator service > to the predominant company -- usually Bell -- in their area. Now there > was no rule they had to, and some small independent telcos to this > day maintain their own operators and their own directory assistance. > For whatever reason, they prefer to do it themselves. When you come > across a case like this, the public is not expected to know that for > all of a certain area Bell is the telco but in one small community > there is a separate telco with their own thing going on. So to better > serve the public, as 555-1212 became widely known, the decision was > to just encourage everyone to use that number and in the instances > where an independent telco did not want to contract with Bell to > handle it then on reciept of a call about that area the operator > would just tell the party to hold on and she would connect them > there for local handling. > Based on your experience, I guess there are still some small indepen- > dent telcos who prefer handling their own operator and directory > assistance functions. Most long ago contracted them out to Bell. PAT] Perhaps one thing that has been overlooked is that Glenn's call to 606-555-1212 reached an RBOC DA operator, not an AT&T operator. As Pat notes, it is not that the DA operator was "not allowed" to give out numbers in that place, but that the numbers were not in his/her records. A fairly large independent serving a good deal of northwestern and western Oklahoma, the Pioneer Telephone Cooperative, maintains its own DA records at its headquarters in Kingfisher, Oklahoma. If you ask 405-555-1212 for a number in one of their exchanges, the Southwestern Bell DA operator will extend the call to Pioneer's DA office in Kingfisher. It is my understanding that Pioneer is large enough they find it cost effective to maintain their own DA operation, rather than paying Southwestern Bell to do it. The same thing may be true for GTE in Lexington, Ky. The Pioneer operation in Kingfisher covers about three blocks and with lots of microwave horns on one of the buildings. Not your typical rural independent. I remember years ago looking at traffic orders and/or estimates for DA positions and noting that one of the options that had to be specified was whether or not the position had to be equipped to extend calls. That was long enough ago that there were probably some BOC locations in the U.S.A. that did not have consolidated DA records for an area code, in addition to independent companies that maintained their own. Wes Leatherock wes.leatherock@hotelcal.com wes.leatherock@baremetl.com ------------------------------ From: j-grout@glibm19.cen.uiuc.edu (John R. Grout) Subject: Re: Unlimited Local Calling For New York Area Date: 14 Mar 1996 19:37:34 GMT Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana In article Greg Monti writes: > After 50 years (100 years?) of mandatory local measured service for > New York metropolitan area residential telephone customers, NYNEX has > begun to advertise what a few years ago would have been unthinkable. > Ads I've seen on New York City TV stations say that NYNEX will begin > offering a plan which allows unlimited calling for a flat rate. > They use "regional" to mean "intra-LATA." The New York LATA is a huge chunk > of land extending from parts of Orange County 40 or 50 miles northwest of > New York City to Montauk Point, Long Island, which is 120 miles east of the > city. During the 1980's, NYNEX converted most of their intra-LATA direct-dial traffic to message rate service, and extended their message rate structure to have six different bands (A through F). If I remember correctly, NYNEX converted _all_ direct-dialed calls to and from New York City (excluding Greenwich, CT) to message rate service, and converted most direct-dialed calls on the same side of New York City (e.g., Nassau to Suffolk, Westchester to Rockland) to message rate service. > Will subscribers to this new service be able to make a free regional > call from Orange County to Montauk Point If memory serves, I don't believe NYNEX ever converted such calls (between widely-separated points in different directions from New York City) to message rate service. > and what will that level of service cost per month? The packages of this sort I've seen around the country fall into two patterns. One, more common in areas with flat-rate service, allows a customer with flat-rate service to pay an extra charge per month for unlimited service to points outside their local calling area. The other, more common in areas with metered service, allows a customer to pay an extra charge to obtain a discount on metered (or intra-LATA toll) service to points outside their local calling area. If NYNEX were to offer the first kind of package, I would expect to see it offered only for the closer-in message rate bands; I'd expect to see only the second kind of package (or nothing) offered for other calls. John R. Grout Center for Supercomputing R & D j-grout@uiuc.edu Coordinated Science Laboratory University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ------------------------------ From: Edward Marion Subject: Re: Houston AC: It's Not Over Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 13:59:35 -0800 Organization: EZX Corp. "The EZ-Forms Co." http://www.cris.com/~ezx AMEN Jeff! Why dont we just go back to an overlay, and face the future head-on instead of just putting off the inevitable. That way when we actually need a third and fourth area code, no one will have to be distrpted at all. The two "persons" at the PUC who voted against the 281 overlay obviously have not worked a day in their lives or have any concept about how small businesses operate if they have an international presence, like we do. They seem to have no idea of the hardship this area change thing is causing for small businesses. We get calls and faxes from all over the world based on literature, etc. we sent out over five years ago! We had to print up some ads, etc. that will be seen well into '97 the other day. We put in the notice about the 281 change (we're in Clear Lake, outside Beltway 8). And now we find out that 281 is not even going to be the area code. Needless to say, I'm pissed! If these nimrods could only have their faces shoved into the ink, money and time they are wasting, maybe then they would get the idea that the least painful method is to NOT CHANGE ANYONE's current area code or phone number! BTW I've heard rumors that the two new area codes for the area outside BW8 under consideration are 468 (spells HOU; also spells HOT) and 380 (a prefix currently used for test numbers). This comes from an un-nameable SWB employee. Best Regards Y'all, Edward Marion, General Manager of EZX Corp. "The EZ-Forms Automation Company" Publishers of: FormPower & FormPowerPRO & FormEZ for Windows, (a.k.a. HotFormz & HotFormz PRO & FormIT) FillPower PRO (HotFiller PRO) for Windows YourFormsPRO & ExportPower PRO & WinDD250 PRO for Windows, EZ-Forms eXecutive & DataBase for DOS; EZ-DiskCopy PRO for DOS & WinDisKlone for Windows, Email: mailto:ezx@cris.com or EZXHOU@aol.com Compuserve: 76350,3111 Americal Online: EZXHOU WWW: http://www.cris.com/~ezx soon to be ... http://www.ezx.com Mail: EZX Corp, 403 E. NASA Rd., Suite 377, Box 58177, Webster (Houston), TX 77598-8177 USA Voice:(713!)-280-9900 FAX:(713!)-280-0099 BBS:(713!)-280-8180 !(Note, our Area Code may change around Nov'96. If 713 does not get thru, dial 713-555-1212 and ask for EZX Corporation's phone number and area code. Thank-you Texas PUC? The new area code may be 281, or 468, or 380 ... who knows?) ------------------------------ From: gprice@erc.cat.syr.edu (Gene Price) Subject: Seeking Sales Opportunity Date: 14 Mar 1996 17:42:20 GMT Organization: CASE Center at Syracuse University. I currently have over 18 years of sales experience in the telecommunications industry. I have sold Northern telecom, Hitachi, NEC PBX's, Cisco and Fibermux routers, bridges, ethernet switches, voice mail, video conferencing, microwave radios, CATV, CTI, and several other unique applications. I am currently located in upstate NY and would like to stay here but will be willing to travel anywhere including overseas. Please send responses to gprice.erc.cat.syr.edu Thanks! ------------------------------ From: smoklere@bah.com (Smokey) Subject: Employment Opportunity: Position as Switching Engineer Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 18:33:11 GMT Organization: Booz-Allen & Hamilton Switching Engineer My company has a few open positions in the Northern Virginia/DC area for Switching Engineers. The individuals must possess strong knowledge of wireline or wireless switching products, call processing and feature developement. Familiarity with hardware and software componets of switch service provisioning is beneficial. If you are interested in learning more about these positions, you may reach my by E-Mail at smoklere@bah.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #122 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Mar 14 17:12:48 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id RAA01535; Thu, 14 Mar 1996 17:12:48 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 17:12:48 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199603142212.RAA01535@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #123 TELECOM Digest Thu, 14 Mar 96 17:12:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 123 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Misuse of the Internet? (Steve Bagdon) Re: Misuse of the Internet? (Gregor Markowitz) Re: PCS Phones Disrupting Hearing Aids? (Scot E. Wilcoxon) Re: PCS Phones Disrupting Hearing Aids? (John Higdon) Re: What's Behind Those Walls, Anyway? (Thomas Lapp) Re: Resp Org Refusal to Change Due to Debt (Gary Bouwkamp) Re: AT&T to Offer Internet Services (David Breneman) Re: Call Forwarding and Caller ID Results (Hendrik Rood) Re: Seeking Information on Radio Control Multiplexers (John Gilbert) Re: CallerID, AT&T and Bell Atlantic (Tony Pelliccio) I Want to Get Into Network Planning (Robert W. Walthall) Re: AT&T, AOL, the Baby Bells and the Internet (Tom Horsley) Re: Dialing For (no) Dollars on the Internet (Steve Coleman) Re: 888 Appears in Advertisement (Van Hefner) Dog Dials 911, Rescues Human Companion (David Leibold) Telemarketers Take Control of the Phone Line? (Clark R. Wilkins) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 06:45:33 -0500 From: bagdon@rust.net (S and K Bagdon) Subject: Re: Misuse of the Internet? > ACTA's "concern" over the load that packet voice puts on the Internet > is a bit like the East Germans claiming they built the Berlin Wall out > of sincere concern that West Berlin was becoming overpopulated. > (Thanks to Mike O'Dell for this wonderful metaphor.) But there is another side to this. I ended up in a great e-mail thread with a gentlemen in the Netherlands, about that country was basically shutting down CUSeeme. After a bit of digging, and a little prodding, it was discovered that out of the two or three big ISPs (everyone else were just resellers), the biggest one was all pleased to announce their direct T1(!) line to MAE East. They had to shut down CUSeeme to just let the e-mail traffic get through. In some situations, a T1 is the only link into a country -- not a building or city, but a country! Irresponsible use of bandwidth for audio and video can bring the entire structure down. Now, we did both agree that shutting down the software _within_ the country was wrong. Getting out of the country had a bandwidth limit. Talking within a POP should have no such limit. Yes, there are limitiation, but not that many. Steve B. bagdon@rust.net Katharine and Steve Bagdon ------------------------------ From: gregor@myhouse.com (gregor markowitz) Subject: Re: Misuse of the Internet? Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 16:08:14 GMT Organization: myhouse.com Reply-To: gregor@myhouse.com C. Wheeler wrote: > I guess I am confused about how users of products like the I-Phone are > denying carriers any revenue. > It would appear that ALL of the facilities that are being used are > being paid for. Whose getting denied revenue? Am I thinking too > simple of terms here? That is my point too. As my understanding of the complexities of interstate phone billing increases, I am still left to wonder ... How many times can they charge me toll to cross the same bridge? I don't know about you, but being overcharged in order to subsidize overgrown, fat, bulky, mismanaged obsolete systems is wearing pretty thin. gregor markowitz ~ gregor@myhouse.com publisher ~ internet love fest ~ http://myhouse.com/ ------------------------------ From: sewilco@fieldday.mn.org (Scot E. Wilcoxon) Subject: Re: PCS Phones Disrupting Hearing Aids? Date: 14 Mar 1996 12:08:53 -0600 In article , Edward A. Kleinhample <70574.3514@compuserve.com> wrote: > The FCC has time and time again come in on the side of the licensed > broadcaster when cries of interference of any kind are raised, either > with electronic devices or otherwise. > As an earlier post points out, most hearing aids consist of a tiny > electronic circuit molded into a plastic shell designed to fit into > the ear. A thin layer of metalic foil would probably eliminate 90% of > the audio noise induced by a pulsed cell-phone transmission. But as someone else mentioned, there often is an induction coil also. This is used to pick up the magnetic field of a phone handset speaker, but will require some reengineering to not be an RF antenna. However, most of us are talking in the third person about the situation. Any opinions from actual hearing aid users? Me, I use an AM/FM radio to listen to RF noise due to CPU/IO activity in networks of computers. When there are performance or other subtle problems where intuitive techniques are needed, listening to the patterns of RF caused by directory searches, data transfers, and processing can help detect a problem. But that's an optional hearing aid (I can't hear above 540KHz without it), not one which must always be worn. Scot E. Wilcoxon sewilco@fieldday.mn.org ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 13:16:36 -0800 From: John Higdon Subject: Re: PCS Phones Disrupting Hearing Aids? pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich) writes: > The FCC is pretty clear on this: make a device that emits RF that inter- > fere's with other people's electronic equipment, get it confiscated. This is not true. A hearing aid, or any other audio amplification device is not designed to receive RF transmissions of any kind. Therefore, if it does receive them, regardless of the frequency, the FCC's assumption is that the audio device is poorly or improperly designed. > For a real world example, no one says that cell-phone and laptop users > should be allowed unrestricted use of their equipment aboard aircraft, > simply because Boeing could if it chose add more shielding to avoid > interference with the flight control system.. That is not a real world example. Computing equipment is classified under Part 15 which specifically states that such equipment operates under the condition that it does not interfere with other equipment and that it accepts any interference that it may receive from other equipment. Computers are not RF devices per se, but since they generate random RF incidentally, they have to be certified under Part 15. But as non-RF devices, they receive no regulated immunity from other RF-generating devices. Cellular phones operate under a blanket license held by the provider. One of the terms of the license calls for non-aerial use of the mobiles. The long and the short of it is that hearing aids enjoy no regulatory or statutory protection from interference by RF-generating devices. The only exception to this is equipment located within the "blanketing zone" of a newly-constructed radio station. Within one year of commencement of operation, a station licensee is required to work with anyone located in this zone to resolve interference caused to electronic equipment in general. No protection is offered equipment outside of this zone (typically within a one-mile radius of the transmitter), and the exposure of the licensee expires after one year. The assumption is that anything that pops up after that time is the result of changes made by others, or people knowingly moving into the zone. If you have an audio amplifier that is picking up some transmitter (fixed station, mobile, or broadcast) and you complain to the FCC, you will get a form telling you essentially what I said above. Audio equipment does not enjoy FCC protection. John Higdon | P.O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX: john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | +1 500 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407 | http://www.ati.com/ati | ------------------------------ From: thomas@menno.com (Thomas Lapp) Subject: Re: What's Behind Those Walls, Anyway? Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 08:19:31 EST dave.oshea@wilcom.com (Dave O'Shea) wrote: > Having always been curious about what went on behind the fortress-like > walls of the many central offices that I have some business with in > the form of DS1 and DS3 lines, as well as ordinary phone traffic, I > wasn't about to turn down an opportunity to tour one of Southwestern > Bell's CO facilities - the Clay St. central office, which I am told is > the largest in the Houston area. Here are a few of the interesting > facts that I managed to note during my visit. If you go back in the archives, I recall writing about my own visit to a local CO. It tells much the same story. There is one major difference in my area that I've not seen written about: the use of underground vaults for concentrating lines. In my area, it is fairly suburban (much residential, and much spread out), and we only have two CO's to handle most of the county. Since many of the subscribers are more than five miles away from the CO, they don't run copper all the way from the CO to the subscriber's home. Instead, they run fibre from the CO to underground vaults which are scattered about the county. Local twisted pair from the subscribers terminate in these vaults, which then have switching equipment to concentrate onto fibre to send back to the CO. The result can be rather amusing: I moved a few years ago, which put me closer to the CO than I was before. Now, instead of a 2000 ft run of copper (when tested), I now have a run about twice as far. Before I was on copper to an underground vault a 1/2 mile away and now I'm direct copper all the way back to the CO! tom internet : thomas@menno.com Location : Newark, DE, USA ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Mar 96 14:43:07 EST From: Gary Bouwkamp Subject: Re: Resp Org Refusal to Change Due to Debt In TELECOM Digest Volume 16:Issue 112, NBJimWeiss@aol.com wrote: > That is, if an 800/888 customer owes a significant amount to a long > distance carrier or reseller serving as the Resp Org, can the Resp Org > "legally" refuse to transfer the 800/888 number to a new Resp Org when > requested by the customer? This is legal if the restriction is contained in the Tariff that the carrier has on file with the FCC. Several mid-sized carriers do have such language in their tariffs. ------------------------------ From: david.breneman@attws.com (David Breneman) Subject: Re: AT&T to Offer Internet Services Date: 14 Mar 1996 20:20:21 GMT Organization: AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. In article cnordin@vni.net (Craig Nordin) writes: > Lets hope that AT&T does better with Internet services than it did > with computers. It almost killed a great business once called NCR. AT&T was doing very well with computers (from a customer service point of view) until they handed the division over to the NCR bean counters who raised fees, reduced service, laid off scores of AT&T employees who knew their customers and axed AT&T's product line. I guess turnabout is fair play. (Speaking *soley* as a former *customer* of AT&T Computer Systems, and *not* as a current employee of AT&T Wireless. Long live the 3B2!) David Breneman "Dollar for dollar, cellular phone calls Unix System Administrator are your best entertainment value." AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. Mail: david.breneman@attws.com Phone: +1-206-803-7362 Fax +1-206-803-7410 ------------------------------ From: hrood@xs4all.nl (Hendrik Rood) Subject: Re: Call Forwarding and Caller ID Results Date: Thu, 14 Mar 96 13:40:09 GMT Organization: Elephantiasis In article , tsw@3do.com (Tom Watson) wrote: > Now that Caller ID is coming here to the 'left' coast (with apologies > to Washington and Oregon), I have a couple of questions: Well here goes the Dutch implementation, but keep in mind, it is just an implementation this can differ between operators and countries. > Party 'A' calls Party 'B'. > Party 'B' has its calls forwarded to Party 'C'. > What does Party 'C' get in the box? Party 'A' (the original caller), > or Party 'B' (the middle guy), or a mixture? Party A. > When Party 'B's phone does a "courtesy ring", is any caller ID info > (from caller 'A') available? I do not know that feature is available here. > What happens if party 'C' is an 800 number (with ANI) what number is > presented? When ANI normally uses Billing Directory Number it mostly is party B. Because party B is paying the second leg. This largely depends on the intermediate signaling network and protocols implemented on that network and in the switches. > Is there any clues as to what is what? > Sometimes it would be nice if party 'C' got both 'B' and 'A' > information, but I'm not holding out any hope. This shall become available in the future I expect. I have seen the first testreviews for multiple call forwarding (up to now in only available in one switch, in a few years dispersed over different switches), which causes a trail of phone numbers in the SS#7 message to avoid looping. Also in that case the CLID shows party A (originating the call). A lot of vendors are implementing schemes to show up both party A and party B at party C, mainly because a service provider can be playing party C with it's voice-mail system and wants to adopt some call- screening services too. You can see this shall become quite complex in the next years. ir. Hendrik Rood Stratix Consulting Group BV, Schiphol NL tel: +31 20 44 66 555 fax: +31 20 44 66 560 e-mail: Hendrik.Rood@stratix.nl ------------------------------ From: johng@comm.mot.com (John Gilbert) Subject: Re: Seeking Information on Radio Control Multiplexers Organization: Motorola LMPS Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 13:27:40 -0600 In article , spolitsch@attmail. com wrote: > I am looking for information on the best multiplexers to handle radio > control lines. The radios are all tone controlled UHF base station or > VHF repeaters. I currently have 14 radio channels that need to be > transmitted over a distance over 20 miles. What I am looking for is > multiplexer that can handle all that with using minimum bandwidth. My > local teleco can provide 9.6 kbps, 64 kbps, 128 kbps and T-1 lines. The base stations will be happy as long as it appears to them that you have four-wire, 3002 grade, private analog lines. You are not going to be able to get 14 full time voice circuits into anything less then a T-1 and maintain acceptable voice and tone remote control quality. I would recommend a pair of T-1 channel banks with 4-wire E&M or 4-wire TO cards. No doubt that the channel banks and leased lines will be less expensive initially. You should compare the total costs involved for engineering, purchase, maintenance, and telco line charges with both a microwave mux and a lease T-1 solution over the expected life of the system. John Gilbert johng@comm.mot.com Motorola Trunked Systems Architecture Schaumburg, IL. ------------------------------ From: kd1nr@anomaly.ideamation.com (Tony Pelliccio) Subject: Re: CallerID, AT&T and Bell Atlantic Date: 13 Mar 1996 21:08:02 -0500 Organization: Ideamation, Inc. In article , Mike P. Storke wrote: > In article , Hovig Heghinian > wrote: >> I am a Bell Atlantic/MCI customer in Philadelphia: >> * My folks are NYNEX/AT&T customers. I receive number, no name. > This is probably not the fault of AT&T. Here in Pacific Telesis > (Nevada Bell) territory, the switches (mostly Northern Telecom > DMS-100's I believe) only deliver numbers over CID, not names. This > may be the case with NYNEX as well. Nynex has been favoring DMS-100's as of late. Providence was cutover about two years ago and we also have the flawed implementation of Caller-ID. {Sigh} NT has seriously flubbed that part of the technology though I suspect that there's a fix and Nynex is unwilling to pay for it. Tony Pelliccio, KD1NR As offensive as I wanna be. kd1nr@anomaly.ideamation.com ------------------------------ From: walthalr@et.byu.edu (Robert W. Walthall) Subject: I Want to Get Into Network Planning Date: 14 Mar 1996 06:22:38 GMT Organization: Brigham Young University, Provo UT USA I've been studying traffic management in ATM networks (see paper http://nebo.cs.byu.edu/~walthalr/congestion.html), and would like to help build these networks for one of the major long distance carriers. So I'm looking for names of people who are in network planning. The trick as I see it is to get a resume in front of people who can understand/appreciate it. Any help/suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Send email. Thanks in advance, Robert Walthall walthalr@et.byu.edu ------------------------------ From: tom@ssd.hcsc.com (Tom Horsley) Subject: Re: AT&T, AOL, the Baby Bells and the Internet Date: 13 Mar 1996 20:19:37 GMT Organization: Harris Computer Systems Corporation Reply-To: Tom.Horsley@mail.hcsc.com > It will make those folks we laughed at years ago when they looked all over > their keyboard and could not find a key marked 'any' (as in press any key) > seem like experienced Unix hackers. This reminds me of a user guide I wrote when I was a computer lab assistant back in school. It contained the sage advice that: "The 'clear' key is not transparent" Tom.Horsley@mail.hcsc.com Work: Harris Computers, 2101 W. Cypress Creek Rd. Ft. Lauderdale FL 33309 The 2 most important political web sites: http://www.vote-smart.org (Project Vote Smart), and http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/TomHorsley (Me!) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 21:37:28 GMT From: scaf@pro-net.co.uk (Steve Coleman) Subject: Re: Dialing For (no) Dollars on the Internet On Mon, 11 March, Paul Robinson wrote: > In one example, they could set up a virtual private network, with the > ability to contact other VPN sites (I think this is similar to Shared > Metropolitan Data Service (SMDS)) if they know their network address > and also connect to the Internet over the same system. It can be > purchased according to how big a pipe you need, e.g. a 128K guaranteed > bandwidth ("Committed Information Rate" or CIR) is slightly higher > than 56K, and 256K is slightly higher than 128K, all the way up to > using a full T1 if they need it. This is a BT/MCI offering called Concert Virtual Network Service. In the UK it used to run under the name Featurenet 1000 (5000 was the centrex service). If anyone is interested in further information the Concert VNS pack contains the following useful leaflets: VPN Overview Booklet ref PHME18853 Data Sheet PHME18855 Pricing Sheet PHME18856 (these are BT publications and dated June '94) In my old consultants' service days at BT, we used to suggest this as an alternative to private circuit and packet switching solutions where traffic could be *bursty*. Steve Coleman University of North London http://idun.unl.ac.uk/~hfa9colemas ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 10:15:57 -0800 From: vantek@northcoast.com (VANTEK COMMUNICATIONS) Subject: Re: 888 Appears in Advertisement > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, you are a day late. Danny B, reported > here Monday that 888-VIRUS-NO was in service. I suppose that we will > start seeing a flurry of 888 numbers now over the next few months in > the same way that once the new style area codes became 'official' they > started popping up all over the place. Anyone on the list called in > yet to get their 800 number replicated, or put in an order for an 888 > number? As always, stories welcome. PAT] I put in a request for 800/888 replication with UniDial (a WilTel reseller) one or two weeks before March 1. I got a confirmation shortly before the first of March that my replicated number would be up-and-running as soon as the 888 service was in operation. At around 10 p.m. February 29th, I tried accessing my number. I only received an intercept recording from Pacific Bell. At 3 a.m. on March 1, 1996, I again attempted to dial my 1-888 number. BINGO!!! Pacific Bell must have waited until the last possible minute to add the 888 exchange to their switch. As of now, the 888 number works just fine. I received calls from here locally, from Southern California, and from Judith Oppenheimer on the east coast. I have not received any complaints about people not being able to get through, but then again, only a small handful of people actually have the number. None of my other customers have opted for 888 replication, and I only did it so that if some popular service started up with an 888 number that mirrored my own 800 number that I wouldn't receive a bunch of wrong-number calls. It may seem silly to some people to have an obscure (unlisted) 800 number replicated, but I don't want to take the chance of getting a humungous bill because of a bunch of wrong number calls. It doesn't cost me anything extra in service charges (I can get as many 800/888 numbers I want at no extra cost), so it would be silly to pass-up a chance to get my number replicated. Van Hefner Publisher Discount Long Distance Digest http://www.webcom.com/longdist/ VANTEK COMMUNICATIONS 326 'I' Street, Suite 148 Eureka, California 95501 USA 1-707-444-6686 PHONE 1-707-445-4123 FAX ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 19:23:32 EST From: David Leibold Subject: Dog Dials 911, Rescues Human Companion An Associated Press report (carried in the {Toronto Star} 13 Mar 1996) told the tale of a dog's call to 911 in Nashua, New Hampshire. Seems the dog's master required an oxygen mask for some unspecified breathing condition; that mask came loose, setting off an alarm and putting the dog (named Lyric) into action. Lyric was trained to activate a telephone 911 speed dialer in such cases. Then, automatic location identification features on the 911 service took care of the rest, and the owner's life was saved. There was no word if the dog barked into the phone with an SOS in Morse code, however ... still, those Lassie movies got upstaged here. David Leibold aa070@freenet.toronto.on.ca ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 15:04:36 -0600 From: clarkw@accesscomm.net (Clark R. Wilkins) Subject: Telemarketers Take Control of the Phone Line? A friend of mine received a telemarketing call today. When he attempted to clear the line by holding down the hook for ten seconds, the calling party was still on the line. He was forced to wait for the automated message to finish before he could use his line again. He called a SWBT operator who confirmed that the telemarketing firm can indeed seize the line for the duration of the call. Any information on how this is possible and what if anything can be done to prevent further occurrences of same would be appreciated. Clark R. Wilkins * President, J.D.I. Solutions, Inc. * 713-974-2434 (f) 713-974-5248 Providing computer solutions for small businesses since last Tuesday... [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: He did not hold down the hook *long enough*. Ten seconds was not enough time for things to happen. Calls will disconnect *immediatly* when the calling party hangs up, however the called party has to be gone a bit longer to force the issue if he wants. A typical short cut people have used for many years to switch from one line in their home to another (for example, in the kitchen getting something and the phone rings; you talk for a minute and tell the party to wait while you go to a comfortable chair in your living room; you hang up the one phone, walk into the other room and pick up the phone there within ten or fifteen seconds later at most) has involved hanging up one phone and running to another rather than having to make two trips to take one phone off hook and go back to hang up the other. We know we can use that several seconds to get from one phone to the other without losing the connection on an incoming call. Try hanging up for thirty seconds or so however, and it is different. By then the phone central office has disconnected the other party and returned your line to normal. The only problem is, if you lift your receiver to check and make sure you got rid of the problem caller, and you do so *too soon* (that is, the connection has not timed out yet) then unfortunatly you start the clock all over again and you get to wait another 30-40 seconds at that point. So don't be in a rush. Hang up, but stay that way preferably until you need the phone again or at least 30-40 seconds; then check, your caller will be gone. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #123 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Mar 14 21:19:51 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id VAA26535; Thu, 14 Mar 1996 21:19:51 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 21:19:51 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199603150219.VAA26535@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #124 TELECOM Digest Thu, 14 Mar 96 21:19:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 124 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: How About the 193rd Bit in Digital Telephony (Brett Frankenberger) IXC Tactics on Customer Contracts (himsworth@aol.com) Need Copy of Telecom Bill (Rick Morin) Re: Bell Altantic CID - 3 for 3 (Lynne Gregg) Re: Unlimited Local Calling For New York Area (Tom Betz) Re: Houston AC: It's Not Over (Dave O'Shea) Remembering Victor Comptometer (Matthew B. Doar) New Telephony Term? (Howard G. Page) No $50 Fee in Sprint Business Sense? (TELECOM Digest Editor) Details on 513/937 Split (John Cropper) Re: Modem Tax - Internet Phone (Glen L. Roberts) Re: NBA in Full Court Press (John R. Grout) Re: 800 Number Assigned to Two Subscribers in Error (Lisa Hancock) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: brettf@netcom.com (Brett Frankenberger) Subject: Re: How About the 193rd Bit in Digital Telephony Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 22:38:55 GMT In article , Steve Alexandre wrote: > In digital telephony, we used the time division multiplexing. We > multiplex 24 lines. 24 lines with 8 bits => 192 bits. A 193rd bit is > added to assume the synchronisation. > So, my question is how is the bit coded to be detect by the receiver? It contains a pattern that is recognized by the receivers. As an example, let's assume that the sync bit was always a '1'. To achieve sync, then, a receiver could just wait for a '1', assume that it was the sync bit, and then wait `93 bits and see if that bit was a '1', and so on. After so many tries, it could assume that it was in sync. If it ever got a zero when it expected a one, it could assume that it was out of sync, and wait for another '1', and try again. All 1's isn't the actual pattern used, of course, I only used it as an example to demonstrate how sync can be acquired. (Making all Sync bits '1' has two problems -- first, it acheives frame sync, but not superframe sync -- see below for details -- and second, it's way too easy to get 'false sync' -- if any individual channel always had a '1' in some position, that could be detected incorrectly as the framing bit. Obviously, that's always a risk -- it's always possible for the actual data to look like a framing pattern, but the framing pattern used is one that is rather unlikely to show up in the data - certainly much less likely that all 1's). There are two common framing formats in use today: SF (or D4) and ESF. SF=SuperFrame, ESF=ExtendedSuperFrame. These refer to the concept of grouping frames into SUperFrames that I'll explain below. SF framing is sometimes called D4 framing because it is the framing used byt the original AT&T D4 channel banks. SF framing is relatively simple: The sync bit follows the following 12-bit battern: 111011000100 --or-- 101110010001 (It's not really either or -- I just can't remember for sure which it is). Initially this looks random, but it was actually designed to make it relatively easy for early channel backs to achieve sync. (With current techonology, it would be trivial for T1 receivers to sync with any pattern desired, but it wasn't as easy back then). Note that the "even numbered" bits follow the following pattern: 1 1 1 0 0 0 and the "odd numbered" bits follow a different pattern: 1 0 1 0 1 0 By looking at every 386th (193*2=386) bit, a receiver can search for an alternating pattern and lock onto which bit is the sync bit. It can then search for the 111000 pattern in the "even numbered" bits to learn where the start of a SuperFrame is. Which brings up the question: What is a superframe. A frame is a sequence of 193 bits - 8 bits from each of the 24 channels, and a framing bit. A SuperFrame is 12 consecutive frames. Note that the pattern I listed above is 12 bits long ... so it enables the receiver to determine where a SuperFrame begins. This is important because the 6th and 12th frames in each superframe (sometimes) steal a single bit in each channel to be used for signalling. (The bit in the 6th frame is called the "A" bit and the stolen bit in the 12th frame is called the "B" bit ... so this gives four signalling states --A=0,B=0; A=0,B=1; A=1,B=0; A=1,B=1). Now on to ESF -- Extended SuperFrame ... after a while, T1 receiver technology progressed a lot, and T1 lines became much cleaner. The result was that it wasn't really necessary to waste 1 out of every 193 bits for framing. The receivers could acquire and maintain sync with many fewer framing bits. Yet, the standard of 192 bits for the channels followed by a "special bit" had already been established. So, along came ESF: Extended SuperFrame -- with an "ExtendedSuperFrame" being 24 frames long. In SuperFrame, each SuperFrame has 12 "special bits", and all 12 were used for framing, to allow the receiver to acquire and maintain sync. In ESF, each Extended SuperFrame has 24 special bits, but only every 4th one (for a total of 6) is used for framing. This leaves 18 more to send data with ... 6 of them are used for a CRC, to allow for error checking (so CSU/DSUs can report an some sembbalnce of an error rate for the link), and 12 are used for a "Facilities Data Link" ... a 4000bps data link (which has various usages ... one is to allow the far end CSU/DSU to report stats back to the near end.) I don't recall off hand what the 6-bit cycle used for the framing bits (that make up the 193rd bit of every 4th frame) is, but it is designed to make it unlikely to appear in normal data, and to allow the start of the ESF (i.e. the first frame) to be determined. Brett Frankenberger brettf@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: Himsworth@aol.com Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 16:50:23 -0500 Subject: IXC Tactics on Customer Contracts All indications in the long distance telephone market point to greater competition and reduced rates. The Telecom Act of 1996 opens the door for LD entry by the RBOCs. Increased local competition should reduce access charges to the IXCs, further fueling price declines. As a preemptive move, a number of the existing IXCs are seeking to re-negotiate custom contracts with their larger customers. They are proposing rates that look attractive in light of current tariff levels, but that incorporate longer contract terms and other provisions designed to lock-in the customer. A recent evaluation for one such client, involving a comparative analysis of all the Big Three's custom contracts, suggests that the lock-in strategy is much more subtle than simply an increased contract term. Indeed, the objective appears to be to structure a contract that will encourage the user to re-negotiate well before the nominal expiration. Early termination clauses, carrying substantial penalties at mid-term, can effectively make this re-negotiation process a single-source exercise. From the carrier's viewpoint, mid-term re-negotiations can provide contract extensions with virtually no competitive risk. Large users considering a new IXC proposal should recognize this stratagem and negotiate accordingly. Far greater attention needs to be placed on contract and rate structures than on rate levels. Here are a few questions to ask: 1. What is the contract term? Is it longer than the current arrangement? Given the increasingly competitive LD market, who bears the greatest risk of a long-term contract, the carrier or the user? 2. What are the termination penalties (normally expressed as a percentage - often negotiable - of remaining minimum annual revenue commitments)? 3. What are the minimum annual commitments? Do they increase year-by-year? If so, how easy would it be to phase-in another carrier at mid-term? 4. What are the penalties (again, often a negotiated percentage) for failing to meet the annual or monthly commitments? If the user's communications volume grows faster, will the user have to re-negotiate to get better rates? If growth is slower or usage declines, will the user have to re-negotiate to avoid penalties or maintain discounts? 5. Are rates expressed as fixed amounts or pegged to a common tariff? Is there any form of "Most Favored Nation" clause, and does it provide a practical protection that can be monitored? 6. Were usage, feature, and installation credits given or negotiated? To what extent are nominal rates conditioned on realistic usage limits such as peak volumes, holding times, and intrastate traffic? 7. Bottomline questions: Who's spent more time and effort on the terms and structure of the proposed contract, the carrier or the user? Is the contract a "Win-Win" deal or is there only one winner? ------------------------------ From: rmorin0423@aol.com (RMorin0423) Subject: Need Copy of Telecom Bill Date: 13 Mar 1996 20:37:25 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: rmorin0423@aol.com (RMorin0423) Can someone tell me where I can obtain a copy of the Telecom Law that was just passed? Preferably a site on the net. Please email at rmorin0423@aol.com. Thanks, Rick Morin [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I was going to put a complete copy in ASCII in the Telecom Archives but just have not gotten around to it yet. Maybe I will soon, but there are other locations as well. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Lynne Gregg Subject: Re: Bell Altantic CID - 3 for 3 Date: Wed, 13 Mar 96 10:19:00 PST sgranata@cais.com (Steve Granata) wrote: > For good measure, I dialed the landline number with my Sprint Spectrum > PCS handset. Sure enough, CID displayed the handset number; what > amazes me is that I can receive the number of a Sprint Spectrum phone, > but I cannot receive CID information on calls placed by Bell Atlantic > Mobile users. Steve, thanks for the great report. To address your question about why Sprint and not BAMS for Caller ID: it's the state of interconnects. It's apparent that when Sprint Spectrum built their network, they laid ISUP trunks. BAMS has had MF trunking in and needs to convert (to ISUP) to be able to offer Caller ID (or transmit Calling Party Number). Until BAMS offers a digital cellular service (needed for Caller ID delivery), they probably have little motivation to move -- other than the fact that ISUP does speed call processing. Regards, Lynne ------------------------------ From: Tom Betz Subject: Re: Unlimited Local Calling For New York Area Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 00:05:29 -0500 Greg Monti wrote: > After 50 years (100 years?) of mandatory local measured service for > New York metropolitan area residential telephone customers, NYNEX has > begun to advertise what a few years ago would have been unthinkable. > Ads I've seen on New York City TV stations say that NYNEX will begin > offering a plan which allows unlimited calling for a flat rate. > Will subscribers to this new service be able to make a free regional > call from Orange County to Montauk Point and what will that level of > service cost per month? Who knows? My memory of the area covered in the letter they sent me confirming my change in service is from Upper Westchester County to Montauk Point, not quite what you describe, but very close. What I hear from Manhattan residents is that they are given a different map, one that doesn't go quite so far north. We've discussed this here before; I've been using Option 2 of this plan, flat rate regional calling, with untimed local calls, for a couple of months here. Last month, my bill showed that I had made what would have been more than $600 worth of calls under the standard intra-LATA rate (mostly to Manhattan from lower Westchester) for $6.00 flat ... I had hardly any such calls in the year on which my rate is based, so I'm paying the minimum. The rep who signed me up promised me that the rate would never change; I hope he was telling the truth. NYNEX is doing its best to keep the LD carriers from picking up their intra-LATA business. But they still haven't managed to hook up my company's Centrex service that was promised for last November ... and I still wish I could put a satellite dish up on my company's roof and bypass them entirely. Tom Betz ----------- ------ (914) 375-1510 -- tbetz@pobox.com | tbetz@panix.com ------------------------------ From: dos@wilcom.com (Dave O'Shea) Subject: Re: Houston AC: It's Not Over Date: 14 Mar 1996 02:32:11 GMT Organization: wiltel.net Jeff Brielmaier (jeff.brielmaier@yob.com) wrote: > As the old saying goes, it isn't over til the fat lady sings. Well, > it appears that she has been called off the field just as she was > warming up for the final song. > Just when we thought we knew what the state regulators wanted to do > with the 713/281 AC, the waters have just got muddy again. > Now, the only question I have is "Why can't just implement 281 as an > overlay on top of 713 and call it a day ?" The article (or one like it) also made mention of the fact that some communities in SoCal have gone through three different area codes in a few years because of this fear of overlay plans, and mentioned that Houston could see the same kind of agony in the near future. People are stuck on the idea of *Area* codes -- i.e. a geographical identifier. We need to wean people from that kind of thinking, just as we did to get people to go to seven-digit dialing several decades ago (in most areas, as least -- I know of a couple areas in rural PA where your neighbors are only a four-digit dial away) With a rotary phone, I can understand the aggrevation of taking half a minute to dial a ten-digit number, but with tone and autodialers, it's an extra fraction of a second! Ye Olde Bailey BBS Zyxel 713-520-1569(V.32bis) USR 713-520-9566(V.34/FC) Houston,Texas yob.com Home of alt.cosuard ------------------------------ From: mdoar@acton.timeplex.com (Matthew B. Doar) Subject: Remembering Victor Comptometer Date: 14 Mar 1996 16:36:54 GMT Organization: Ascom Nexion Reply-To: mdoar@nexen.com > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: > The Victor Comptometer Company was located here in Chicago at 1730 > North Paulina Street until they went out of business sometime in the > late 1960's. The building still stands there as a deserted warehouse/ > factory. It has housed several firms that have moved in and out since. > Old-timers still call it the Victor Comptometer Building, although > hardly anyone in the neighborhood now has any idea what the building > used to be fifty years ago -- just the international headquarters > for the greatest mechanical bookeeping system in the world is all ... PAT] Tell us more. Mechanical skills are too precious to let die out. (An analogy with slide-rules comes to mind.) What was the basis of the system? What was mechanical about it? Dr. Matthew B. Doar Ascom Nexion, Inc. mdoar@nexen.com [www.nexen.com] 289 Great Road, +1 508 266 3468 Acton, MA 01720, USA [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The comptometer was a very fancy and elaborate 'adding machine'. Go back first to many years ago around the end of the First World War. The Burroughs Company manufactured a mechanical device which could add and subtract numbers. It weighed about fifty pounds and was full of wheels and gears inside it. I would say it was about nine inches wide by twelve inches long and perhaps four inches deep at its front end and six or seven inches deep at its back end. (The top part sloped downward slightly facing the user.) On the top in front of the user were several rows of buttons one through nine. Zero was allowed by not pressing any button at all. Each row of buttons had several columns, something like this: 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 It has a button for plus and a button for minus; a button for 'sub-total' and a button for 'total' which when pressed presented the answer and cleared everything back to zero. The two rightmost rows were considered 'cents', that is they represented two places after the decimal point. On the right side was a lever with a handle that you pulled back and forth. If you wished for example to add 256 + 312, you would in the fifth column from the right press down the 2, then in the fourth column press down the 5 and in the third column from the right press down the 6. If you wanted to of course you could just use the first three columns from the right and ignore the decimal point. The keys stayed locked down when you pressed them, so if you made an error another key when pressed would release all the others back to their normal position. Now with the 2-5-6 depressed, you took the lever on the right side and pulled it forward to you and released it to spring back on its own. As it pulled forward, the keys you had just pressed latched on gears inside and caused wheels to move around. In the little glass 'answer window' would appear the digits 256 on wheels which spun around until the proper digit was in place. Now you would repeat this with the digits 3-1-2 and the plus key. This caused the wheels inside to move around further so that the most recent number was added to the accumulation already in the glass answer window. Had you pressed the minus key, it would have been like putting the machine in reverse; it would have tried to take that amount (or collection of cogs on the wheels) away from what was shown. but it would have created an 'underflow' in that case since 312 is more than 256 and the answer window would have said something like 999999944 since it had taken away all that was there and asking for 56 more besides! Not pressing a key in some column caused a zero there. Eventually they improved this machine so that it would print on a small paper tape which came out of the top in addition to showing the interim answers in the little window. Then they electrified it so the crank on the side was no longer needed. Now all you had to do was touch a single button on the top to get the motor to start and pull all the wheels around to where they belonged. They further improved it by allowing it to do multiplication and division, the former simply being repeated addition of the same number over and over to some other number; the latter simply being the repeated subtraction of the same number over and over from some other number until the point no further subtractions could be done, then the answer window would tell you *the number of times* subtraction of the one number had been successfully accomplished from the other number before it could not occur any further. In addition to Burroughs Company building a machine like this, IBM had a similar device back in the 1930's and so did the Victor Adding Machine Company. All companies of any size at all had these machines for their bookkeepers to use. It was really considered quite a labor saving device when those machines were electrified since previously adding a very long collection of numbers required the bookkeeper to punch in the digits, pull the lever; punch in more digits and pull the lever again, etc. Let us say your company had two hundred customers and it was time to send out the monthly invoices, each customer being billed for a dozen or so items they purchased during the month. Punch, crank, punch, crank. But the women who were experienced in using those machines -- and not all the clerks were, just like not all clerks today are competent at using computers -- could really 'crank it out' ... :) . The ones with a lot of experience would punch in the columns of digits with the fingers on their left hand all the while they were pulling that lever back and forth on the right side as fast as they could. In a place like AT&T where they had 'only' a couple million accounts in the 1920's you could go into one of the offices and see perhaps three hundred bookkeepers at desks in rows one after the other like a school room. Each one had a stack of cards or long distance tickets or whatever and they would be literally flipping through their paper- work as fast as your eyes could follow them, flip-punch-crank, flip-punch-crank, adding up all their ledger cards and accounts. Well you can imagine the labor savings which occurred when Burroughs came out with a machine that all you had to do was hit a key with a plus mark on it and the machine would 'grr-grr-unk' on its own as the electrically driven motor did what the hand crank had previously been used for. So now instead of having three hundred bookkeepers each working eight hours per day adding up stacks of ledger pages and toll tickets, etc they could get by with only 250 or so bookkeepers. "Modern technology causes many to lose their jobs" said the {Chicago Tribune} in an editorial on Labor Day in 1926. Well, the Victor Company decided to greatly improve on this. In the past, although the bookkeepers used adding machines to get their totals, these totals still had to be transferred by hand to the customer statement being sent out. AT&T used to neatly handwrite all their customers monthly bills in the 1920's, after checking the accuracy of the account with an adding machine, of course. Then they started typing out the invoices and statements. The Victor Company developed a machine they called the 'comptometer' which would not only neatly print the entire invoice by machine and do all of the calculations (which still had to be entered by hand by the bookkeeper seated in front of it -- it was a larger machine) it could also print the customer's name and account number directly on the statement or invoice. Companies loved this new machine. It had hundreds of keys on the front. In addition to all the number keys used for addition and subtraction, it had keys to press which told it when and where to start printing on the page. Certain keys could be labled with a message such as 'state tax' or 'sale price' and as the bookkeepers prepared the customer accounts and ledgers all these things they had formerly written out by hand were written automatically. Victor said in their advertising that 'one bookkeeper can do the work of three under prior systems', and that was about correct. It did have a hand crank on the side of it, but this was intended 'in the event there is a power failure at your company, your bookkeepers will be able to continue their work by manually moving the gears.' The Victor Comptometer machine first came out in the early to middle 1930's and employees at many companies were frightened of it because they felt the machine would take over their jobs. But it was not a 'computer'. Everything it did was entirely mechanical based on the wheels and gears inside it meshing as keys on the front were pressed to act like little 'stops' as the wheels inside turned. IBM also had a machine similar to the Comptometer, but I forget what they called theirs. Both Burroughs and IBM quit making adding machines and went into making computers in the 1950's. Victor got left behind because they kept making Comptometers. Victor went out of business in the late 1960's and we know where IBM is today. So the Victor factory, warehouse and office in Chicago now stands just as a deserted old factory building; one of several hundred like it all over Chicago going back to a time when things were much different. Victor itself hired several hundred people at its heyday in the 1930-40 era, working in the factory building the machines, servicing them, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ From: hpage@netcom.com (Howard G. Page) Subject: New Telephony Term? Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 15:47:44 GMT Last night I tuned into an interview with someone from AOL on our local NPR station here in San Francisco (KQED). When discussing the new AT&T "5 hours free" offer, he indroduced a term that was new to me: "Internet dial tone" Howard G. Page hpage@netcom.com 415-548-1902 "Now I've been to one world fair, a picnic and a rodeo and that's the stupidest thing I've heard come over a set of earphones." -- Major T.J. "King" Kong ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 15:43:31 EST From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: No $50 Fee in Sprint Business Sense? I have gotten a couple of messages from people who started on Sprint Business Sense late in January or early in February and have since gotten their first bill and been able to make free calls on three or four Fridays. They're telling me they have NOT been charged the quoted price of fifty dollars minimum per month; that they have only been charged for calls made Saturday through Thursday. One person only made about ten dollars worth of calls the rest of the month and that is all he has been charged for. There is not a single charge for a call made on Friday listed on the bill anywhere. Both of these guys are understandably reluctant to mention this to Sprint for clarification; they're afraid Sprint will discover an error in the software which failed to apply the fifty dollar minimum charge. I had thought for sure there was a fifty dollar per month minimum but perhaps not. When others of you get your first bill you will want to check and see if you got by for just the actual calls made six out of the seven days per week or if you got the minimum charge added on. Maybe Sprint screwed up on this also, eh? :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: psyber@usa.pipeline.com (John Cropper) Subject: Details on 513/937 Split Date: 14 Mar 1996 20:54:22 GMT Organization: Pipeline USA Here are some details about the 513/937 split as reported by Cincinatti Bell's "Area Code Information Hotline": The following customers will *remain* in 513: * All Cincinatti Bell customers in OH * GTE Customers in College Corner and Oxford * Sprint customers in Warren County * Little Miami TelCo Customers in Fayetteville & Butlerville. The following customers will move to 937 starting September 28, 1996: * All Ameritech and Independant companies currently in 513 513 will retain Cincinatti, Butlerville, and Fayetteville (as per above) 937 will contain Dayton, Xenia, and Wilmington Permissive period for wireline ends 06/14/97, for wireless 09/28/99. Information from Cincinatti Bell is available at 513-565-6080. John Cropper, President NiS Telecom Division POB 277, Pennington, NJ USA 08534-0277 voice/fax: 1-800-247-8675 psyber@usa.pipeline.com ------------------------------ From: glr@ripco.com (Glen L. Roberts) Subject: Re: Modem Tax - Internet Phone Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 18:52:56 GMT Organization: Full Disclosure Reply-To: glr@ripco.com Kevin J. Cameron <75272.304@compuserve.com> wrote: > Pat -- to clear up some seeming confusion: > The RBOCs have launched a mainstream media attack on the ISPs > exemption from access charges (perhaps driven by AT&T's press release, > which stated AT&T was expecting its customers to be nailed-up 24 hours > a day -- that ought to create a huge demand for second phone lines, > but also require vastly increased switching capacity). The RBOCs now > have an unlikely ally in America's Carrier Telecom Ass'n -- a grabbag > of small IXCs. ACTA has petitioned the FCC to exercise jurisdiction > over the provision of "telecommunications services" over the Internet > and enjoining the sale of any I-phone type software until the FCC > issues a rulemaking on Internet issues. What is less clear is how > ACTA reads the new telecom act's definition of "telecommunications > services". Are they after (quasi ) real time transmission like > I-phone? Or all Internet traffic? In any event, looks like it might > be time for a netizens meeting. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I certainly would like to see the > 'Netizens Association' actually get started as was described in the > special mailing I sent out to the readers several days ago. I think > it is an idea whose time has come. Thanks for your more detailed > explanation. PAT] Companies like TCI that are planning to get into the ISP business via their cable-tv network, should make a big impact on these so-called modem taxes. Once the phone companies have some real competition (ie: iphone/TCI isp) ... things should really start to cook! Once we can get $29.95/mo unlimited long distance calling, all this bickering can settle down and we can find something new! Links, Downloadable Programs, Catalog, Real Audio & More on Web Full Disclosure [Live] -- Privacy, Surveillance, Technology! (Over 150 weeks on the Air!) The Net Connection -- Listen in Real Audio on the Web! http://pages.ripco.com:8080/~glr/glr.html ------------------------------ From: j-grout@glibm29.cen.uiuc.edu (John R. Grout) Subject: Re: NBA in Full Court Press Date: 14 Mar 1996 12:32:47 GMT Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Reply-To: j-grout@uiuc.edu In article ptownson@massis.lcs. mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) writes: > The NBA has filed a lawsuit against Motorola in Schaumburg, Illinois > and a Skokie, Illinois company called STATS, Inc. That acronym means > Sports Team Analysis and Tracking Systems, Inc. > The NBA claims that the process is basically an illegal retransmission > of their games, which television networks, cable companies and radio > stations pay to broadcast to their viewers. The NBA's point of view is simple and defensible. Reporting up-to-the-minute score and game clock information is news; recreating game action (e.g., including the position of the basketball) is a form of broadcasting (heck, many broadcasters, including Ronald Reagan, used to make their living doing such recreations). If, as the NBA alleges, STATS tried to obtain permission to distribute recreated game action from the NBA, failed to do so, and went ahead and distributed it anyway without permission, STATS deserves severe punishment. John R. Grout Center for Supercomputing R & D j-grout@uiuc.edu Coordinated Science Laboratory University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ------------------------------ From: hancock4@cpcn.com (Lisa) Subject: Re: 800 Number Assigned to Two Subscribers in Error Date: 14 Mar 1996 01:52:25 GMT Organization: Philadelphia City Paper's City Net What are the current rules regarding "ownership" of a regular business telephone number? Suppose a company is expecting a particular phone number, advertises it and orders stationery, only to get assigned something different? Or suppose an ongoing business is told it well known number is being changed? (I assume residential customers have no rights at all, right?) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The accepted rule of thumb where 800 service is concerned -- and any carrier will tell you this -- is the number is NOT guaranteed until it is in fact up and running. You are NOT to order stationary printed, place advertising or do anything else based on the presumption some 800 number will start working at your premises as of a certain day. Telcos state in their tariffs that customers have no property rights in their telephone number. It can be taken back at any time the company needs to do so in the conduct of its business. Residential and business customers are equal in this respect, although generally telcos try hard to please their largest customers even at the expense of imposing on a residential customer at times when it comes down to who gets what number, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #124 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Mar 14 22:11:03 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA02415; Thu, 14 Mar 1996 22:11:03 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 22:11:03 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199603150311.WAA02415@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #125 TELECOM Digest Thu, 14 Mar 96 22:11:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 125 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Fiber Optic Certification Course (Ruth Rosenberg) Re: Telemarketers Take Control of the Phone Line? (C. Wheeler) Re: CallerID, AT&T and Bell Atlantic (Bill Horne) Re: 888 Appears in Advertisement (Judith Oppenheimer) Re: New 888 Number Order (Stanley Cline) Caribbean NPA's (Daryl Frame) Centrex Switchboard (Daryl Frame) How to Get Voicemail? (Jan Lien) Re: Area Code/NNX Database Updates? (Pierre Thomson) Re: Idea For Additional Telemarketing Restrictions (Paul Begley) Re: European CT-1 and CT-2 (Steve Randall) Re: Caller ID/Calling Card Question (Stanley Cline) Re: NBA in Full Court Press (Barry Caplan) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: PBWD58A@prodigy.com (Ruth Rosenberg) Subject: Fiber Optic Certification Course Date: 15 Mar 1996 02:16:27 GMT Organization: Prodigy Services Company 1-800-PRODIGY Iowa State University is offering a new correspondence course addressing on-the-job applications of optical fiber technology. This course goes beyond technical explanations of what optical fiber is, and teaches what is necessary to apply this technology in the marketplace. The course is written by Paul Rosenberg, who is Director of the Fiber Optic Association. The course, which is conducted through the mail, includes two extensive text books, and nine installments of course materials, delivered monthly. One important feature of this course is certification. There is no such thing as a "Fiber Optics license", which poses difficulties to installers and contractors. At the completion of this course, each participant will receive a certificate from Iowa State University signifying completion of their ADVANCED FIBER OPTICS course, along with 6 Continuing Education Units (CEUs). There are no prerequisites for this course. A basic knowledge of fiber optics is helpful, but is NOT necessary. The installments of this course are as follow: 1. Estimating and Bidding. 6. Designing Fiber Systems, part 2. 2. Testing and Standards. 7. Purchasing. 3. OTDRs and Documentation. 8. Licensing and Certification. 4. Connectors, Splicing, Restoration. 9. Supervising Installations. 5. Designing Fiber Systems, part 1. The registration fee is $355.00, and includes textbooks and all course materials. Registration information can be obtained from: Connie Middleton Department of Extended and Continuing Education Iowa State University 102 Scheman Building Ames, Iowa 50011 (515) 294-6229 All work must be completed by February 1997. All segments of the course must be completed to gain the 6.0 units of CEU credit for the series. Partial credit will not be awarded. The non-refundable registration fee must be paid in advance to Iowa State University. ------------------------------ From: C. Wheeler Subject: Re: Telemarketers Take Control of the Phone Line? Date: 15 Mar 1996 01:05:22 GMT Organization: CCnet Communications - Walnut Creek, CA clarkw@accesscomm.net (Clark R. Wilkins) wrote: > A friend of mine received a telemarketing call today. When he > attempted to clear the line by holding down the hook for ten seconds, > the calling party was still on the line. He was forced to wait for the > automated message to finish before he could use his line again. He > called a SWBT operator who confirmed that the telemarketing firm can > indeed seize the line for the duration of the call. Any information on > how this is possible and what if anything can be done to prevent > further occurrences of same would be appreciated. The operator said the automated telemarketing call could keep the line for the duration of the call? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: He did not hold down the hook *long > enough*. Ten seconds was not enough time for things to happen. Calls > will disconnect *immediatly* when the calling party hangs up, however > the called party has to be gone a bit longer to force the issue if > he wants. Now I don't know if the FCC ever addressed this on a nationwide level, but I remember this coming up quite a while back in California. It must have been the CPUC that addressed the problem here. Automated telemarketing devices had to disconnect when the called party hung up within just a few seconds. For two reasons. One, because if the called part hung up it is a good indication that he does not wish to hear the message. But most importantly, if the telemarketer ties up the line, the called party cannot make any calls -- like emergency calls. This came about here when (apparently) someone with a medical emergency in their home could not get through to a 911 operator because they couldn't hang up on a computerized telemarketing call. 30 seconds is too long. I find it hard to believe that SWBT requires such a long time on hook for a disconnect. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well I don't know if it is thirty seconds or if it is twenty seconds. In any event, ten seconds is not long enough. But you are correct, the telemarketer is supposed to be able to detect hangups and immediatly discontinue the pitch. PAT] ------------------------------ From: bhorne@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Bill Horne) Subject: Re: CallerID, AT&T and Bell Atlantic Date: 15 Mar 1996 01:15:48 GMT Organization: Northeastern University, Boston, MA. 02115, USA kd1nr@anomaly.ideamation.com wrote: > In article , Mike P. Storke > wrote: >> This is probably not the fault of AT&T. Here in Pacific Telesis >> (Nevada Bell) territory, the switches (mostly Northern Telecom >> DMS-100's I believe) only deliver numbers over CID, not names. This >> may be the case with NYNEX as well. > Nynex has been favoring DMS-100's as of late. Providence was cutover > about two years ago and we also have the flawed implementation of > Caller-ID. > {Sigh} NT has seriously flubbed that part of the technology though I > suspect that there's a fix and Nynex is unwilling to pay for it. It's not 'flawed', Tony: the ability to deliver a calling telephone number is built into the switch, since it's part of the SS7 data packets that are used to set up the call. The ability to deliver a caller's *name*, however, is dependent on a database lookup which requires a lot more equipment and computer time to provide the advanced (I forget if it's CLASS or AIN) feature. After all, the telephone number isn't permanently assigned to one user. Bill Horne bhorne@lynx.neu.edu ------------------------------ From: callbrand@aol.com (CallBrand) Subject: Re: 888 Appears in Advertisement Date: 14 Mar 1996 18:25:34 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: callbrand@aol.com (CallBrand) Van, I thought you'd find it interesting that, if memory serves me right, the Resellers Association's comments to the NPRM were specifically anti-replication. You, however, are spot on -- you don't have to be an 800 FLOWERS to benefit from replication - or to incur damage without it. Which all points to the superior logic of separate domains - 800 for commercial service, 888 for pagers, 877 for home-use residential, etc. Even MCI, in a recent news release that I critiqued here, advised companies to use their 800s for marketing/advertising/customer service, and to relegate their 888s to internal uses like employee benefits lines, or modems and faxes. Sounds like a vote for domain separation to me. Judith Oppenheimer, President, Interactive CallBrand A leading source of information on 800 issues. CallBrand@aol.com, 1 800 The Expert, (ph) 212 684-7210, (fx) 212 684-2714 http://www.users.nyc.pipeline.com:80/~producer/ ------------------------------ From: scline@usit.net (Stanley Cline) Subject: Re: New 888 Number Order Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 00:22:53 GMT Organization: Catoosa Computing Services In comp.dcom.telecom, ghg@cidmac.ecn.purdue.edu (George Goble) wrote: > Cellular-ONE (Indy switch) still does not allow 1-888 dialing. It > says "dialing a 1 is not needed for this call", omitting, the one, > routes the call to some poor sucker within the 888 NXX (probably in > 317 NPA) in the Cellular-ONE calling area. Indianapolis CellOne is owned by BellSouth. In the Chattanooga, TN BellSouth Mobility system (as well as in the Huntsville and Atlanta systems) 1-888 works fine. 0-500 suddenly became available upon the conversion of a MTSO switch (from Motorola to Hughes/Alcatel); 1-700 now behaves strangely depending on IXC. I am not sure how CellOne/GTE, or US Cellular which borders this area, are handling 888. What's really strange, though: On my LANDLINE phone (706-861-xxxx) I cannot call *500* numbers; I get a reorder busy. On my parents' line which is in the same house (706-866-xxxx) and on other 861 numbers, 500 works fine. I had BellSouth check; they can't seem to figure out what's wrong. I do NOT have 900/1+ block or anything similar on THIS line, so this makes no sense. OTOH, 888 is just fine. A local TV station advertised an 888 number (1-888-No-TV-Tax?) and it worked. (That number seems to be out of service now.) > told that 1-888 is "still blocked" as Cellular ONE thought that the > new 888 was possibly an extension to 900 numbers instead of 800 > numbers and they didnt want to get involved with fraud. Cellular one That is nutty to say the least. They should have known 888 = "800" and NOT 900, given the wide publicity 888 has been given. Stanley Cline (Roamer1 on IRC) ** GO BRAVES! GO VOLS! Catoosa Computing Services, Chattanooga, Tenn. mailto:scline@usit.net ** http://chattanooga.net/~scline/ CompuServe 74212,44 ** MSN WSCline1 All opinions are strictly my own! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 11:25:14 -0800 From: dframe@ix.netcom.com (Daryl Frame ) Subject: Caribbean NPA's I am trying to determine when the various Caribbean countries/destin- ations are going to get their new NPA assignments and what those NPA's will be. So far, I've determined the following: 242 Bahamas 10/01/96 246 Barbados 07/01/96 284 British Virgin Islands 441 Burmuda 10/01/96 473 Grenada 787 Puerto Rico 03/01/96 Are these correct? What other assignments have been determined and when will the become effective? Daryl A. Frame / dframe@ix.netcom.com National Business Exchange, Inc. Pasadena, CA 91101-1900 U S A [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: We have touched on that not so long ago here, so perhaps someone will bring Mr. Frame up to date on it in personal email. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 11:28:28 -0800 From: dframe@ix.netcom.com (Daryl Frame) Subject: Centrex Switchboard We have a small office with Centrex service being provided by Pac Bell. Is anyone aware of a switchboard that is compatible with such a system. What I would like is something akin to the old multiline phones with a lamp for each line and the ability to pickup any line, place the line on hold and transfer via flash + extension. Daryl A. Frame / dframe@ix.netcom.com National Business Exchange, Inc. Pasadena, CA 91101-1900 U S A ------------------------------ From: lien@lysator.liu.se (Jan Lien) Subject: How to Get Voicemail? Date: 14 Mar 1996 09:45:50 GMT I am about to visit the US in April, and travel around a little. However, being used to GSM cellular in Europe and always being more or less reachable I would like at least a voicemail in the US. Does anyone know of good (and cheap!) voicemail companies? I need a short term contract, and I prefer a 800-number, both for incoming calls and to listen off. I understand I have to pay around $0.20 min for that, but that will be better than the hassle of keeping phonecards, and make it easier for people to call me. But, in addition I would like an ordinary number connected to the same voicemail, so people can call in from abroad (impossible to call 800 from outside US). If possible I would like this local number to be in 202/301 area or 212. Any suggestions appreciated! If you are a voicemail provider replying, please quoute costs, your fax number (not 800), phone (not 800 but in addition your 800!), and e-mail. Yours, Jan Lien ------------------------------ From: Pierre Thomson Subject: Re: Area Code/NNX Database Updates? Date: 14 Mar 1996 18:18:18 GMT Organization: MHVNet, the Mid Hudson Valley's Internet connection bparker@interaccess.com (Ben Parker) wrote: > With all the many new area codes coming into use this year, it is a > special problem time for database administrators, in updating national > scope data files with the correct new area codes. > What I am wondering is there any one source for the information needed to > automate these kind of updates. Specifically, a lookup by old area code > + NNX exchange prefix with a return of the correct new area code#. Many > lists I have seen give towns or other vague references, which are less > than completely accurate. An on-line or on-disk/tape or CDROM form of > the data would be nice. I have attempted to gather and post all new area codes with their exchange lists at: http://www1.mhv.net/~Bruderhof/npanxx.htm This is not "official", but probably the most complete and up-to-date collection you will find on the Internet. > Obviously this data changes frequently, so on-going updates would be > necessary. Does the Bellcore TRA dept provide this kind of info or is > it up to each local telco to provide? Yes, they do, for a fee. You can call the Bellcore TRA Hotline at: (908) 699-6700 Pierre Thomson Rifton Enterprises ------------------------------ From: Paul Begley Subject: Re: Idea For Additional Telemarketing Restrictions Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 07:28:57 -0500 Organization: Raytheon Engineers Steve.Chilinski@uunet.uu.net wrote: > I think your idea has little merit. Even though you may not make your > living in the telemarketing industry, about four million others do in > the United States alone. Additionally, recent rules just implemented Steve - I think your opinion has little merit, considering you come from an industry for which I have no use. Of these 4MM jobs, how many are 'real' jobs with benefits and living wages? I see telemarketing as a sweatshop of the '90's. I have gone out of my way to convince the telemarketers who do call that they should find other employment because I HATE them for calling me, and I am not alone. > have greatly protected the consumer further from many things. > However, just because you choose to "unlist" your telephone lines, the > only privilege this legally gains for you is to eliminate your name > and number from public lists. Anyone and everyone, including your > friends, my relatives and your local newspaper, is perfectly within > their legal rights by calling you, and will be. Legal rights are one thing, abuse is another. If you are a 'telemarketing professional' you should honor my request with the Direct Marketing Association and other bureaus where I have requested that I not be contacted in any form (printed or electronic). I also have a legal right to call back any telemarketing company who has called me because they published their number (via caller ID). If I call them back every ten seconds via my PC and leave a message that I don't want to be called back is this a problem? If I call back the company the telemarketing company represents and complain several times an hour about unsolicited calls, is this a problem? Well, I have and its been amazingly effective. In fact, the last telemarketer I called back forwarded me to her supervisor. I asked the name of his company and he told me. It was the wrong company. Apparently there are so many telemarketing opportunities and the people working for these companies are so smart they have problems remembering who they are working for that week. > the interruptions. However, do not expect now or in the future for > non-published telephone numbers to be non-marketable. This topic has > been argued incessantly over the years, but the bottom line is -- > unlisted means unlisted, and that's all. I have NEVER made a purchase nor used the services of a company who used telemarketing. I find an industry which wastes the time of 98% of the people they contact to yield a 2% 'hit' rate insensitive and abusive. I don't have an unpublished number. I just need bonehead telemarketers, both professional (the 1%'ers) and amateur (the rest) to have systems in place to implement not-to-call lists and spend the money to keep these systems current. Don't think for a moment I am unique in my distaste for telemarketing in any form. I, and millions like me are mounting efforts to HAVE THE OPTION to eliminate telemarketers from our lives. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: However I hope you were not speaking literally when you said 'call them back every ten seconds'. That verges on harassment; even the telemarketers do not call you every ten seconds or even every hour. By all means however, call them and make your feelings known in a legitimate way. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Steve Randall Subject: Re: European CT-1 and CT-2 Date: Thu, 14 Mar 96 16:09:55 GMT Organization: PQM Consultants, Chepstow Reply-To: Steve@pqm-cons.demon.co.uk In article dso189@casbah.acns. nwu.edu "Douglas J. Sorocco" writes: > If anyone could please direct me to somewhere I might find the > specifications for the European CT-1 and CT-2 cordless telephone I > would be extremely grateful. CT-1 is specified in I-ETS 300 235 and CT-2 in I-ETS 300 131. Both are available from ETSI (at a price) contactable at 'secretariat@etsi.fr' Steve Randall (steve@pqm-cons.demon.co.uk) PQM Consultants, Chepstow, UK ------------------------------ From: scline@usit.net (Stanley Cline) Subject: Re: Caller ID/Calling Card Question Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 00:09:30 GMT Organization: Catoosa Computing Services In comp.dcom.telecom, kamlet@infinet.com (Art Kamlet) wrote: >> When I'm called from phones in Chicago and Detroit, I get caller ID >> showing up just fine. (I'm in Columbus.) The IEC is AT&T. ... > or two which does not occur on 'direct-dialed' calls. Right now I do > not think any operator handled calls anywhere show caller-id. Am I > wrong on this anyone? PAT] LCI International's calling card passes CID information. (It was passing *ANI* before January -- that seems to have changed.) This only applies if an LCI calling card is used, using the 1-800-860-6000 access number. I've heard reports of MCI calling cards doing the same in certain areas. For calls using 0+ access methods, the handling of the call seems to strip off CID information. Stanley Cline (Roamer1 on IRC) ** GO BRAVES! GO VOLS! Catoosa Computing Services, Chattanooga, Tenn. mailto:scline@usit.net ** http://chattanooga.net/~scline/ CompuServe 74212,44 ** MSN WSCline1 ------------------------------ From: Barry Caplan Subject: Re: NBA in Full Court Press Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 14:20:51 -0800 Organization: HoloNet National Internet Access System: 510-704-1058/modem Bill Sohl wrote: > One might wonder why the NBA thinks their game scores are in any way > protectable under copyright. At any instant in time, the score of a > game is a factual item, and (unless my understanding of copyright is > flawed) the NBA can not copyright facts. The telephone industry had > that hammered home in Feist vs. Rural tel. This brings to mind the old George Carlin (I think) routine: He is playing the part of a sportscaster: "Here are today's baseball scores: 3-2, 7-5, 6-4, and a partial score just in: 3" Maybe the issue is the association of the team's names with the numbers. IANAL, but I am curious what one might think. Barry Caplan bcaplan@mdli.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #125 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Fri Mar 15 00:36:04 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id AAA15449; Fri, 15 Mar 1996 00:36:04 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 00:36:04 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199603150536.AAA15449@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #126 TELECOM Digest Fri, 15 Mar 96 00:36:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 126 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Nine Charged With Fraudulent On-Line Advertising (Tad Cook) Metroliner Train Telephone Service? (Lee Winson) Rhetorex --> Dialogic File Conversion (Paul Crick) Win95 Networking/LAN (Laurene Farley) Re: Dog Dials 911, Rescues Human Companion (geneb@entropy.ultranet.com) Re: Patching Other Sound Sources Into Phone Line? (Bill Horne) T-1: Voice and Data (Theresa Riter) Re: Reservation of 888 Toll Free Number (John Cropper) Re: New 937 Area Code For Dayton (Bob Hogue) Re: 888-555-1212 (was Re: 800-555-1212 From Canada) (David A. Cantor) Re: 800 Number Assigned to Two Subscribers in Error (Judith Oppenheimer) Mailing List Breakdown by Domain, Site, etc. (TELECOM Digest Editor) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tad Cook Subject: Nine Charged With Fraudulent On-Line Advertising Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 19:20:25 PST Nine Charged With Fraudulent Advertising On-Line By DARLENE SUPERVILLE Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) -- Nine companies that advertise on the global computer network known as the Internet have been charged with making false and unproven claims, the government said Thursday. Eight of the companies and their chief officers settled with the Federal Trade Commission and have agreed to halt the alleged deception. The ninth is contesting the case in federal district court in Chicago. The cases involve on-line ads for earning additional income, grant assistance, computer equipment supplies and repairing bad credit histories. Four of the companies were accused of making false credit repair claims. For fees ranging from $19.95 to $750, consumers were promised instructions or help removing negative listings from their credit histories, even if the information was accurate, the FTC said. The defendants are: Martha Clark of Simplex Services, Niverville, N.Y.; Bryan Coryat of Enterprising Solutions, Santa Barbara, Calif.; Lyle Larson of Momentum, Bellevue, Wash.; and Rick Rahim of NBDC Credit Resource Publishing, Springfield, Va. Four companies were charged with making unsubstantiated claims about earnings for work-at-home businesses. The programs sold for between $9.95 and $147, but the advertisements offered no proof that consumers would earn up to "$4,000 or More Each Month" as they were told, the FTC said. They are: Timothy Bean of DCM Publishing Group, Laguna Hills, Calif,; Coryat (noted above); Robert Serviss of Excel Communications, Stamford, Conn.; and Sherman Smith of Starr Communications, Salt Lake City. "The Internet opens a world of opportunities for consumers," said Jodie Bernstein, the FTC's director of consumer protection. "Unfortunately, it also presents opportunities for scam artists." Another complaint involved marketing by Randolf Albertson and Wolverine Capital of Plainwell, Mich., claiming to match consumers with private foundations that give away billions of dollars. The contested case involves Robert Brandzel and U.S. Telemedia, of Arlington, Texas, and Wheeling, Ill. The company sold computer memory chips and promised the shipments two weeks after the consumer paid for them. But the FTC said the company failed to send the chips, a violation of FTC rules requiring that an item be delivered when promised or consumers given the option to cancel the order and get a refund. Brandzel could not be reached Thursday for comment. ------------------------------ From: turner7@pacsibm.org (TUrner-7) Subject: Metroliner Train Telephone Service? Date: 15 Mar 1996 03:33:24 GMT Organization: PACS IBM SIG BBS In 1969, the Penn Central introduced high speed train service, the "Metroliners" between New York and Washington. A key feature of the new trains was onboard telephone service, with outward dialed direct. (In 1969, dialing direct from pay phones was still a novelty, especially from a mobile service. Likewise, touch tone was very rare from public phones.) Would anyone know any details of the original telephone service (technical, operational, or marketing?) Any information would be appreciated. Thanks! Lee Winson turner7@pacsibm.org lwinson@pacs.pha.pa.us ------------------------------ From: paulc@cix.compulink.co.uk (Paul Crick) Subject: Rhetorex --> Dialogic File Conversion Organization: L C Bickler & Co Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 17:58:47 GMT Is there a tool available free or relatively cheaply that will allow me to convert voice files created with a Rhetorex board to be converted to Dialogic format? Or is there a Dialogic<-->.WAV converter around? Thanks in advance, Paul Crick: paulc@cix.compulink.co.uk -- +44-1534-287213 (24 hours) paulc@bickler.demon.co.uk -- PO Box 783, Jersey JE4 0SH, UK ------------------------------ From: Laurene Farley Subject: Win95 Networking/LAN Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 20:03:08 -0700 Organization: Talldog Computing Assistance Need some insight into spreading a new Windows application across five identical LANs located at five geograpahical locations. Would prefer to do this with Windows stuff only (i.e., Windows 95 and/or Windows NT.) One of the locations will be the MAIN office. The main office will contain the main file server. All locations (including the main office) will consist of three computers networked together with Windows 95 in conjunction w/3COM Etherlink NICs/Cat 5 UTP. The application we want to run will be loaded on all computers at all locations. Application data will reside on the main file server at the main office. We want to be able to access application data on the main file server in real time from any/all other computers regardless of location. We have to allow for multiple and concurrent requests directed at the server. Also, have to be able to print locally. Have no idea what communication facilities need to be in place between computers on remote LANS and the main file server (e.g., modems, routers, switches, dedicated lines, dialup lines, fiber optics, etc. etc.) Would greatly appreciate any input! Direct email responses preferred! Thanks, Matt Farley talldog@rmii.com ------------------------------ From: geneb@entropy.ultranet.com Subject: Re: Dog Dials 911, Rescues Human Companion Date: 15 Mar 1996 03:14:41 GMT Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. Reply-To: geneb@ultranet.com In , David Leibold writes: > An Associated Press report (carried in the {Toronto Star} 13 Mar 1996) > told the tale of a dog's call to 911 in Nashua, New Hampshire. > Seems the dog's master required an oxygen mask for some unspecified > breathing condition; that mask came loose, setting off an alarm and > putting the dog (named Lyric) into action. Lyric was trained to > activate a telephone 911 speed dialer in such cases. Then, automatic > location identification features on the 911 service took care of the > rest, and the owner's life was saved. > There was no word if the dog barked into the phone with an SOS in Morse > code, however ... still, those Lassie movies got upstaged here. The Boston TV stations picked this up, and even have tape of the dog demonstrating; it jumps, knocking the receiver off the (wall mounted) phone, while slamming its paw onto the speed dial keys (all of which are programmed for 911). They even played a portion of the 911 dispatcher calling the EMTs; the dog can be clearly heard barking repeatedly, and the dispatcher comments on it to the EMT ... Gene ------------------------------ From: bhorne@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Bill Horne) Subject: Re: Patching Other Sound Sources Into Phone Line? Date: 14 Mar 1996 14:50:27 GMT Organization: Northeastern University, Boston, MA. 02115, USA elana@netcom.com wrote: > I want to be able to somehow patch sounds directly into my own phone > line. My sound sources will be things like my own CD player (play > cool tunes for my friends without having to hold the phone into the > speaker), sampling keyboard (yeah, a MIDI-compatible), my own PC > (lotsa .wav files to play with!) etc. etc. etc.. Elana, Go to a local ham radio flea market and pick up a "phone patch": it's a device designed to couple ham radio transmitters and receivers to the phone line (mostly to give cheap calls to GI's overseas). Bill Horne bhorne@lynx.neu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 16:32:49 CST From: Theresa Riter Subject: T-1: Voice and Data We have been struggling for quite a while now (about eight months) with getting the last four channels of our T-1 to run our WAN connection between our main plant and one located in another state. We want to multiplex 3 64kbs channels together to be able to have decent transmission on our WAN. Our LD carrier keeps saying that they have to be able to bring those particular three channels to our plant contiguously for our multiplexer to be able to combine them. Is this correct? Isn't a multiplexer supposed to be able to "grab" whatever channels you tell it to and combine them for higher bandwidth? We have multiplexers on both ends of the T-1 and we are supposed to be switching the transmission from AMI to B8ZS clear channel to facilitate the combining of the channels ... help me understand what I need to do to get this resolved! ------------------------------ From: psyber@usa.pipeline.com (John Cropper) Subject: Re: Reservation of 888 Toll Free Number Date: 14 Mar 1996 20:56:54 GMT Organization: Pipeline USA On Mar 14, 1996 15.14.39 in article , 'callbrand@aol.com (CallBrand)' wrote: >> I'll be curious as to how many 888 numbers are consumed purely as place >> holders for the 800 number owners. > As of March 11th, the exact number of 888's placed in replication-pending > set-aside is 377,299. Does that report give actual number of replication requests processed and connected (i.e. working 888 numbers)? John Cropper, President NiS Telecom Division POB 277, Pennington, NJ USA 08534-0277 voice/fax: 1-800-247-8675 psyber@usa.pipeline.com ------------------------------ From: bob@cis.ysu.edu (Bob Hogue) Subject: Re: New 937 Area Code For Dayton Date: 15 Mar 1996 04:07:48 GMT Organization: Youngstown State University--Computer and Information Sciences david_laney@reyrey.com wrote: > It has been reported in the {Dayton Ohio Daily News} that Cincinnati > Bell has announced that the 513 area code which includes Dayton and > Cincinnati will split starting September 28, 1996. The Northern part > of the 513 which is handled by Ameritech and other independents is > going to move to 937. With cell phones not needing a move till > September 28, 1999 and permissive for landline lubbers ending June 14, > 1997. > 937 -- what an ugly code. I agree. Here in the Youngstown area, we just moved to a new area code also: 330, which is kind of nice. Given the importance of 1 and 0 in the original area codes, I can't understand why such codes as 937 are used, at least until some format of the 1/0 codes are used up. Why not 930 instead of 937? I think the Chicago area now has something like 847. Yuck. 840 or 841 would have been much nicer. Well, just a thought from a number enthusiast... Bob Hogue Computer Science & Information Systems Internet: bob@cis.ysu.edu Youngstown State University Phone: 330/742-1775 Youngstown, OH 44555 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: We are 847 because we are VIP -- Very Important People, or Very Impressive People perhaps. That is what Ameritech keeps stressing over and over as they remind everyone to begin using the new code right away. Personally I sort of like it because it is different and unusual. Heck, at least three or four different people, companies, etc have already told me I did not know what I was talking about and that that coiuld not possibly be the correct number. One company finally agreed it was correct and then whined because they said their phone system was not set up to call the number. I think that's really a shame, don't you? :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: DCantor@shore.net (David A. Cantor) Subject: Re: 888-555-1212 (was Re: 888-555-1212 From Canada) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 96 04:38:59 GMT Organization: Shore.Net/Eco Software, Inc; (info@shore.net) Yesterday, 13-Mar-1996, from 617-321, dialing 1-888-555-1212 got me "... cannot complete your call as dialed. Please check the number..." David A. Cantor +1 617.321.4229 (IBBY--I'll-Be-Blasting-You) Malden, MA 02148-5115 DCantor@shore.net [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thus far, all the assigned 888 numbers appear to be working okay from here except for 555-1212 which is not in service. Someone said that was because it has been replicated by AT&T and was being held aside. PAT] ------------------------------ From: callbrand@aol.com (CallBrand) Subject: Re: 800 Number Assigned to Two Subscribers in Error Date: 14 Mar 1996 22:28:36 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: callbrand@aol.com (CallBrand) > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The accepted rule of thumb where 800 > service is concerned -- and any carrier will tell you this -- is > the number is NOT guaranteed until it is in fact up and running. Correct. > Telcos state in their tariffs that customers have no property rights > in their telephone number. It can be taken back at any time the > company needs to do so in the conduct of its business. This is where subscribers need to speak up and take issue. It's amazing that 800 FLOWERS, 800 DENTIST and 800 MATTRESS (etc. etc. etc.) are built on such absurdly precarious foundations. That 800 COMPARE, 800 COLLECT, 800 MUSIC NOW, etc., have a solid lock on *their* territories, AND hold the keys to everyone else's, raises serious questions. This inequity came up on a recent SNAC conference call. The next conference call where it's likely to be addressed is on Monday, March 18th. Feel free to email me for details. Judith Oppenheimer, President, Interactive CallBrand A leading source of information on 800 issues. CallBrand@aol.com, 1 800 The Expert, (ph) 212 684-7210, (fx) 212 684-2714 http://www.users.nyc.pipeline.com:80/~producer/ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If it is not mentioned to you before then, please note your calendar to give us a report here on it after it is over. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 23:49:08 EST From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: Mailing List Breakdown by Domain, Site, etc. Someone was asking me the other day about the TELECOM Digest mailing list and how it breaks down according to site and domain. Although the mailing list itself is *never* made public, *never* loaned or rented out, and *never* made available to anyone in any detailed way including names, etc, I thought it might be interesting to others of you to to see just how your messages get distributed far and wide around the internet. As of March 14 at 9:30 pm, there are 4654 names on the mailing list itself. The list increases in size about 100 names per month. Some days there will be 10-15 additions and other days only 4-5 additions. Deletions from the list occur when persons specifically write and request removal and when a mailer-daemon arrives indicating 'no such user' or 'addressee unknown'. Additions in the course of a month's time less deletions over the same period reach the net increase of about 100 names per month mentioned above. This does not include readers via Usenet comp.dcom.telecom, nor does it include readers via the forums on Compuserve and America OnLine, although it does include the readers at those sites who are on the mailing list itself (but not who read Usenet at those locations.) Estimates of Usenet readership vary widely; it depends on who you wish to ask, and which forumulas you believe are accurate in detirm- ining who reads what. On the mailing list itself, here are some interesting statistics: 1208 with .edu addresses no single .edu site predominates; five here, ten there, etc. 1961 with .com addresses 112 at mcimail.com 97 at compuserve.com 83 at aol.com these are the largest single delivery 73 at netcom.com locations; the other 1500 or so .com 44 at att.com addresses are scattered. Some sites as 31 at attmail.com many as 5-6 copies to the site. 29 at sprint.com 23 at enet.dec.com 457 with .net addresses none pre-dominate 258 with .ca addresses 242 with .us addresses 120 with .mil addresses 98 with .gov addresses 87 with .org addresses 68 copies are sent to sites with their own telecom lists for re-delivery to the members of those lists; total number of readers on these 68 lists are unknown. These lists are included in the .edu, .com and .net counts above. There are a couple hundred names in the .de and .uk domains and other countries are represented. 13 names in the list have .jp addresses. Australia tends to have a lot of their addresses of the form '.edu.au' so many of them are in the .edu count above. There is about a dozen otherwise not counted in .edu. Nothing formal or scientific; just a quick look at where this all goes to each day. PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #126 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Fri Mar 15 11:50:09 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id LAA28406; Fri, 15 Mar 1996 11:50:09 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 11:50:09 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199603151650.LAA28406@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #127 TELECOM Digest Fri, 15 Mar 96 11:50:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 127 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson ICCF 37 Meeting Notes (D. Kelly Daniels) Chip Scam on the Net (Tad Cook) Maybe 800 FLOWERS Should Have a Representative at SNAC (Judith Oppenheimer) Cordless Phone/Baby Monitor Problem (Maybe) (phs3@watdcs.uwaterloo.ca) State of the ADSL Standard (Marie Colin) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 08:26:03 -0800 From: D. Kelly Daniels Subject: ICCF 37 Meeting Notes March 13, 1996 Hosted by MFS Intelenet, Representative Pam _____ and Cardi Prinzi (President of the Pacific Division) Restructured, each section is it's own business group MFS CC | |************MFS NETWORK | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------- | | | | | Intelenet International TELECOM Global Systems Technologies | Datanet Future meetings ICCF 38 is hosted by BELLSOUTH in CHARLESTON SOUTH CAROLINA ON JULY 17-18, 1996. 1-800-858-3287, CUT-OFF JUNE 14, 1996. ICCF 39 is hosted by GTE in November All 1997 meetings are one month early, February 12-13, June 18-19, and October 15-16. ACTIVE ISSUES ISSUE 259 ICCF PROCESS IMPROVEMENT. To formulate the electronic dissemination of information. ISSUE 275 TECHNICAL INTERCONNECTION AND ROUTING ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF NEW NON-GEOGRAPHIC CODES, ACCESS ARRANGEMENTS FOR NEW NON-GEOGRAPHIC SERVICES WORKSHOP. ISSUE 277 ACCESS ARRANGEMENTS FOR 555 LINE NUMBERS, 555 ACCESS ARRAIGNMENTS WORKSHOP. ISSUE 280 USE OF ELECTRONIC DISTRIBUTION AND COMMUNICATIONS ISSUE 287 NOTIFICATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL NUMBER CHANGES, NOTIFICATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL NUMBER CHANGES TASK FORCE. ISSUE 288 CALL RATING MECHANISMS IN THE COMPETITIVE LOCAL ENVIRONMENT. ISSUE 289 ICCF PROCESS IMPROVEMENT TEAM. BELLCORE SUGGESTS THE NNAG PRODUCT IS A BETTER DESCRIPTION AND MORE TIMELY ANNOUNCEMENT OF NPA SPLITS AND OVERLAYS BECAUSE IT MOVES FORWARD WITH THE SCHEDULE REGARDLESS OF THE PROGRESS THE LOCAL EXCHANGE CARRIERS, REGULATORS AND NANPA REACH CONSENSUS. Regulatory read-out of requirements to provide equal access through TRS platforms. No agency is currently looking at requiring the TRS providers to route callers and users via the equal access carriers. MCI therefore withdraws the issue (268). For the first time ever, an emergency meeting (conf call) was held to close an issue. The issue was the planned expediting of CO assignment and thus shorten the implementation of certain applications of CO code administration and notification. The period was changed from 90 days to 45 days in certain applications. The applications themselves still take 21 days. All codes that are implemented in less than 60 days when certain applications are approved, will get an emergency notification. This is temporary because the normal date on these particular applications will be 45 days and no need for an emergency announcement will be useful. CLC status and liaison Peter Guggina. CLC chair Newly defined and issued CLC Guidelines. The CLC is the Carrier Liaison Committee. The FCC mandated this forum under the old Exchange Carrier Standards Association. Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions now houses the CLC as one leg. The CLC oversees the Carrier inter-connection meetings. These meetings include Ordering and Billing Forum (seven additional sub committees usually 450 attendees) The Industry Carriers Compatibility Forum (has 4 subcommittees with normally 90 attendees) The Network Operations Forum (with two subcommittees normally 100 attendees). Non BELLCORE Companies can Co-chair Committees. This is a clarification because it has been the practice. Also notably, Mexico is a North American Provider, therefore an eligible member of ATIS. The Mission says NANP, but ATIS membership is N.A. Now this begs the issue of Caribbean. Clarification is certainly CLC includes NANP of which most of Caribbean but not all. Even though the Caribbean is not part of N.A. Operating Principles -- timely resolution, everyone is heard, implementation of resolutions. All participants have the right to have an attached statement, in favor, dissenting or clarification to any meeting notes as long as they are related to the issues. Other Submitted materials can not be added to the closure or resolution documents. Key responsibilities Understand process Be prepared to discuss all significant issues Avoid Anti-trust issues Practice good decorum Most interesting section "Polling on Intent to Implement. Resolutions are not binding-- but implementation is fundamental goal. Intentions are the planned response, not the guarantee. Have the direct discussion. Information provided is subjective. The FCC can solicit exacting and more pertinent info. OBF has home page, ATIS will have and CLC has one now. ISSUE 003 INDUSTRY PARTICIPANTS INTRODUCTION TO ENHANCEMENTS Withdrawn No discussion took place on polling/voting/hand-raising with regards to a single corporation having x numbers of votes based on industry segments like SPRINT Long Distance Division and SPRINT Local Division. ISSUE 289 PROCESS IMPROVEMENT WORKSHOP- Report out and Approval of finding of PROCESS IMPROVEMENT WORKSHOP. The workshop suggests a standing committee to accept suggestions and work the suggestion for group. The existing Standing Committees can accept and process their own issues. The Mission Statement: The mission of the TIC will be to address and resolve network architecture & Signaling issues associated with interconnection to the PSTN. This will include interconnection issues relevant to all segments of the telecommunications industry (e.g. EC, IC, Wireless, Wireline). Proposal for the Technical Inter-connection Committee Initial meeting and now here is the Mission and Scope. This is an important consideration because the ICCF has been less and less active in technical issues and more towards numbering. There are subcommittees of ICCF that are technical in that they are DIG, LUG and LARG. The issues of circuit inter-connection are important because 555 ended up void of any recommendation, non-geographic access network arrangements has languished. Pacific Bells Proposals suggests that the TIC (affectionately known) will meet immediately after the ICCF meeting and in conjunction to on site continuing meetings with DIG, LUG and LARG. This group will meet but three desentors, BELLSOUTH, BELL ATLANTIC, NYNEX and AMERITECH for varying reasons want to change some of the scope or procedures of the proposed Pacific Bell Presentation. 555 Access Arrangements Workshop the final draft was presented and the April 11th conference call for final closure of the document. The LUG will be "inactive" as a group keeping intact the mission and scope in anticipation of 500 number and portability issues. The group was originally formed to address LIDB queries for ABS, then it floated into SS7 parameters for CNAM and other parameter deliveries. DIG Report has resolved 4 issues (Cell Carrier ID Code) (DIG Assignment Guidelines) (Inconsistent and Inaccurate place names in LERG and other BELLCORE Brads Products) (assignment of OCNs'). One issue is still open after one year referring to Multiple Tandem Arrangements. In Addition to another significant change to the data records layout (January 1, 1996 and April 1, 1996) the Canadian information will be added, while it was in the rating products, this information has never been in the routing products. Canada may be later this year, and soon we will see Mexico. The OBF/MPC asks Area Codes be set aside 521-529 as area codes as Mexico as NANP has done, but INC says not until Mexico becomes part of NANP. OBF requested presentations from ICCF regarding implementation of 555 for development of billing record. NOF Report 800 Exhaust SS7 cost Codes -- Develop guidelines for practices in place clarifications of NOF Documents Non-Geographic Number Access Arrangements Seven network Architectures are identified including those for 500 numbers. Work is scheduled for completion in the summer of 1996. INC report 555 Numbers that are currently being withheld for assignment because multiple requesters have requested use. Where used only Canada and not requested for use in Canada by any other party, it will be assigned to the Canadian requesters. Now requesters of an NXX need not be a carrier or represented by a carrier, are allowed to be assigned. FGB CICs can be assigned to Gaum. 200 CIC have been set aside for intra-network uses. These codes can only be transmitted inter-network where companies agree. Modification to the NPA relief guidelines was withdrawn. Assignment criteria for three digit CICs has been tabled for review by the FCC. New issues CICs for special uses will be re-addressed for use in local networks only. An issue on how to readily identify Non-Dialable toll points. Consolidation of NPA relief documents will be tackled. Intra-LATA PIC test number originally set for 555-4141 will be addressed in case 555 numbers are not readily or ubiquitously provisioned. Modification to CIC assignment Guidelines to meet FCC yearly reports instead of quarterly. 500 NXX assignments modified to allow up to a one year relief for implementation. Code Assignment Information/Critical Changes -- where last minute changes are needed while normal updates to BELLCORE products are taking place will be addressed. Review of PCS and NPA assignment Guidelines for CMRS. Current active issues Assignment Guidelines for the 640 INPAs (a little late). SMDS Numbering Plan Number Portability Uniform Dialing Plan Abbreviated Dialing NANP digit length expansion DATA and BISDN Numbering and Dialing Abbreviated dialing for Access Cut-through to the presubscribed carrier. Toll Free access code Exhaust Planning Request for NANP Participation NPA assignment for Guam Guidelines for preventing the sale or purchase of numbers Vertical services Codes Geographic NPA relief Assignment Guidelines Clarification and modification of CIC assignment Guidelines Request for NANP participation and NANP Code Assignment for CNMI Definition of an entity for the purpose of CICs Day Two of ICCF 37 Rating and Routing Workshop - Highest Priority is that CLECs get CO Code/per rate centers Greatest conflict - Regulators need geographic listing of to and from places which makes it hard for MFS and Pac-Bell to use the same Rate Center ID for Los Angeles, similar rate center names. Proposals are postalized rates and modifications of the NPA-NXX associated with the same rate centers Such as proposed by TCG. AT&T Overview of rating process. TCG suggests modifications to the relationship between NPA/NXX, Rate Center and V&H. TRA (BELLCORE Group) provides Rating Background within Client companies thus the development of the NNAG, TPM, V&H etc ... Pac-Bell Contribution on the Methodologies for rating with regards to routing. In summary TCG proposes CO CODE -----LSP----RATE CENTER/V&H--------ADD'L INFO 908-234 LSP1 23/V&H-1 NO 908-221 LSP1 21/V&H-2 NO 908-699 LSP2 ** YES WITH REGARDS TO ADD'L INFO 908-699-0000 25/V&H-3 908-699-1000 25/V&H-3 908-699-2000 25/V&H-3 908-699-3000 23/V&H-1 908-699-4000 23/V&H-1 908-699-5000 23/V&H-1 908-699-6000 21/V&H-2 908-699-7000 21/V&H-2 If Number Portability moves forward, the technology will include V&H and Rate Center information in the LIDB. This additional set of fields would allow the querying originating dial-tone provider, the intermediate carrier or the terminating carrier to obtain additional call rating fields in the query, during the routing of the call. PAC-BELL's contribution pretty much is status quo. That there should be no changes until an industry forum reaches consensus. Study Group 2 E.169 document describes Universal International Freephone Numbers applications will be accepted by ITU-TSB In July of 1996 which is not on a first come first serve basis. The cost is sliding scale but anticipate $300.00 per number. AT&T has 5,000 to 20,000 applications ready to go. The number format is 800-X X X X X X X X X (8 digits) There is no land-rush, so any application received during the period will be treated equal. Conflict resolutions are handled according to the document. BELLCORE UPT documents are personal number services. Part of the concept of BELLCORE is caught in the ITU E.168 document. Regarding Time T Germany announced its not going to 15 digits and is open to 12-14 digits. Finland has announced that it will definitely go to 15 digits. Regarding Global Mobile satellite Systems Numbering of Country Code has reached a compromise. CCC+2+11digits(max)=Iridium CCC+3+11digits(max)=Iridium CCC+4+11digits(max)=Odyessy CCC+5+11digits(max)=Odyessy Remaining questions is now that GMSS have number resource to roll-out their platform, four document editors have failed to sign-off on this because the number resource is not open to them. These four have network in place to provide the same service but not utilizing Satellites. ITU does not recognize the ATM Forum, likewise. Therefore Broadband ISDN numbering according to E.164 is highly unlikely. The major difference is the transmission of dialing information in the signal stream. In Participants Reports, GTE now announces in no-longer will be ready for Time T. Pacific Bell is still committed to Time T on January 1, 1997. New Issues PACIFIC BELL CALL RETURN IntraLATA PRE-SUBSCRIPTION PRIVACY Caller on Company A has invoked privacy when dialing subscriber on Company B. Company B subscriber does not display calling party ID because A invoked privacy. Question is the if *69 (Call Back) is invoked by Caller B, should the call go back to the subscriber on Company A? The Caller's number that is called back when *69 is involved, is subsequently printed to the bill of Called Party on Company B. Should this happen? Suggested resolution; Companies A&B should use Originating Line Information Parameter (OLIP) and assign ANI ii digits for use between companies to prevent *69 and subsequent printing of line number on the bill. Northern Representative offered *69 is CLASS feature and INTRA-LATA only as far as they are concerned. The Database manager limits the definition of intra-LATA by listing toll area for intra-LATA definition. Northern does provide two privacy flags, one is with the CLASS feature for call processing, the other is the Billing privacy flag affecting the AMA record (pre-bill formatting . These two can be segregated. For instance, *69 has the call-back number even though CLASS feature calling party number display has been suppressed. With all of the issues discussed, it is found that the switch or the carrier is ignoring the flag. But Pacific says that while their switch sometimes sends the privacy flag, it does not always and the same is true for it's inter-connectors. MCI asked for clarification if the problem is protocol or implementation? The response is the Protocol seems to be correct, it is implementation is not being followed. After much discussion, it was determined that the privacy flag is held in one switch (Company A) and is not available to other carrier (Company B). Accepted ISSUE 290 MCI PROPOSED ICCF GUIDELINES SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO MATCH CLC DOCUMENT. Accepted ISSUE 291 (WHAT A WASTE) and forward to Process Improvement workshop. WIRELESS INDUSTRY FORUM IS MEETING MARCH 27TH (IN DALLAS) ON NUMBER PORTABILITY WITH CONTRIBUTIONS FOR INC AND ICCF. ------------------------------ From: Tad Cook Subject: Chip Scam on the Net Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 08:30:43 PST U.S. Alleges Man Ripped Off Computer-Chip Buyers Ordering via Internet By Matt O'Connor, Chicago Tribune Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News CHICAGO--Mar. 15--In one of the first crackdowns on deceptive marketing in cyberspace, federal regulators have filed a suit accusing a former Wheeling, Illinois man of bilking customers through false advertising on the Internet. The suit, filed by the Federal Trade Commission in federal court in Chicago, alleged that Robert A. Brandzel pocketed thousands of dollars in payments from customers without supplying their orders for computer chips. "It's standard stuff, it's just in a new medium," C. Steven Baker, director of the FTC regional office in Chicago, said in a telephone interview Thursday. Fearful Brandzel might squirrel away assets or destroy records if he caught wind of the probe, FTC lawyers went to court Wednesday and won an order freezing his assets. The FTC intends to seek restitution from Brandzel on the victims' behalf, Baker said. Brandzel is believed to have moved to Arlington, Texas, last summer after he learned of consumer complaints from the Illinois attorney general's office and the Better Business Bureau, the FTC said. Before then, he had operated U.S. Telemedia Inc. out of his home in the 1700 block of Huntington Court, Wheeling, Illinois authorities said. "We're trying to step in now to tell people the same rules against deception and fraud apply" on the Internet, Baker said. "Consumers need to exercise skepticism and complain if they're ripped off." This marked only the second time the FTC has gone to court anywhere to stop deceptive claims on on-line computer services, Baker said. In addition to the Chicago lawsuit, the FTC announced negotiated settlements with eight other companies for running scams elsewhere on the Internet. On the state level, the Illinois attorney general filed consumer fraud cases against nine businesses and individuals using the Internet or on-line services. With the Internet's soaring growth, scam artists have found a new way to reach a broad audience at a very low cost, investigators said. Brandzel's advertisement boasted he was "supplying the world." And indeed two of his alleged victims were electrical engineers from Sweden who each paid $1,760 for computer memory products but never received anything. When another victim, Chris Johnson of Rochester, Minn., didn't get his computer chips in five days as promised, he called Telemedia daily and left e-mail messages for Brandzel. He never heard back until he threatened to complain to the Illinois attorney general; that same day Brandzel called him and promised a refund, Johnson said in a court document. That was ten months ago, and Johnson is still waiting for his $818. In court filings the FTC expressed concern that Brandzel could still be up to no good, saying it had just learned that he had an e-mail address on the Internet as recently as January. His earlier actions "suggest that he is probably surfing the net looking for other unsuspecting persons to scam in whatever way he can," the FTC cautioned. FOR ONLINE SERVICES: Visit the Chicago Tribune on America Online (keyword: TRIBUNE) or Career Finder, the World Wide Web site of the Chicago Tribune. Point your browser to http://www.chicago.tribune.com ------------------------------ From: callbrand@aol.com (CallBrand) Subject: Maybe 800 FLOWERS Should Have a Representative at SNAC Date: 15 Mar 1996 10:33:16 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: callbrand@aol.com (CallBrand) Pat, re background on the inequity question at SNAC, the issue was a status called "Official Service Number" which affords the holder a certain measure of protection in some circumstances. A representative from AT&T described "official service numbers" as "a number such as 800 222-0400, because it's the company's primary sales number." Another SNAC participant, with no link to 800 FLOWERS, raised the point that 800 FLOWERS had recently inquired as to why its' 800 FLOWERS couldn't qualify as an "official service number." It was noted that 800 FLOWERS and others like it qualified for the same benefits and protection of this status. In rather typical industry fashion, the proposed resolution to this question was to alter the language to "RESP ORG Official Service Numbers", its proposed definition (as distributed by AT&T in preparation for this coming Monday's meeting) as "those numbers utilized by a RESP ORG for the purpose of conducting company business. These numbers can be used internally or externally by the RESP ORG in servicing its customer base or the public at large." Maybe 800 FLOWERS should have a representative at SNAC. Judith Oppenheimer, President, Interactive CallBrand A leading source of information on 800 issues. CallBrand@aol.com, 1 800 The Expert, (ph) 212 684-7210, (fx) 212 684-2714 http://www.users.nyc.pipeline.com:80/~producer/ ------------------------------ From: phs3@watdcs.uwaterloo.ca Subject: Cordless Phone/Baby Monitor Problem (Maybe) Date: 15 Mar 1996 12:52:19 GMT Organization: Express Access Online Communications, USA We have the ubiquitous Fisher-Price baby monitors (two) and a Panasonic cordless phone (with ten channels, but not 900 MHz). Occasionally the baby monitor will have problems with major interference, at times when the cordless phone is NOT in use (obviously it has problems when it's in use, but we expect that). Last night's theory was that the problem is as follows: I use the cordless phone. Its signal plus the baby monitor's signal is enough to wake up some neighbor's cordless base unit, which starts trying to talk to its handset. I stop using the cordless phone. The neighbor's base unit keeps transmitting (presumably there's a range between the level at which it wakes up and a slightly lower point at which it gives up). This is supported by anecdotal evidence that the interference on the monitor only occurs after I've used the cordless. Last night I unplugged the cordless base unit, which didn't help; then I snuck into the baby's room (she was asleep) and turned off the monitor transmitter, which seemed to cure it. So the theory fits the symptoms, but I'd appreciate anyone with more RF knowledge agreeing/disagreeing that it's at least plausible. Before I got to the point of turning off the monitor transmitter, I played with the cord to the monitor receiver, as well as turning various lights and appliances (e.g., air cleaner) off and on; turning things off and on helped, although in unintuitive ways (why would a 100W incandescent light *increase* the interference?). Not sure if this is relevant or not. Oh, and of course walking between the monitor and the receiver also made a difference: it made the interference worse, which would seem to support my theory. Boy, this is fun at 11:00 at night when the baby is sick and the wife is unhappy because she wants the monitor turned up louder than normal so she can hear if the baby coughs, but can't stand the interference, and expects her programmer husband to be able to snap his fingers and fix it ...! TIA, phsiii ------------------------------ From: Marie Colin Subject: State of the ADSL Standard Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 09:42:46 -0800 Organization: Universiti de Valenciennes Is the modulation scheme used by ADSL completely defined and unique? I heard of CAP, DMT and DWMT modulations, but are they all belonging to the ANSI ADSL standard? ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #127 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Fri Mar 15 13:55:28 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id NAA11545; Fri, 15 Mar 1996 13:55:28 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 13:55:28 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199603151855.NAA11545@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #128 TELECOM Digest Fri, 15 Mar 96 13:55:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 128 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: How to Get Voicemail? (ctooffcon@aol.com) Re: Booming Telecom Market in the Netherlands (Ron Kritzman) Re: Maine Island Seeks Wider Calling Area (Stanley Cline) Re: Rhetorex --> Dialogic File Conversion (Nils McCarthy) Re: Telemarketers Take Control of the Phone Line? (A. Okapuu-von Veh) Re: Caller ID/Calling Card Question (Andy Sherman) Re: Sprint Extends Fridays are Free (Leonid A. Broukhis) Re: Reservation of 888 Toll Free Number (Judith Oppenheimer) Re: Reservation of 888 Toll Free Number (Seymour Dupa) Re: Need Copy of Telecom Bill (Tom Betz) Re: Remembering Victor Comptometer (oldbear@arctos.com) Re: T-1: Voice and Data (Jim Sackman) ADSL and the OSI Model (Joe Guan) How Do You Spell Relief (Codes)? (James E. Bellaire) Re: Advertisement of 900 Numbers (France) (Fournols Romain) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ctooffcon@aol.com Subject: Re: How to Get Voicemail? Date: 15 Mar 1996 08:30:30 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: ctooffcon@aol.com On March 14, 1996, lien@lysator.liu.se (Jan Lien) wrote: > I am about to visit the US in April, and travel around a little. > However, being used to GSM cellular in Europe and always being > more or less reachable I would like at least a voicemail in the > US. Does anyone know of good (and cheap!) voicemail companies? > I need a short term contract, and I prefer a 800-number, both > for incoming calls and to listen off. I understand I have to pay > around $0.20 min for that, but that will be better than the > hassle of keeping phonecards, and make it easier for people to > call me. But, in addition I would like an ordinary number > connected to the same voicemail, so people can call in from > abroad (impossible to call 800 from outside US). If possible I > would like this local number to be in 202/301 area or 212. Office Concepts is just such a voice mail service provider. We provide an 800 number free of charge for you to retrieve your messages, but we allow you to "shop around" for your own 800 number which connects to our system. In so doing, you can find the best price, best 800 service, and you don't have to plunk down a big deposit. Further details, including prices, are on their way! Craig Owens -- Office Concepts Phone 800-604-9839 Email OffConGR@aol.com Office Concepts provides complete business support services including live telephone answering and voice mail services, and customized telemessaging solutions. ------------------------------ From: Ron Kritzman Subject: Re: Booming Telecom Market in the Netherlands Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 07:34:10 -0800 Organization: Kritzman Communications wombat wrote: > 'Buzzers' are pagers which display can display a number, e.g. Motorola > Bravo. The only difference is in the rate structure. Generally, > pagers are rented and you pay a monthly fee. Also, for each page the > caller pays a certain amount (pagers are accessible through a 900-like > number). 'Buzzers' are pagers with no monthly fee, however, the paging > costs are (far) higher than the paging costs for normal pagers. This "caller pays" nonsense is starting in the US as well. At least one of the carriers here in Chicago offers it as "Freedom Page." The customer owns the pager itself, and there is no monthly airtime fee. Anyone calling the pager number goes to an intercept which informs them that there is a 25 cent charge for this call, and asks them to press '1' to continue. As a personal note, this may be fine for low volume occasional use, but I've seen it start to show up in commercial usage as well. I know that if my plumber (or whomever) was trying to save $8.95/month by charging all his customers me a quarter to page him, I'd find another place to take my business. ------------------------------ From: scline@usit.net (Stanley Cline) Subject: Re: Maine Island Seeks Wider Calling Area Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 15:13:05 GMT Organization: Catoosa Computing Services In comp.dcom.telecom, Holloman@cris.com (Robert Holloman) wrote: > It's interesting that these small-town exchanges, which are served by > BellSouth and Sprint/Carolina Telephone, can so easily become local to > Raleigh (BellSouth), even though some of them are a good 20 miles or more > from even boardering the Raleigh exchange. Yet, Durham and Creedmoore > (both on GTE South), which do boarder Raleigh's exchange, remain long > distance, though at a 50% discount. My opinion on GTE: They NEVER want to be local to a *BellSouth* exchange. When GTE held local service in Dalton, GA they went so far as to get Dalton put in the ATLANTA LATA (Atlanta is 90 miles away) and not Chattanooga (only 25 miles away.) Therefore calls from Chattanooga to Dalton are interLATA meaning they are rather expensive (unless your LD is flat-rate, LCI, etc.) Canton, GA (on the outskirts of the Atlanta area) served by GTE was always LD to Atlanta, also, but was local to other parts of Cherokee County (i.e. Woodstock.) Only when ALLTEL acquired GTE's Georgia exchanges did calling areas change -- LaFayette (who had been operated by an independent, Contel, GTE, then ALLTEL) will be local to Chattanooga April 17; Canton, GA became local to Atlanta when the 770 NPA became effective there. Dalton is still LD from Chattanooga (because of the MFJ, etc.) but it IS local to Ringgold which is in the Chattanooga LATA and served by an independent telco. In areas where GTE still provides service, they are always LD to BellSouth areas. Valley Head, Alabama in DeKalb County is LD to Fort Payne (~10 miles away); Scottsboro in Jackson County is LD to the rest of the county which is served by a co-op and BellSouth. (In Jackson County, the county government agencies have had to get *800* numbers!) A similar situation existed in McMinnville, TN (the former GTE side) before Citizens Utilities/Telecom acquired that area. (I THINK Manchester -- a BellSouth area -- is local now. McMinnville is split between Citizens and Ben Lomand Rural Co-Op!) The situation in RDU is surprising, given the close proximity and "trade zone" of the areas, but with GTE being the LEC in Durham, it isn't so surprising after all. Stanley Cline (Roamer1 on IRC) ** GO BRAVES! GO VOLS! Catoosa Computing Services, Chattanooga, Tenn. mailto:scline@usit.net ** http://chattanooga.net/~scline/ CompuServe 74212,44 ** MSN WSCline1 ------------------------------ From: nils mccarthy Subject: Re: Rhetorex --> Dialogic File Conversion Date: 15 Mar 1996 08:19:01 -0700 Organization: Primenet (602)395-1010 Paul Crick wrote: > Is there a tool available free or relatively cheaply that will allow > me to convert voice files created with a Rhetorex board to be > converted to Dialogic format? Or is there a Dialogic<-->.WAV converter > around? I've had really bad luck trying to convert to and from Dialogic's ADPCM format. There are tools they supply on their BBS calld FROMWAV and TOWAV, but they are either provided as DOS executables, or as DOS C source (which assumes integers are only 16-bits). Even after I tried to convert all references to "int" to "short int" so it would work on my unix box, it still produced really strange output. Maybe I'll try to borrow someone's DOS machine sometime and see if they actually work on there. A friend of mine has a package for MS-Windows called "Sound Forge", and he's apparently had good luck using that to do the conversion. I would assume that some other commercial sound processing packages would have this functionality too. I don't know if this is dependent on being a newer revision, but the Dialogic boards I have have an option to play and record using 8-bit U-law instead of 4-bit ADPCM. That's what I'm using to ensure that I can convert to and from other standard formats without too much trouble. -nils ------------------------------ From: A. Okapuu-von Veh Subject: Re: Telemarketers Take Control of the Phone Line? Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 11:13:56 EST Hello, > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: He did not hold down the hook *long > enough*. Ten seconds was not enough time for things to happen. Calls > will disconnect *immediatly* when the calling party hangs up, however > the called party has to be gone a bit longer to force the issue if > he wants. > So don't be in a rush. Hang up, but stay that way preferably until > you need the phone again or at least 30-40 seconds; then check, your > caller will be gone. PAT] This "seizing the line" is the single most irritating thing about these sorts of calls: it is essentially a hijacking of my phone line, as if the person who comes to your door to sell you something sticks around for a while after you've told him you're not interested! I'm just waiting for somebody to die because they're unable to call 911 just at the right moment, only because some telesleaze has taken over the phone ... Alex Okapuu-von Veh - Dept. of Electrical Engineering - McGill University 3480 University St. - Montreal, QC, CANADA - H3A 2A7 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It has happened. I guess according to the law telemarketers using automated equipment are supposed to drop the connection immediatly when they see the called party has done the same, but not all of them are complying with that. PAT] ------------------------------ From: asherman@lehman.com (Andy Sherman) Subject: Re: Caller ID/Calling Card Question Date: 15 Mar 1996 06:29:48 GMT Organization: Lehman Brothers, Inc. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The other thing to remember is that > calls placed on Calling Cards technically are placed 'through an > operator'. Even if all you get is the robot operator, there is still a > level of handling or an intermediate step or two which does not occur > on 'direct-dialed' calls. Right now I do not think any operator > handled calls anywhere show caller-id. Am I wrong on this anyone? PAT] I'm dredging this up from memory after 3.5 years out of Mother's nest, but my memory is usually pretty good. All calls that were not station-dialed-direct were routed through OSPS. That was certainly true also for the original semi-automated MECH (operator comes on line, gets call type, releases call, and when answered your call goes to the first available operator to process); I suspect it is also true for the speech recognition machine, but that was after my time. OSPS, which involves a trip onto a separate set of switches from those that move the direct dialed calls, does not pass through the caller's SS7 information past the operator's console. I don't know if that is by design or because it is just too dammed complicated, but I'll bet that there exists a number of the AT&T Technical Journal that covers it. Andy Sherman 101 Hudson St, Jersey City NJ, 34th flr Vice President, Systems Administration (201) 524-5460 Lehman Brothers Global Unix Support asherman@lehman.com "The point of technology is to serve the business, not the other way around." [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I really like the final line in your signa- ture. Even in considerably smaller applications than perhaps what you have in mind, I see it time and again where a company installs a new computer or new software, then they sit there and struggle to make their activities somehow conform with what the new computer or software is capable of doing. Occassionally I get asked to consult in situations where it has been proposed to buy a computer or a phone system. I will get asked, "What kind of system should I buy?". I always flip the question right back around and ask the person, "What is it you want the computer (or phone system) *to do* ?". And you know, time and again, they have no answer for that. They have not sat down and clearly defined what it is they want a computer or a complex phone system to accomplish for them. They look at all the bells and whistles and have no idea how or if it will relate to their business. I've seen companies buy very complex, sophisticated phone systems and then not use ninety percent of the features available. It breaks down and they are a loss as to what to do next. Without trying to be rude or unkind I say to the person, "define your own needs and requirements and *then* let's talk further." Their response to that is to abandon my services and go with whoever will sell them millions of dollars worth of stuff they don't need and will never learn how to use. There is technology to suit almost everyone's needs, but it isn't always readily apparent without at least a little analysis. Indeed, as you say, technology is to serve us, not the other way around. I have so many computer-phobic aquaintences who have been burned by technology they -- and the people who installed it for them -- did not understand. Now they want nothing to do with computers, because the decisions the computer will make are not in agreement with their own and no one has ever been able or taken the time to show them that the computer will come to whatever conclusion you'd like for it to come to if you will only first *think* for yourself about what it is you want. That's the nice thing about coming from a slightly older era than many of the younger people in business today. Long ago, we *had* to think things out, and we found the computer could be a great labor saving device, but *never* an 'intelligence saving' device. These days far too many businesses and organizations rely on a computer to do their thinking for them; a computer they can neither understand nor control. Then they wonder why things are so dreadfully wrong in the world. PAT] ------------------------------ From: leob@best.com (Leonid A. Broukhis) Subject: Re: Sprint Extends Fridays are Free Date: 15 Mar 1996 00:03:53 -0800 Organization: Best Internet Communications > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You need to sign up with Sprint on their > 'Business Sense' program. On doing so before the end of March, you will > then get up to a thousand dollars in free calls each month on calls > you make anytime during the 24 hours of Friday each week. Calls can > go anywhere, including international. This will go on for one year from > the date you sign up. > You agree to pay them fifty dollars per month in minimum billing for > long distance service. They may try to insist that you have to default > a line to them; I think you can refuse to do so, and use only the 10222 > code to reach them. After signing up, allow at least a few days for > the 'Friday Free' billing to kick in, and someone said you need to have > at least one call billed to you before that time. I am going to ask > Les Reeves to summarize all this one last time for anyone who has not > yet heard about the program. The bottom line is $12,000 less $600 = $11,400 > in free calls over the next year if you sign up now for Business Sense > with Sprint. PAT] You forgot to subtract the time spent on "We're sorry, all international circuits are busy now." I wouldn't think they are extending the promotion for no reason. They definitely wouldn't if they were overwhelmed with the number of people signing up. BTW, does anything prevent them to assign the least priority to "free Friday" calls? Can it happen that of two phone lines, one of them signed up and another not, the former gets "all circuits busy" or reorder tones whereas the call placed with the latter goes through? Leo [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Nothing prevents them from doing this but I don't really think they are that diabolical. As I mentioned here yesterday, early reports are coming in from people who have gotten their first Business Sense billing, and it appears Sprint may have forgotten to have their computer automatically charge a fifty dollar per month minimum. One fellow made sixteen dollars in calls on other than Friday, and he got billed sixteen dollars. He packed those circuits all day on the Fridays in that billing period and true to their word however, none of those calls were listed at all. If they are not even bothering to charge the monthly minimum customers had to agree to, I doubt it has occurred to them to jerry-rig the switches to choke out the free calls on Friday. Maybe I should shut up now ..:) and not give them any more ideas. PAT] ------------------------------ From: callbrand@aol.com (CallBrand) Subject: Re: Reservation of 888 Toll Free Number Date: 15 Mar 1996 07:43:39 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: callbrand@aol.com (CallBrand) >> As of March 11th, the exact number of 888's placed in >> replication-pending set-aside is 377,299. John Cropper asks, > Does that report give actual number of replication > requests processed and connected (i.e. working 888 numbers)? John, while some users lucked out and were able to reserve and activate 888 versions of their 800 numbers simply by ordering new 888 service, the stat I quote above refers to those numbers submitted specifically for replication versus reservation. They will not be activated, but rather be held in unavailable status, pending the FCC rulemaking as to right of first refusal, etc. Beyond that, the report does specify working, assigned, reserved, disconnected, transitional and suspended 888's. So far, the total number in those categories is fewer than the amount held as unavailable - only 317,073, of which 371 are in disconnect, transitional or suspended status. There is a mirror report issued for 800 as well. Judith Oppenheimer, President, Interactive CallBrand A leading source of information on 800 issues. CallBrand@aol.com, 1 800 The Expert, (ph) 212 684-7210, (fx) 212 684-2714 http://www.users.nyc.pipeline.com:80/~producer/ ------------------------------ From: grumpy@en.com (Seymour Dupa) Subject: Re: Reservation of 888 Toll Free Number Date: 15 Mar 1996 12:50:08 GMT Organization: Exchange Network Services, Inc. CallBrand (callbrand@aol.com) wrote: > As of March 11th, the exact number of 888's placed in replication-pending > set-aside is 377,299. And when 888 gets full - what about 877, 866, ....? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Hopefully by that time, the general public will have become a bit more sophisticated on this new-style of numbers and the elaborate preparations taken this time won't be necessary. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Tom Betz Subject: Re: Need Copy of Telecom Bill Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 10:17:10 -0500 RMorin0423 wrote: > Can someone tell me where I can obtain a copy of the Telecom Law that > was just passed? Preferably a site on the net. You can go to the source and find it at: Tom Betz (914) 375-1510 tbetz@pobox.com | tbetz@panix.com ------------------------------ From: oldbear@arctos.com (The Old Bear) Subject: Re: Remembering Victor Comptometer Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 09:10:20 -0500 > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: > The Victor Comptometer machine first came out in the early to middle > 1930's and employees at many companies were frightened of it because > they felt the machine would take over their jobs. But it was not a > 'computer'. Everything it did was entirely mechanical based on the > wheels and gears inside it meshing as keys on the front were pressed > to act like little 'stops' as the wheels inside turned. Pat: This is a wonderful piece of engineering history and a pleasure to have read it this morning. I would suggest that the Comptometer was 'not a computer' not so much because it was mechanical but because it was not programmable and did not perform branching operations (or so I believe). While a business could configure it for its specific billing line items, the machine would could not do things like charge an account fee of "$2.00 or 10% of the total bill, whichever is greater, except for preferred customer accounts which are identified by account numbers beginning with the digits 66-" The bookkeepers still had to make decisions about the correct keys to press. Certainly, IBM and others made some pretty sophisticated mechanical devices such as card sorters and key punch machines -- which have all but disappeared. Recently, I was in Waltham, Massachusetts and drove by the huge brick buildings which were once the facilities of the Waltham Watch Company. The multi-storey complex stretches for blocks and blocks. It reminded me that the electronics industry grew up along Route 128 around Boston after WWII as much because of the skilled labor pool used to precision assembly tasks as because of the research talent at MIT and Harvard. Cheers, Will The Old Bear [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are correct. The comptometer and all those similar devices could do nothing except respond to the keys pressed on the front. Where they created a great savings in time and labor was in their ability to make columns of numbers and print repetitive things over and over, provided the bookkeeper 'told' the machine to do that with the proper sequence of buttons pressed. Does anyone remember the real early optical scanner that IBM had in around 1965 or so? You stacked up a bunch of 80 column cards with writing on them in a hopper and they were then fed through this machine which (I think) was called a 'gang-puncher'. About half the cards could be read and punched on the first try, and the remainder would be fed through for a second attempt. That second attempt would catch a few more and punch them. Cards still left over at that point went to manual keypunching; people who sat in front of a machine where the cards passed by assembly-line fashion and the key punch operator would read it as it passed in front of her. The credit card offices used these since it allowed the little card the customer signed to be punched and used as the single item of billing media for the entire process. But now and then the IBM gang- punch machine would go into a conniption fit and tear up or otherwise severely mutilate the credit card invoice. The assembly line would have to shut down while they opened the front of the machine and pulled out the shreds of paper, etc. Hopefully, they were able to retrieve the shred of paper with the customer's signature on it and the shred which had the amount of the sale and the description. If they could not retrieve these they would still reconstruct the media and try to bill the customer but if the customer demanded a signature and an original document the credit card office had to write it off. Normally the credit card offices microfilmed all the tickets as soon as they came 'in house' to prevent this sort of loss. That way if the mechanical billing equipment tore up or otherwise mangled the original document a solution was at hand: retreiving what they could of the original document from the innards of the IBM machinery, they carefully put all the parts in a little plastic 'baggie' which was noted on the front with the large letters 'N M U' which meant 'non machine usable'. They'd pull the microfilm and attach a copy of the invoice in its original condition to that, and the little pouch went to a worker at the end of the line where it sat for the duration. In order to make the batch of work balance, a blank 80 column punch card which was appropriatly enough titled 'substitute for invoice' was filled in and manually keypunched, then put back in the stream or work flow. One of the columns on the card was for special control purposes in-house. In the case of American Express, I think if the seven was punched out in column 65, it caused the document to 'fall-out' further down the line at the point where the Pitney Bowes mailing machine was about to stuff the envelope and apply the postage. A clerk would gather up these 'fall-outs' and go to the desk where the original media which had been mutilated or completely destroyed were kept. He would then swap out the 'substitute for invoice' with the baggie full of whatever shreds remained of the original; toss in a copy of the microfilm of the ticket as it originally appeared and a little form letter to the customer saying 'sorry this was damaged in processing, please pay from microfilm copy.' One day the gang-punch machine was out of order. As much of the work as possible was diverted over to the manual keypunchers but they were also something like seven hundred thousand customer credit card invoices behind in their work. Punch cards stacked in trays all over the place while the guy from IBM was sitting there trying to get the gang-punch machine back in order. Once they got it started again the backlog was so bad they took three clerks and put them on a special midnight shift to work there and catch up the backlog over the next few days. I am speaking now of experience in the Amoco/Diners Club processing office here in Chicago, 1967-69, around that time. One day the gang-punch machine tore up several hundred 'large dollar amount' tickets that had not yet been microfilmed for some reason ...:) or maybe they had been but the microfilm could not be located. Amoco wound up having to write off nine thousand dollars in credit card receivables they were unable to identify or reconstruct, and believe me, they did try to reconstruct them. After the machine had been stopped and opened up and all the innards cleaned out, four employees were given hundreds of shreds of paper and made to sit at a table and put as much together as they could, like a jigsaw puzzle. ("Here, this looks like a piece that fits that one over there ...") And they did manage to reconstruct quite a few. Then there were the machines which would 'feel' through the holes in the cards previously punched and rapidly sort them out into little pockets based on whatever column was being 'read' on the card at the time. Remember those? Nothing happens in a vacumn, which is what I sometimes suspect people today believe has occurred over the past thirty years or so. History is very important when talking about our technology today. Nothing happened just by accident. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Jim_Sackman@usa.racal.com (Jim Sackman) Subject: Re: T-1: Voice and Data Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 08:02:11 Organization: Racal-Datacom, Inc. In article Theresa Riter writes: > We have been struggling for quite a while now (about eight months) > with getting the last four channels of our T-1 to run our WAN > connection between our main plant and one located in another state. > We want to multiplex 3 64kbs channels together to be able to have > decent transmission on our WAN. Our LD carrier keeps saying that they > have to be able to bring those particular three channels to our plant > contiguously for our multiplexer to be able to combine them. Is this > correct? Isn't a multiplexer supposed to be able to "grab" whatever > channels you tell it to and combine them for higher bandwidth? We > have multiplexers on both ends of the T-1 and we are supposed to be > switching the transmission from AMI to B8ZS clear channel to > facilitate the combining of the channels ... help me understand what I > need to do to get this resolved! Depends upon your Multiplexer. Most modern equipment can accept arbitrary DS0 assignment, as long as the connection is an FT-1 bundle end to end throught the entire network. The change from AMI to B8ZS affects the ones density requirements of the channel. AMI will require some sort of long 0 string suppression (for example only allowing 56K use on a 64K channel). Jim Sackman Jim_Sackman@usa.racal.com ------------------------------ From: guan Subject: ADSL and the OSI Model Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 09:24:16 -0800 Organization: Universite des Sciences et Technologie de LILLE, France Which layers of the OSI model does ADSL cover? Is it limited to layer 1 or has it to see with upper layers? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 03:37:18 -0500 From: James E. Bellaire Subject: How Do You Spell Relief (Codes)? The recent articles giving spellings for new NPAs put my mind to work on what some of the other new relief codes could spell. Mark J Cuccia gave us the Caribbean codes (all coming from 809): 242-BHA Bahamas, 268=ANT Antigua, 284=BVI British Virgin Islands, 473=GRE Grenada, 758=SLU St.Lucia, 787=PUR Puerto Rico I suppose you could say HI1 to Bermuda's new code (HI1=441). Maybe Hello Direct would like to move their offices down there. :) Another warm spot to AIM for would be Barbados (AIM=246). St. Kitts and Nevis may be a good place to VOYage to and TOY around in the sun. Their code also spells 'VOX' (VOY=TOY=VOX=869). In the Unided States Mike Fox suggested 352=FLA for Central Florida and Ameritech has been advertising 847=VIP for Chicago's new North Chicagoland code. How about MD0=630 for the doctors out West or PREfered=773 for the new Chicago city non-loop people? A few of the other newer codes also can spell ... Look for a JOB=562 in the old 310 California area. (or Steve Jobs?) People in the Tennesee's 423 code 'HAD' 615 once (HAD=423). WRAngle up a new code for Dallas Texas (WRA=973 relieving 214). Now the wrangle is over split or overlay. Actually 281 would have been a nice 'CT1' for Cellular Telephone 1 overlay in Houston. Or maybe it still will. (CT1=281 relieving 713, maybe). And don't forget to say 'YES' to Ohio's new code (YES=937 from 513). In Canada there is only one new code to speak of, 250 for British Columbia (from 604) Which could be BK0 (BK zero). I doubt if the codes were intended to spell what I've chosen, but who knows? Anything is possible. James E. Bellaire PS: (and a request to Ameritech/Bellcore/etc): I want 852 for the 317 relief code! Then I can get a Marion, IN, cellphone with a TKCOM1/TKCOM7 or TKCOM9-xxxx number, depending on provider. 317-66x codes leaving for 852 would be nice and 661/667 and 669 are already cellphone in Marion. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 11:26:59 +0100 From: FOURNOLS Romain COM/MKT Subject: Re: Advertisement of 900 Numbers (France) Jan Ceuleers asked in TD V16 #114 about "premium numbers" outside Belgium. Here it is a list of those numbers in France and their leguals require- ments: (currency : 1 US$ =3D 5.04 FF) 36.60.XX.XX, pagers services, differents prices per call or per minute, no mention of price required, but companies do so 36.61.XX.XX, pagers services, differents prices per call or per minute, no mention of price required, but companies do so 36.62.XX.XX, pagers services, differents prices per call or per minute, no mention of price required, but companies do so 36.63.XX.XX, local call rate, the company paid the difference 36.64.XX.XX 0.74 FF/minute VAT included, mention of price required on any advertising (TV, newspapers, radio, ...) in French francs per minute, VAT included 36.65.XX.XX 3.71 FF/call VAT included, mention of price required on any advertising (TV, newspapers, radio, ...) in French francs per minute VAT included 36.66.XX.XX 3.71 FF/call VAT included, mention of price required on any advertising (TV, newspapers, radio, ...) in French francs per minute, VAT included 36.67.XX.XX 1.48 FF/minute VAT included, mention of price required on any advertising (TV, newspapers, radio, ...) in French francs per minute, VAT included 36.68.XX.XX 2.23 FF/minute VAT included, mention of price required on any advertising (TV, newspapers, radio, ...) in French francs per minute, VAT included 36.69.XX.XX 2.23 FF/minute VAT included, mention of price required on any advertising (TV, newspapers, radio, ...) in French francs per minute, VAT included 36.70.XX.XX 8.90 FF/call + 2.23 FF/minute VAT included, mention of price required on any advertising (TV, newspapers, radio, ...) in French francs per minute VAT included, and mention of price of the call during the first 12 seconds of the conversation, giving the caller time to hang up if he does not agree with the charges. France Telecom adds an information message BEFORE the connection and= during its establishment, including the price of the call. Note : - after 18 October 1996, add 08 prefix before the eight digits number, 36.64.XX.XX to 36.70.XX.XX changes to 08.36.64.XX.XX to 08.36.70.XX.XX. - the 05.XX.XX.XX toll free numbers (called "Num=E9ro Vert") changes to 0800.XX.XX.XX. - the 36.63.XX.XX (called "Num=E9ro Azur") changes to 0801.63.XX.XX. Romain FOURNOLS Fax : +33 1 43 20 44 45 (Paris, France) E-Mail : 100431.1672@compuserve.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #128 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Mar 18 12:51:15 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id MAA25548; Mon, 18 Mar 1996 12:51:15 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 12:51:15 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199603181751.MAA25548@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #129 TELECOM Digest Mon, 18 Mar 96 12:51:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 129 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Excel Communications? (Ken Leonard) Re: Nine Charged With Fraudulent On-Line Advertising (Van Hefner) Details on Chicago 312/773 Split (Dave Leibold) Telephones in Bahia (Tad Cook) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ken@kaiwan009.kaiwan.com (Ken Leonard) Subject: Re: Excel Communications? Date: 18 Mar 1996 09:17:05 -0800 Organization: KAIWAN Internet (310-527-4279, 818-756-0180, 909-785-9712) DavidFernald wrote: > My mother has a friend who is thinking about working for a company > called Excel who apparently do long distance. The friend is located > in Florida. Does anyone know anything about this company? I'm sorry > I don't have more information about the company name, but my mom > didn't seem to know a whole lot about it. Her only concern was that > her friend seemed a little uneasy about working for this Company. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Some say Excel is a multi-level marketing > organization more interested in signing up new dealers than they are > in providing phone service. We have heard here from people involved > with Excel who insist this is not the case, and that the company is > quite legitimate. I do not know what the truth is in this. Suffice to > say, there is much controversy about Excel in the same way there is > controversy about Amway. There is no 'controversy'. The people that tell you that Excel is more interested in signing up reps. than customers haven't a clue as to how legitimate MLM works. There are only two basic things one must do as a rep. in LD MLM. 1. Gather warm market customers 2. Sign up new reps. who have a desire to earn extra income and have their own business. If you joined an MLM and did nothing but recruit you would earn zero dollars because you basically would have zero customers. You could however make a decent income if you gathered all customers and did no recruiting as is done in traditional non-MLM businesses. The real power, however comes from both recruiting and gathering customers. Excel recommends that you gather a bare minimum of three customers yourself andwould prefer that you have 20 or more customers. This is also true for each and every rep in your downline. These few customers are warm market customers. In other words these are customers that stay loyal to you. It is not hard to see that if your organization even averaged the minimum three customers per rep. that over a period of time one would stand to earn a fairly decent income. If for instance you sponsored three reps who each had three customers each then of course you would have nine customers on your first level. Bear in mind that you yourself must have at least three customers. So we already have twelve customers that we are earning monthly LDU commisions on. If you were to progress that scenario down the full seven levels you would end up with 3 x 3 x 3 x 3 x 3 x 3 x 3 = 2,1187 reps times three customers each = 6,561 customers. This is the number of customers you would have on *JUST* your 7th level alone, does not include all the customers on levels 1-6. If each one of those customers used the average $18 + LDU per month (This is AT&T's official figures) then the total LDU per month for just your 7th level alone would be 6,561 x 18 = $118,018 in LDU per month. Excel pays 5% LDU commisions per month on the 7th level so I'll let you complete the numbers. Remember that this is just an example but it does take in to account the minimum number of customers one would expect from such a group. What would happen if instead of recruiting three you recruited six, and in turn had your downline duplicate your efforts. Yes, there is attrition and this is not a perfect world. However the figures can be staggering if you do just two simple things. Gather customers and recruit others that wish to earn extra income. Without cusomers you have nothing, without recruits you just have your own customers. And of course there is nothing to say that you have to recruit anybody. You can still earn a decent income on your own customers but you must do all that work yourself. > Some think it is a wonderful company and that if people like Becky > Franklin (see earlier in this issue) and former telco employees who > have been pensioned-off would sign up with them they could sit back > and watch the money roll in, along with, I assume, the good times. No one will tell you that Excel is a get rich quick scheme. You can earn as little or as much as you wish but you are going to have to work for it. I cannot post income figures except for the official ones that Excel releases quarterly. Excel's top earner Paul Orberson earned over $1.2 million in the month of January alone. The official average income of 74,721 Excel reps in the month of October, 1995 was $249.66. Bear in mind that most people that join Excel do it as a part time venture to supplement their J.O.B. income. I would say that an extra $249 per month would come in quite handy for most people. Those that do this part time for say a year or two may want to get serious and do it full time. In that instance there is no limit on what you could earn, but you will have to work for it. > A couple readers have noted that Excel uses the time-tested and > proven effective 'Scientology Technique' to purge criticism of their > company on the internet; i.e. they sue anyone and everyone they can > find. I have not seen this to be the case, but I recall the last time > a negative mention of Excel appeared here, one of their reps was > quick to respond which of course is their right, and it is my obliga- > tion to present a little of both sides on an issue. PAT] Criticism is one thing, but outright lies are quite another. Quite recently someone blatantly posted in response to someones innocent question about Excel that it was illegal. Another said that Excel is in big trouble in the state of Alabama. Neither of these claims can be further form the truth. I happen to be in touch with 1,400 other On-line xcel reps as I publish a very popular free Excel Digest every Friday. We have two listserves, a corporate web site, a vey active discussion folder on AOL, XLTV, and numerous avenues of communication to and from corporate headquarters. I would suggest that before anyone makes such blatant libelous remarks that they first check with Excel's legal department. You of course can also check with the FCC, PUC, BBB's, States AGs, etc. I do not appreciate the characterisation of using 'scientology' tactics. I do reserve the right to defend the company I am with from outright lies and libel. BTW, it appears that Mr. David Fernald who is using his Army account in an unapproved manner is no longer a valid user there. Ken [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But you see, the line between 'criticism' and 'outright lies' is frequently a very grey and ragged one from an editorial perspective. If the person offering the 'criticism' gets one part of it wrong with some factual error, that should not necessarily turn the whole thing into an 'outright lie'. Your response to the comments which appeared here last week about Excel are actually quite mild com- pared to some I have seen. I am curious about one thing: you seem to relish being able to report that 'Mr. David Fernald who is using his Army account in an unapproved manner is no longer a valid user there.' How do *you* know what would constitute an approved or unapproved use of his account? How do *you* know he is no longer a valid user at the site, and that there was simply not a mail malfunction at the time you attempted to respond to him direct, which I assume you did. Did you or someone from the corporate offices of Excel have anyting to do -- anything at all -- with some change in his status at that site? Part of the Scientology Technique which you publicly repudiate (does everyone at Excel corporate feel the same way?) involves going to admins at sites where 'disagreeable' users might be found and trying to get their accounts cancelled. Perhaps if Mr. Fernald sees this he will write and let us know if (a) he is still at the site or not and (b) if not, what prompted the change. It should be a very interesting report. In the meantime, yes I quite agree with you there are sometimes outright lies, and people deliberatly using the names of others to decieve the public. In the next message in this issue, Van Hefner clarifies a recent report also in this Digest about someone from 'Excel Communications' cited in a fraudulent scheme. Apparently, not your Excel however. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 10:41:59 -0800 From: vantek@northcoast.com (VANTEK COMMUNICATIONS) Subject: Re: Nine Charged With Fraudulent On-Line Advertising > Four companies were charged with making unsubstantiated claims about > earnings for work-at-home businesses. The programs sold for between > $9.95 and $147, but the advertisements offered no proof that consumers > would earn up to "$4,000 or More Each Month" as they were told, the > FTC said. > They are: Timothy Bean of DCM Publishing Group, Laguna Hills, Calif,; > Coryat (noted above); Robert Serviss of Excel Communications, > Stamford, Conn. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Just thought your readers should know that the above person "Robert Serviss of Excel Communications" is not affiliated with Excel Telecommunications, the MLM long distance reseller based in Dallas, TX. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This particular person it seems just happens to be using the same name. According to Steven Baker, an investigator at the Federal Trade Commission, this particular "Excel" was selling some type of Get Rich Quick publication, which appareantly has nothing to do with long distance. He did not know of any currrent investigation targeting Excel Telecommunications of Dallas, TX, or their MLM marketing program. Though Excel's MLM long distance program is certainly controversial, I am not aware of any investigations pending against them. This is despite the constant rumors I always seem to hear about them being "shut down" or "illegal" in some state(s). I do not sell or use Excel myself, but I know that they have gone to great lengths to keep their program perfectly legal. Unfortunately, some of their huge agent base (300,000+) does not always represent Excel in a completely honest manner, this just doesn't happen to be one of those cases. I am certainly not one to defend them (I compete against them for customers in my own business), but it should be noted that in this particular instance they have committed no wrongdoing. Van Hefner - Editor Discount Long Distance Digest http://www.webcom.com/longdist/ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But as Ken Leonard claims in the message prior to yours, there is nothing 'controversial' about the company. He presented mathematics to show how it is done. You can accept his claims or not as you wish. But in the case of companies 'like that', where like it or not there seems to be controversy and divided opinions among so many people, it certainly does not help when some other clown like this Robert Serviss fellow comes along and takes over their name (or most of it; note how his was 'communications' without the 'tele' on the front end of it) and then promptly gets indicted and arrested for fraud. I know it must make it hard on the other agents, trying to teach the public to separate fact from fiction. Then just when you thought it was safe to stick with AT&T and the old established Bell Companies, along came this bozo not long ago who started the 'A&TT Bell Internet System'. Note the placement of the ampersand between the /A/ and the /T/ rather than between the two letters /T/. He was going to be an ISP. You don't suppose he planned on benefitting from any confusion among the public do you? The government whacked him hard the first day they saw the name without waiting for the commotions sure to follow. Then we had the one here in Chicago about five years ago who actually managed to legally obtain the name 'Telephone Repair Service' here in Illinois, and was sending out invoices to people who signed up for his 'inside wire maintainence service', a sort of warranty-repair program for telephones and the wiring in your house. Illinois Bell wanted to get him *so bad* they could just taste it, but they never could for quite a while until one day when one of their own people received a solicitation call from his telemarketers. The guy asked, 'is this a service of Illinois Bell?', and the telemarketer answered ............................ yes. Bang! IBT went to the Illinois Attorney General that day and they did a number on 'Telephone Repair Service' and put it out of business based on misrepresentation. Prior to that, the guy had been ever so careful to stay completely legal, then this one five dollar an hour telemarketer manages to get him put out of business with lies and deceit. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Dave.Leibold@superctl.tor250.org (Dave Leibold) Date: 18 Mar 96 01:16:48 GMT Subject: Details on Chicago 312/773 Split The following is excerpted from Bellcore Information Letter IL-96/02-014 which provides industry notification of the impending split of the 312 NPA, subject to any transcription risks. --------- We have been advised by Ameritech that substantial telephone number growth in Chicago, Illinois necessitates splitting the existing 312 NPA and the simultaneous introduction of a new 773 NPA. The central commercial area of Chicago (the Loop) will retain the 312 NPA while the remainder of Chicago will receive the new 773 NPA. The split of the 312 NPA, and the beginning of a permissive dialing period, will take place at 2:00 AM CDT, on Saturday, October 12, 1996. The permissive dialing period will end at 2:00 AM CST on Saturday, January 11, 1997. During the permissive dialing period, either 312 or 773 will be acceptable in a dialed number terminating in the new 773 NPA. After the permissive period, calls dialed with incorrect NPA codes, as defined in the NPA split information published in the Local Exchange Routing Guide (LERG), will be routed to intercept. The attached map illustrates the 312 and 773 NPA configuration after the split. Also attached is a listing of the central offices and the prefixes (NXXs) to be served by each area code after the split. Revisions to the NXX listing may be found either in the LERF or the NPA/NXX Activity Guide (NNAG). Current information concerning NXXs is available by license contract from the Bellcore Traffic Routing Administration (TRA) group, which can be contacted by dialing the TRA Hotline at (908) 699-6700. All international and domestic carriers are asked to ensure that the new 773 NPA has been activated throughout their networks prior to October 12, 1996. Test calls to verify routing to the new 773 NPA can be made by dialing 773-914-1204. The test number will be operational starting August 24, 1996 within the Chicago LATA. It is not expected the test number can be reached from outside the Chicago LATA until shortly before the beginning of permissive dialing. A recorde announcement will indicate that the test call has been successfully completed. Calls to report troubles in reaching the test number should be directed to 847-765-2352. The test number will be disconnected on January 11, 1997. Dialing procedures for the 312 and 773 NPAs after the split will be the same as those currently used in the 312 NPA: * All home NPA (HNPA) direct dialed "local" calls and "toll" calls (generally calls that incur an extra charge) will be dialed on a 7-digit basis with no prefix; i.e., NXX + XXXX (7 digits). * All foreign NPA (FNPA) direct dialed calls will be dialed with a prefix "1" and 10 digits; i.e., 1 + FNPA + NXX + XXXX (1 + 10 digits). * Operator assisted calls (both HNPA and FNPA) including credit card, collect, and third party calls will be dialed with a "0" prefix and 10 digits; i.e. 0 + NPA + NXX + XXXX (0 + 10 digits). Questions concerning the split of the 312 NPA and the introduction of the new 773 NPA may be referred to the NPA Relief Coordinator, Katherine Davis, Ameritech, on 312-220-8080. Copies of this letter are being forwarded to achieve the widest possible industry distribution and may be reproduced for further distribution as needed. Questions concerning the contents of this letter may be referred to Jim Deak, Bellcore, at 908-699-6612. (signed) J.N. Deak North American Numbering Plan Administration [The map of Chicago (tricky to represent in ASCII) shows the new 312 boundary includes the areas (exchanges?) of Superior, Illinois, Dearborn, Lake Shore, Franklin, Wabash, Canal West, Monroe, Canal East, Calumet. The 773 part would have the O'Hare, Newcastle, Rogers Park, Edgewater, Irving, Kildare, Lakeview, Merrimac, Humboldt, Austin, Kedzie, Lawndale, Lafayette, Oakland, Portsmouth, Prospect, Stewart, Hyde Park, So. Chicago, Beverly, Pullman and Mitchell areas.] (Exchanges in the split 312/773 areas) 312 AREA CODE BFGVILASCM0 317 331 406 BFGVILASCM4 215 246 303 354 412 518 524 615 865 991 BNSVILMCDS0 470 BURGILAHCM7 304 352 510 531 544 699 749 816 844 990 BURGILAHCM8 301 314 BURGILAJCM0 299 349 639 682 820 941 982 BURGILAJCM1 295 359 365 366 367 389 448 495 512 517 571 605 680 717 754 891 CHCGILCADS0 326 328 567 570 674 791 808 945 CHCGILCADS1 225 842 949 CHCGILCLDS0 258 441 474 627 715 876 879 912 993 CHCGILCLDS3 207 234 308 382 454 466 526 537 559 575 648 655 669 707 716 831 875 902 906 930 954 CHCGILCPCM0 530 562 599 910 CHCGILCPCM1 216 358 597 690 709 801 818 877 897 956 CHCGILFRDS0 201 220 230 251 290 357 368 443 444 541 553 556 557 592 603 606 629 630 641 759 797 812 849 855 857 899 901 984 CHCGILFRDS1 214 223 309 394 409 424 458 460 574 634 683 696 793 814 904 905 CHCGILFRDS2 727 CHCGILFRDS3 263 269 332 336 345 407 419 422 499 516 558 578 609 621 658 701 726 739 750 781 807 827 845 917 920 977 CHCGILFRDS4 236 346 364 372 456 507 551 580 704 782 853 931 936 CHCGILIDDS0 222 245 321 396 464 527 595 742 744 755 817 822 828 832 836 840 923 CHCGILIDDS2 329 410 467 494 644 645 661 670 CHCGILJFAMD 824 934 LBRDILDGCM0 719 NBRKILBG1MD 209 501 968 969 NBRKILBGCM0 305 310 318 343 403 882 NBRKILCMCM0 635 OKBRILCN1MD 672 798 OKBRILDMCM0 617 RLMDILBFCM0 232 393 449 457 SCBGILBJCM8 387 439 748 SCBGILRRCM9 231 SCBGIL011MD 249 484 657 WSCHILANCM0 398 426 773 AREA CODE BNSVILMCDS0 681 756 799 887 893 896 948 967 981 985 CHCGILAUCG0 261 287 378 379 473 560 626 854 921 CHCGILBECG0 233 238 239 298 445 779 881 CHCGILDODS0 241 256 288 324 363 493 643 667 684 702 752 753 926 947 955 CHCGILEDCG0 271 275 334 506 561 728 769 784 878 907 989 CHCGILHBCG0 227 235 252 276 278 292 342 384 486 489 772 CHCGILHBDS0 395 862 CHCGILIRDS0 267 279 463 478 509 539 583 588 604 730 866 961 CHCGILKEDS0 265 533 638 722 826 CHCGILKICG0 202 205 282 283 286 481 545 685 725 736 777 794 CHCGILLADS0 247 254 376 523 534 535 579 650 843 847 890 927 CHCGILLDDS0 257 277 521 522 542 762 CHCGILLWCG0 248 281 327 348 472 525 549 868 880 883 935 975 CHCGILLWDS0 244 296 325 388 404 477 528 665 871 929 CHCGILMEDS0 237 385 479 622 637 745 804 889 CHCGILMHRS0 646 CHCGILNEDS0 594 631 763 774 775 792 CHCGILOHDS0 462 601 686 894 CHCGILOKCG0 268 285 373 451 536 538 548 624 924 CHCGILPMDS0 284 581 582 585 735 767 838 884 CHCGILPRCG0 434 436 471 476 737 776 778 863 918 925 CHCGILPUCG0 260 264 291 468 546 568 660 785 821 928 995 CHCGILRPCG0 262 274 338 381 465 508 743 761 764 973 CHCGILSCCG0 221 356 374 375 721 731 734 768 933 978 CHCGILSTCG0 488 602 651 723 783 846 874 962 994 CHCGILSTDS0 224 361 371 483 487 873 892 CHCGILTODS0 442 584 598 632 CICRILCICG0 242 DSPLILXLDS0 694 741 DSPLILXLDS1 825 EGVGILEGDS1 569 EVTNILEVDS0 273 PRRGILXLDS0 380 399 864 PRRGILXLDS1 693 695 714 RVGVILRGDS0 589 625 SCPKILSPDS0 992 SMMTILSMDS0 229 586 Fidonet : Dave Leibold 1:259/730@fidonet.org Internet: Dave.Leibold@superctl.tor250.org [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Where the annoyance factor is really high on this one is due to the very irregular shape of the near north side office known as 'Chicago-Superior' which includes the prefixes SUPerior (787), MOHawk (664), WHItehall (944) and a couple others. Although mostly terminating at North Avenue (1600 north), a small portion extends like a finger weaving up at an angle all the way to Armitage avenue (2000 north) covering an area of only a couple blocks wide, and then only on one side of the street for part of the distance. Those people are going to have several instances of people in 312 with friends directly across the alley, etc in 773. Ameritech offered to change the phone numbers of about a thousand people in that area so that there would be a clean break at North Avenue, and that got the residents in even more of an uproar than the original plan, which was that the people north of there but in the BITtersweet (248), DIVersey (348) and LAKeview (525) exchanges go into 773 as part of the Chicago-Lakeview office. But that always happens in cases of area code splits, just as it happened with the original area codes years ago. There has to be a boundary line *somewhere*, and there will always be people abutting it. But the southern boundary of the old 312 (now 708) border where it changes to (then and now) 815 always was different. With the exception of a couple small areas like Lemont/Romeoville, Illinois where you can look across the street and see a different area code, most of the southern border went through cornfields and rural areas with very few people. As more and more people come to inhabit what had years ago been rural, sparsely populated suburban areas however, there is no easy way to split things up. People in Schaumburg and Roselle, Illinois are getting shafted on the 708/847/630 breakup. Some fall into an office that will be 630 while others are in an office staying (?) 847, after just getting converted from 708. They held a series of meetings for the people in those towns and the decision finally was to give new numbers to several thousand people in the area so they could all stay together in the same area code. Don't ask me which one right now, it is too confusing. All this is because the lawyers for Cellular One Chicago and the various pager services said it would be a hardship on their customers if they all had to move into 630 as an exclusively wireless area code overlaid on the existing 312/708 arrangement. So now we all get hardships instead. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Tad Cook Subject: Telephones in Bahia Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 08:46:33 PST Over Christmas and New Year I visited Bahia, a state on the coast of Brazil for vacation. I intended to write about some of the telecom things that I saw there, and decided I'd better do it now before I forget what happened! I stayed in Salvador, the capitol of Bahia (pron: BA-EEE-AH), which is about 17 degrees south of the equator. The local language is Portuguese. I arrived in December a few days before the start of Summer. The people were very friendly, there were miles of beautiful beaches, the food (particularly tropical fruits) was fabulous, and the local music was great. I met a few Europeans, but hardly any American tourists. The first thing I noticed about telephone service in Bahia was the popularity of cell phones, particularly in the upper income neighborhoods. I stayed part of the time in a poorer Afro-Brazilian area called Liberdade (LEE-BUR-DAH-JAY), and even there cell phones were popular, probably because getting regular telephone service in Bahia is so difficult. I also stayed in Barra (BAH-HAH, pronounced just like Baja), a higher income neighborhood, and when I went to the local shopping mall (called Shopping Barra) it seemed that everyone was carrying a small cellphone, and lots of people were walking around talking on them. The mall was a very nice shopping center with fancy shops, roughly equivalent to Bellevue Square here in the Seattle area, or Lenox Square in Atlanta, only larger. Shopping Barra has a couple of stores devoted to selling telephones, and the prices for the phones were somewhat higher than in the USA. One thing that suggested that cellular traffic in Bahia is heavy was the great number of low-level cell sites. They seemed to be lower and denser than here in Seattle. I didn't find any telephone bargains, but Brazilian merchants do have some unusual methods for encouraging people to buy; they urge people to write post-dated checks! Merchants compete with each other, advertising that they accept checks post-dated 60 days or more. This can be an important discount in an inflationary economy. At one small grocery store I was stocking up on Guarana (GWAD-A-NA), my favorite Brazilian soft drink. When their credit card verification terminal had trouble dialing in, they offered to accept my personal check, even after I explained that I was from Seattle! Most of the phones were pulse dialing, but a few exchanges did offer tone service. Most homes had pushbutton phones with pulse dialing output. The pay phones were fat squarish metal boxes and quite primitive looking, although I found out later that looks were deceptive. The pay phones either worked with a debit card purchased from the local state-owned telco (TeleBahia), or with tokens that had a groove down one side which fit ridges in the coin slot. The operation with token was post-pay. Locals told me that because of inflation, the tokens allowed TeleBahia to raise prices without reprogramming phones. When I was there a local call was about ten cents US. One surprising aspect of pay phone service was the ability to direct- dial local calls collect without approval of the called party! My friends told me to just append a code (three or four digits, as I recall) to the beginning of the dialing string and the call could be placed coin-free. A charge would be added to the called-party's phone bill. While I was there I met a friend of a friend named Thomas who spoke good English and said he had contacts at TeleBahia who could give me a tour of the company. We spent the Friday afternoon before New Year getting a tour of their main plant and engineering facilities, as well as a central office. Brazilians have a very relaxed and fun-loving culture. Locals were appalled when I told them that I only get a few weeks of vacation per year, and when we compared the number of paid holidays. My impression was that they get 6 or 8 weeks off per year, plus many saints-days and other holidays. They couldn't understand why Americans weren't rioting in the streets, demanding more time off from work! But at TeleBahia they were proud to point out that on the Friday afternoon prior to New Year they were all at work. But at the end of the day when I was at their engineering facility everyone knocked off a little early, and hugged and kissed each other, wishing everyone a happy New Year. Hugging and kissing as a form of greeting is very popular in Bahia, and was expected when introduced to friends of friends. TeleBahia's main offices are inside a large walled compound in Salvador. It was here that I got to tour their pay phone refurbishing facility. From seeing pay stations on the streets, I had assumed that they were crude devices. I was wrong. The pay phones are all manufactured in Brazil, and a few years ago they were retrofitted with microprocessor controllers which talk to host computers at TeleBahia. They can all be tested remotely from the main facility. The outside plant people drive service trucks which are all old style VW buses. My hosts at TeleBahia took me on a tour of a central office across town. They wanted to show me their most modern digital switch, but I was more interested in seeing something old that we don't see in the USA anymore, such as a stepper. The CO we visited was host to a cellular site as well as landline facilities. Inside was a large NEC crossbar exchange. It looked a lot like crossbar exchanges I had been inside in the USA in the 1970s. The floors were all clean, waxed and highly polished. In some areas the clatter of the relays was deafening. Everyone I met at TeleBahia seemed like the Bell folks of old in the USA, proud of their operation and committed to service. I went on a ferry boat to a nearby island, and the fare was about 90 cents US. While on the ferry I noticed a pay phone. I thought it might be linked via cellular, but I looked at the antenna and it looked like it was operating around 450 MHz. I made a couple of calls on it, and transmission was fairly good. While I was in Salvador I wanted to check my email, so I had my eyes open for a local internet provider that might allow me to telnet back to my account here. One night I was out dancing and saw someone with a shirt that advertised a local internet provider! I got the address of the place, and when I went by there they said they were not quite hooked up to the net yet. But they referred me to another outfit called BahiaNet, located on the upper floor of the same building. I went up to their offices, and met the founder, a young man in his twenties who spoke perfect English and was happy to let me telnet back to my home account. I sat next to an open window with a great view of Salvador, and we were probably on the twentieth floor. The weather was warm in late December, and there was a pleasant breeze blowing in from the Atlantic. When I logged on in addition to many issues of Telecom Digest, I found a message from my old girlfriend Julie, teaching English in the Peace Corps in Latvia, telling me that she had found a place in Riga in which to get net access. I think the rest of her note complained about the freezing cold and miserable conditions in Eastern Europe. Ah, Baia! Such pleasant memories. tad@ssc.com | Tad Cook | Seattle, WA | KT7H | "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." - Edmund Burke, 1729-1797 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #129 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Mar 18 19:21:44 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id TAA03076; Mon, 18 Mar 1996 19:03:34 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 19:03:34 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199603190003.TAA03076@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Bcc: Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #130 TELECOM Digest Mon, 18 Mar 96 19:03:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 130 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson On Knowing the Area Code But Not the Area (Boston Globe via The Old Bear) Cellular Fraud Conviction Upheld (Tad Cook) Spend Some Quality Time With Your Telemarketer (Michael Quinn) Internet Appliance (Knight Ridder Service via Stan Schwartz) How to Profit From Advertising on the Internet (TELECOM Digest Editor) Join the VON Coalition (Jeff Palmer via Monty Solomon) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 12:32:43 -0500 From: The Old Bear Subject: On Knowing the Area Code But Not the Area From an editorial from the {Boston Globe}, March 8, 1996... But can they spell Leominister? ------------------------------- More tales from the chip, proving once again -- as if anybody needed proof -- that the age of telecommunications can be darn weird. Consider the illogic of AT&T customers dialing Massachusetts directory assistance from outside the state and being routed to information operators in Arizona. Hello?! That's way west of the Charles. Not even in the Berkshires. So distant it's never even heard of Cotuit, Leominster, Scituate, Tyngsborough, Worcester, Wrentham or the rest of the quirky spellings we call home. Sorry, no "Marsha's Vineyard," say the Phoenix operators. No "Born" on Cape Cod. Such calls and others have landed at the Cape Cod Chamber of Commerce over the past year as Western operators tried to connect people with natives who actually speak the language. Is this any way to run a switchboard? AT&T admits mistakes but says it's part of the learning curve leading to a more efficient system. The new telecommunications act makes local phone companies and long-distance carriers more competitive. So when the contract between AT&T and Nynex expired last summer, AT&T began using the Arizona service for all five New England states and parts of New York. Excell Agent Services in Phoenix, which handles long-distance information for several companies, gives operators tests on the geography of client states. Its chief executive officer, Dan Evanoff, says the same 25 people are handling most Massachusetts inquiries and are getting better at pronunciations. Even "Pibiddy," he notes, then pauses and spells out "Peabody." Hey, no problem. A lot of New Englanders could make "Tempe" sound like a city in Florida. What's going on here is bigger than regionalisms. It's about electronics that can plunk callers deep into the desert when they think they're in Hyannis. It's about dialing the local bank and landing in Chicago. It's about 800 numbers that could be on Mars for all we know because the world is one big conference call. A lot of us feel as though we're on hold. Things will get better. After they get worse. ------------------------------ Notes for Non-Massachusetts natives: 1. The Charles River which runs through Boston and which has been likened to the Thames in London. However, it is pronounced just like the name Charles, and not "Tems." 2. The Berkshires The mountain range at the western extreme of Massachusetts, about as far west as a New Englander can go and still be consided in the known world. 3. Cotuit A town on Cape Cod. Pronounce "co TOO it" 4. Leominister A small city in Massachusetts, pronounce "leh min STER" 5. Tyngsborough Another Massachusetts town, pronounced "TINGS buh roe" 6. Worcester The second largest city in Massachusetts, and the bane of TV newscasters unfamiliar with the pronounciation "wis TAH" 7. Wrentham Nope, no rented ham here. This town is pronounced "RENTH um" 8. Marsha's Vineyard Guess nobody in Phoenix remember's Senator Ted Kennedy's mishap at Chappaquidick on Martha's Vineyard, a island off the coast of Cape Cod. 9. Born Try looking it up under the spelling Bourne. This is New ENGLAND. ^^^^^^^ 10. Tempe Sorry, I don't get this. It is next to St. Petersburg, isn't it? ------------------------------ From: Tad Cook Subject: Cellular Fraud Conviction Upheld Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 10:59:13 PST Utah Court Upholds Conviction in Cellular-Telephone Fraud Case By Sheila R. McCann, The Salt Lake Tribune Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News Mar. 15 -- The Utah Court of Appeals Thursday upheld 27 convictions against businessman John B. Tenney, who swindled investors in a $4 million stock fraud involving Cellwest, a cellular phone rental business. Appeals judges agreed that a prosecutor and two expert witnesses made improper statements during Tenney's 1993 securities fraud trial, but found the businessman had not shown any prejudicial effect. The court rejected Tenney's demand for a new trial because a juror briefly discussed the case at work and Tenney's claim he had not voluntarily waived his right to counsel. Tenney had sought to represent himself and had stand-by counsel to assist him, appeals Judge James Z. Davis wrote. "Moreover, we note that defendant conducted himself ably during trial, making several motions and numerous relatively sophisticated evidentiary objections," Davis wrote. A 3rd District Court jury sitting in Salt Lake City found Tenney guilty of 12 counts of selling unregistered securities, 12 counts of security fraud, two counts of employing unregistered agents and one count of being an unregistered securities broker. Prosecutors said Tenney improperly sold stock in Cellwest from 1986 to 1988, claiming the $2 shares would increase "substantially" when the company went public in the near future. Investors were not told of Tenney's bankruptcy or prior problems with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Cellwest never went public and disgruntled investors complained to the Utah attorney general, who filed charges. Tenney, now 55, was sentenced to a year in the Salt Lake County Jail. He has since been released and is still paying $200 a month toward a $92,900 restitution debt to 10 victims. On appeal, Tenney complained Assistant Attorney General Charlene Barlow said in her opening argument he "deliberately defrauded" 333 people, some of whom "were losing their shirts." The statement was not supported by evidence and should not have been made, the appeals court agreed. But Tenney was required to show the jury's verdict may have been different without the remark, which he failed to do, the court said. Also, two expert witnesses testified Tenney's business practices violated Utah law. The court agreed with Tenney's objections that the witnesses should not have been allowed to state their legal conclusions to the jury, which was the fact-finder. But again, Tenney failed to show any prejudice, Davis wrote. The court also found Tenney was not prejudiced by a juror's improper discussion of the case. On the fifth day of trial, a juror said to a colleague at work that Tenney "appeared to be a really bad guy" or a "slick operator." The co-worker, who knew Tenney, said all his experiences with the businessman had been "good." The juror then acknowledged he should not be discussing the case and ended the conversation. In an affidavit, the juror said he had not made a decision about Tenney's guilt or innocence and the conversation did not influence his decision. The conversation was clearly improper, the appeals courts said, but there was no evidence that 3rd District Judge Tyrone E. Medley abused his discretion by concluding the conversation did not affect the juror's deliberation. Finally, the appeals court found no errors in the jury instructions given by Medley and upheld a $39,000 restitution award to investor James Zieglowsky. ON THE INTERNET: Visit The Salt Lake Tribune Web edition on the World Wide Web. Point your browser to http://www.sltrib.com ------------------------------ From: Quinn Michael Subject: Spend Some Quality Time With Your Telemarketer Date: Mon, 18 Mar 96 09:37:00 PST The recent series of postings on telemarketing should evoke a number of imaginative responses to these calls. Since they are apparently unavoidable for the present (at least until Paul Begley et al can eliminate them) why not have a little fun at their expense? Responses which I have used with varying degrees of success and amusement include: a. Advise that you are eating dinner (generally the case) and request a number where you can call them back, because you really ARE interested in chemical lawn treatment or whatever. If they are stupid enough to give you one, you can either: 1) when the next telemarketer calls, ask them to call you right back at your other number in the den, and give them the previous telemarketer's number, or 2) post the number in a handy place such as a restroom at the bus station. b. Respond to personal questions with personal questions yourself ("and what about you, Mary -- how old are YOUR kids?"); try to engage them in light repartee -- it can be hilarious to listen to them try to wriggle out of talking. c. Ask them if they use the product themselves,and if not, why not. Be sure to use their first name a lot, too. ("What about you Ted -- do you a have credit card from this bank, Ted? Ted -- what about your wife?" etc). d. Tell them what a fascinating field telemarketing seems to be and that you're considering a career change. Ask them how they like their jobs, what their hours are, and how much they get paid. Technical questions of the sort that might come from TELECOM Digest readers are good, too, such as what brand and model of headset they're using, what kind of computer, etc. e. Point out that since they have your home phone number that you'd like to get theirs (area code first, of course); ask if they mind you calling while they're asleep or eating. f. Ask them what city they're calling from, and then launch into a long diatribe about what rotten winter it's been here in (your city). If they try to change the subject, interrupt them. g. Tell them you feel sorry for anyone who has to be working during a civilized meal hour. Describe your own menu in detail, along with preparation guidelines. ("And Susan, are you still with me, Susan? Susan -- it's important that you use fresh garlic and ground pepper in the sauce at this point", etc). h. Ask for the name and telephone number of their supervisor as a matter of course. If they ask why, tell them it's for government records or something equally absurd. Cite made-up federal statutes that require that they provide you with this information. i. Tell them that the conversation is being taped for their protection and ask them to say their name several times slowly in succession. j. And so on. Most of these usually result in THEM hanging up on YOU, and meanwhile your dinner IS getting cold, but the more of their time you waste, the less profitable their venture becomes, and the more they may be personally inclined to choose a job that doesn't entail pestering people. Cheers, Mike Quinn ------------------------------ From: Stan Schwartz Subject: Internet Appliance Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 15:26:29 -0500 By Steve Creedy, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News Mar. 13 -- Confused by all that talk about megabytes, configurations and protocols and think you're missing out on the information age? A local company believes it has a simple answer. Oakland-based OnTV Inc. is about to make Pittsburgh the first U.S. test market for a compromise "Internet device" that provides one-button access to the information highway. The Canadian-made TransPhone combines a computer terminal, fax and credit card reader with a full-featured telephone that includes an answering machine and caller ID. The device follows a model proposed by some computer industry leaders -- most notably Larry Ellison, chief executive officer of Oracle Corp. -- of cheaper, dumb terminals capable of running programs stored in cyberspace. Instead of storing information and programs internally, TransPhone allows users to write letters, balance their finances, receive e-mail and access the World Wide Web through a remote computer. It will sell for $995, about the same as a low-end PC. The idea was to produce a household device that would provide simple access to the Web and an easy way to conduct on-line transactions, according to OnTV founder Bob Thibadeau. "It's totally different to a PC, " Thibadeau says. "It's sort of the shape of things to come." TransPhone uses a "thin client" protocol developed by Citrix Systems Inc. to connect to a Windows NT server. That boosts performance while allowing on-board memory to be kept at a low 512KB. Customers will pay a monthly fee of about $20 to connect to the OnTV computer and to the Web. That will allow them to use the latest versions of the Netscape Web browser and Quicken financial software. The company is working out licensing agreements to add word processing software to its package, and it's not clear whether that will cost more. Customers' documents will be stored on the OnTV computer and automatically backed up by the company. Owners also can connect a printer to the device if they want hard copies of their work. Thibadeau says a study identified working women as a big group of potential buyers for the device. Executives and cellular phone owners are others, he says. "What we found is that (working women) really appreciate that you don't have to fiddle with the internals of the PC," he says. "When they want to be on the Internet, they just want it all to work." OnTV initially will receive 5,000 units from TransPhone. Thibadeau says the Canadian manufacturer's production capacity will reach 75,000 units a month by September. He expects no trouble meeting demand. "But what we're doing is we're controlling distribution out of this office," he says. "We're going to make sure that we don't get too many TransPhones out there before our servers can support them." TransPhone and OnTV are members of the Digital Lynx group of companies based in New Orleans. A third member of the group, Omaha, Neb.-based Secured Electronic Commerce, will provide secured transactions for businesses that want to take advantage of TransPhone's credit card swipe. Thibadeau also hopes to interest local information providers or retailers in TransPhone's one-touch access. The unit has 10 buttons that can be programmed to link directly to a specific Web site. He sees that feature and the credit-card reader as providing a direct link between retailers and customers at home. One of those buttons will provide one-touch access to OnTV information about local groups and business as well as a patented map locator. This includes a new feature that offers free Web pages to more than 600 schools in the region, allowing them to display information such as school closings, sports and activities. OnTV is a partnership that includes Digital Lynx, local PBS affiliate QED Communications and law firm Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott. It scored a first last year by using WQED's television signal to broadcast World Wide Web pages over the air. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 18:21:45 EST From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: How to Profit From Advertising on the Internet This was the title of a small ad in the papers here over the weekend. The company sponsoring this is going to have a seminar to teach people how to 'Make Money Fast!' by putting out messages to forty million (their estimate) users of the net. They'll teach you how to become an 'internet consultant' and help others -- for a fee of course -- learn how to pollute the net the same way they will teach you. You can register to attend one of their free seminars and spend some time with their experts -- people who already know how to spam. They've also got a free cassette they want to send you. I wonder if they realize, or care how much of an affront they are to netizens everywhere ... You'll discuss it with them, won't you? 1-800-700-5366. You might even want to register for their seminars and get copies of their free cassette tapes. Can't hurt to review the techniques they teach others to use. "How to Profit From the Internet" is presented by a company called 'Madison York'. They'll help you cash in big, and make money fast right here, just as their advertisement promises. That number again for more details ... One eight hundred, seven hundred, five three six six. In case they asked where you saw the ad, it was in the Sunday {Chicago Tribune}. PAT ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 15:10:29 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM Subject: Join the VON Coalition Forwarded to the Digest FYI: Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 15:03:07 -0500 (EST) From: Sandy Combs ******************************************************* VON ALERT -- FWD ALERT --IPHONE ALERT -- NETWATCH ALERT ******************************************************* It appears that our recent FREE WORLD DIALUP press release was the straw that broke the camel's back. The FCC was petitioned yesterday by ACTA "TO STOP MISUSE OF THE INTERNET". The sale and use of Voice-On-the-Net (VON) software is being challenged by 130 of the USA's largest long distance telephone carriers. Among them, MCI, SPRINT, and LDDS. According to the ACTA press release: "A growing number of companies are selling software programs with ancillary hardware options that enable a computer to transmit voice conversations. This, in fact, creates the ability to "by-pass" local, long distance and international carriers and allows for calls to be made for virtually 'no cost.'" And also, "...the misuse of the Internet as a way to "by-pass" the traditional means of obtaining long distance service could result in a significant reduction of the Internet's ability to transport its ever enlarging amount of data traffic." 'VON' COALITION BEING FORMED A VON Coalition is currently being formed and members will testify at the spring meeting of the FCC when they discuss telephony issues. If you don't want to lose your right to VON technology, NOW is the time to be counted. WHAT CAN I DO? We need an immediate head count of those on these lists that CARE ENOUGH TO BECOME INVOLVED! Subscribe RIGHT NOW to this SPECIAL VON Coalition list: vonYES@pulver.com To subscribe: VON Coalition List 1) send E-MAIL to: majordomo@pulver.com 2) leave the SUBJECT blank 3) in the BODY write - subscribe vonyes To subscribe: VON Coalition List Digest 1) send E-MAIL to: majordomo@pulver.com 2) leave the SUBJECT blank 3) in the BODY write - subscribe vonyes-digest Further discussions regarding the VON Coalition will be posted to the above only. If you DO NOT act TODAY, your rights and FREE TELEPHONE via the internet may well be lost! Jeff Pulver Sandy Combs [your name here] (Press Release distribution authorized by, Jennifer Durst-Jarrell, Executive Director, ACTA 3/5/96) FCC PETITIONED TO STOP MISUSE OF THE INTERNET! WASHINGTON, March 4 /PRNewswire/ -- The America's Carriers Telecommunication Association (ACTA), a trade association of competitive, long distance carriers today petitioned the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to stop companies from selling software and hardware products that enable use of the Internet to voice long distance services. A growing number of companies are selling software programs with ancillary hardware options that enable a computer to transmit voice conversations. This, in fact, creates the ability to "by-pass" local, long distance and international carriers and allows for calls to be made for virtually "no cost." For example, on-line service providers generally charge users around $10.00 for five hours of access and then around $3.00 for each additional hour. Five hours equals 300 minutes, divided by $10 is 3.3 cents per minute. The average residential long distance telephone call costs about 22 cents per minute or seven times as much. The Internet is a unique form of wire communications. The rapid growth of the Internet is stressing the capacities of the Internet itself. The Internet access points are growing at 50% per month with subscriber growth running close to 30% per month. Individuals are accessing the Internet for more and more business applications such as market research, news, and advertising with corporate web sites exploding, to say nothing about using the Internet for E-mail applications. ACTA submits that it is incumbent upon the FCC to exercise jurisdiction over the use of the Internet for unregulated interstate and international telecommunications services. Long distance and international carriers must be approved by the FCC to operate and must file tariffs before both the FCC and state public service commissions. All of these requirements are stipulated in the Communications Act of 1934 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Technology may once again be surpassing government's ability to control its proper use. However, the misuse of the Internet as a way to "by-pass" the traditional means of obtaining long distance service could result in a significant reduction of the Internet's ability to transport its ever enlarging amount of data traffic. Therefore, ACTA has petitioned the FCC to define the type of permissible communications which may be effected over the Internet. America's Carriers Telecommunication Association was founded in 1985 by independent long distance companies to serve the needs of small businesses and to advance the goals of more effective competition. ACTA's membership today includes over 130 companies engaged in providing telecommunications services. _______ END PRESS RELEASE _______ Thank you for taking the time to confirm your interest in the VON Coalition. Jeff Pulver VON Coalition Chairman http://www.von.org ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #130 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Mar 20 18:40:08 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id SAA28734; Wed, 20 Mar 1996 18:40:08 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 18:40:08 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199603202340.SAA28734@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #131 TELECOM Digest Wed, 20 Mar 96 18:40:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 131 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson UC Berkeley Short Courses on High Speed LAN Technology (Harvey Stern) Anatomy of a Phone Scam (Ken Levitt) Demand Drafts Scam (Washington Post via Tad Cook) BT Museum May Close (London Evening Standard via Steve Coleman) Local Exchange Carriers Simplify ISDN (Mike King) New Type of Cellular Antenna? (Larry Schwarcz) Youngster Kidnapped by Internet Chat Companion (TELECOM Digest Editor) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: southbay@garnet.berkeley.edu Subject: UC Berkeley Short Courses on High Speed LAN Technology Date: 19 Mar 1996 23:25:48 GMT Organization: University of California, Berkeley U.C. Berkeley Continuing Education in Engineering Announces 2 Berkeley Nationwide Short Courses on: LEADING EDGE LAN TECHNOLOGIES (April 25-26, 1996 Boston, MA) (May 15-16, 1996 Herndon, VA) COURSE DESCRIPTION As LAN Technologies have matured, their use has expanded both in numbers of installations, and in the demands placed on them by emerging applications. This has spawned the growth of a multitude of options for new, high-performance LANs. This course takes an in-depth technical look at many of the technologies that may be applied to solve network growth problems, both today and in the future. The instructor, Rich Seifert, is a developer and co-author of many of the industry standards for LANs and internetworking. The course examines the application and operation of all of the available options for deploying next-generation LAN systems. Topics include: Interconnecting LANs, LAN Switches, Virtual LANs High-Speed LAN Alternatives: IEEE 802.3/Fast Ethernet: 100Base-T, IEEE 802.12/100VG-AnyLAN, ANSI X3T12: FDDI/FDDI-Over-Copper (CDDItm), Asynchronous Transaction Mode (ATM LANs), Wireless LANs. Emphasis is placed on real-world tradeoffs of cost, product availability and interoperability in a confusing evolving market. This course is appropriate for development engineers and managers, network planners and administrators, MIS managers, product marketers, and support personnel responsible for making decisions regarding the deployment of next-generation LAN equipment. This course is not a primer in networking; some familiarity with existing LAN technologies and application environments is assumed. Lecturer: RICH SEIFERT, M.S.E.E., M.B.A., is President of Networks and Communications Consulting, formerly with Digital Equipment Corp. and Industrial Networking, Inc., he was responsible for the development of the Ethernet physical layer and specifications, as well as Token Bus Factory LAN products. He is co-author of the IEEE 802.1, 802.3, 802.4 and Fast Ethernet standards, and is currently working on Wireless LANs, Internetworking, Protocol design, High Speed networks and new network architectures. A much sought after lecturer, Mr. Seifert teaches courses on networking for the University of California at Berkeley and many private companies. Networks and Communications Consulting works with a number of firms developing and manufacturing network products. LEADING-EDGE PROTOCOLS (April 23-24, 1996 Boston, MA) (May 13-14, 1996 Herndon, VA) COURSE DESCRIPTION This comprehensive course covers the very latest advances in Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) including: Ipv6 and transition strategies from Ipv4, smoothe address management, BOOTP and Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol, problems and issues for large IP networks, video server requirements, multicast, bandwidth reservation (RSVP) design and application, IP working with ATM. Lecturer: BEN TSAO is a leading expert in network protocols and network design. As Director of advanced technology for GIWA International, he specializes in meeting and exceeeding tactical and strategic business objectives through the effective use of information technology. Tsao brings 20 years of teaching and real-world experience to the classroom. He has taught Advanced Data Communication courses to over 5000 IS professionals in the US, Canada, Europe, and China. For more information (complete course descriptions, outlines, instructor bios, etc.) send your postal address or fax to: Harvey Stern or Jennifer Keup U.C. Berkeley Extension/Southbay 800 El Camino Real Ste. 220 Menlo Park, CA 94025 Tel: (415) 323-8141 Fax: (415) 323-1438 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Mar 96 18:29:22 EST From: levitt@zorro9.fidonet.org (Ken Levitt) Subject: Anatomy of a Phone Scam Maybe this story will prevent others from falling for a similar scam. I have left out many of the details to keep the size of this posting somewhat reasonable. Friday 11:50am: I get a call on my business line. John: Hi this is John your UPS driver. My brother works at Lechmere Sales in Cambridge (MA). They just got in an overshipment of Compaq computers and they either have to sell them off in the next few days or send them back. Do you think I should get one for my daughter in Jr. High and do you know of anyone who might be interested in some of these? They are 133mhz Pentiums with 16 mb of memory and a 15 inch monitor. Model # 9564. These are not hot or anything like that. Me: How much are they? John: $900 Me: Let me check out the specs and let you know. John: OK, but I have to call back my brother at 1pm to let him know. I'll call you back just before 1:00. At this point I really believed it was the UPS driver calling. Because I am in the computer business, I get a lot of computer equipment delivered here and it would be reasonable that the driver would think of me in this situation. I know that this computer should cost three times the $900, but I guess the prospect of having a top of the line computer for the first time in my life caused me to think it might somehow be possible. 1:30pm John calls Me: I'm interested in three of the computers, but I'm a bit leery. The price seems very low and I don't want to get involved if this is hot merchandise. John: No this isn't anything like that. This comes right from the store with a receipt and a three year warranty. My brother Mike will call you back to give you the rest of the details. Me: What is your brother's name? [looking for a last name] John: Mike, don't worry, he'll call you. 2:50pm Mike: My brother Johnnie says you're concerned that these are hot computers. You know Johnnie, right? [I said yes not wanting to blow the deal.] Johnnie and I would not risk our jobs selling hot merchandise. Do you have the $2700 cash? Me: Can you take a credit card? Mike: No, at these prices it has to be cash. There were several phone calls following this to arrange a time for me to go down to Lechmere and buy the computers. All of these conversations contained such intricate details about Mike's job at Lechmere, it would be hard to imagine that anyone who did not work there could fabricate such a story. However, I started thinking about meeting a stranger who knew I had $2700 in my pocket. So I decided to take some precautions. Sat 1:25pm Mike tells me to meet him at the taxi stand in front of the store and we will go inside and do the paper work. I had never been to this store before and did not know the layout. Mike gave me directions. I emptied my wallet of all but a few dollars and gave the money to my partner who followed me in a separate car. I did not tell Mike about my partner coming. I get to the taxi stand and someone comes up to the car. "Mike?" I asked. Tom: No, I'm Tom. Mike is tied up in the store. He asked me to come out and meet you. [Tom gets into the car.] Me: OK, where do I pull my car in? Tom: Gee, the customer pickup line is all blocked up. Do you have a phone in the car so I can call Mike and ask him what to do? I pull out my cell phone and ask for the number. Tom says he can dial it, but I say I have to dial a pin and he gives me the number. I hand the phone to Tom who asks for the loading dock. Tom hands the phone back to me with Mike on the line. At this point a security guard tells me I can't stay in the taxi stand so I hand the phone back to Tom and pull my car around the corner while Tom is telling Mike that Fred Johnson the security guard just made us move and that Fred was being really stupid about this given Tom was in the car and Fred knew that Tom worked at the store. Mike tells me to get the receipt from Tom. Tom hands me a Lechmere receipt, it is made out to me and my company, but I had told Mike prior to this that I needed two receipts, two machines for me and one for a friend of mine who I had already provided the name and address. Mike says that this is not the real receipt, that the real one will be gener- ated in the store. I notice that the receipt looks like it was typed on a typewriter rather from a store register. Mike for a moment seems to be talking to someone in the distance telling them that he's talking to Ken, a friend of his brother John. Mike: Give Tom the money and he'll bring it into the store, I'll process the paperwork and your computers will be at the pickup dock in 5 minutes. Me: I'll turn over the money when I see the computers. Mike: I can't get the stuff out to the loading dock without the proper paperwork, so I need to have the money first. Me: Then I'll come into the store and pay for it there. Mike: You can't. This isn't a normal transaction. It has to be processed in the back office and it's a secure area. Customers aren't allowed back here. Me: There's no way I'm going to give you any money under these circum- stances. Mike: This is the only way it can work. There are people who have to be taken care of here to make this thing happen. Then Mike starts whining about how I'm making him look like a fool with the other people there, that he put these computers aside for me when other people wanted to buy them. That I shouldn't be doing this to Johnnie's brother. Mike was extremely persuasive. When I still refused, he said I could give Tom half the money and pay the rest on the loading dock. I still refused. He asked me to give the phone back to Tom. Tom talks to Mike for a few seconds and gives the phone back to me. Mike: I'll have to come out there. I'm sure I can get this thing to work out. Give the receipt back to Tom and tell him to come back into the store to relieve me on loading dock so I can come out. Tom takes the receipt and goes. I wait 20 minutes. Mike never shows. I go home. I am now convinced there never were any computers and that Mike doesn't work for Lechmere and John doesn't work for UPS. My partner is not convinced. I decide to do some detective work. I get the phone number from my cell phone recall and try it several times over the next few days. I'm told this is a payphone, but I can't find out where it is. I called the security department at Lechmere and I'm told that this is a scam. The people don't work for them. Lechmere is working with the police on this, and that several people did give them money and waited up to four hours for their computers to show up. All of the people who were scammed worked for companies in the computer industry. UPS was also aware of this scam. There are a few lessons to be learned from this: 1. Con artists really are artists. They can be more believable than you could ever imagine. 2. There is such a natural human tendency to get really excited about getting something for nothing that you lose some of your normal common sense. 3. The old rule remains true. If it sounds too good to be true, it likely isn't true. I always thought I was too smart to be taken by a con artist. Given I didn't lose any money, I guess I was right, but is scares me to think of how close I came to being taken. Ken Levitt - On FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390 UUCP: zorro9!levitt INTERNET: levitt@zorro9.fidonet.org or levitt%zorro9.uucp@talcott.harvard.edu [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Good report, and thanks for sending it in. To me, the stench started getting pretty powerful as soon as they told you to meet them in front of the store rather than inside in the office. Have you mentioned yet to your regular UPS guy about the person who tried to impersonate him? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Tad Cook Subject: Demand Drafts Scam Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 09:02:07 PST Crooks tap into checking accounts using `demand drafts' Washington Post WASHINGTON -- Scam artists are using an increasingly common payment method to rob tens of millions of dollars a year from consumers' checking accounts, the Federal Trade Commission warned Tuesday. Their tool is the "demand draft" -- an account holder's advance permission to have money taken from his or her checking account to pay a bill. Demand drafts have been around for a years and are widely used to cover mortgage payments, insurance premiums, health-club dues and other regular bills. The drafts look like checks, but instead of a signature, they carry a notice saying the account holder has given permission to have money withdrawn from his or her checking account. Banks treat them as if they were personal checks. Mortgage companies and insurers using demand drafts can get written permission for the withdrawals, but consumers also can authorize demand drafts through a phone call, and that's how scam artists have discovered how easy demand drafts are to abuse. The key information scam artists need is a checking account number. Sometimes they call unsuspecting consumers and tell them they've won a prize and the account number is needed so the prize can be deposited in the consumer's account. Or the crook sells the consumer something, such as a magazine subscription, with the intent to debit the consumer's account for far more than was agreed on. With that information, the scam artist can either create a demand draft or obtain one from the companies that print and process them, and then present it to the bank. While consumer-protection laws limit losses to $50 on a lost or stolen credit card, demand drafts can be for any amount, and the liability isn't always clear, officials said. Consumers have 60 days to challenge an unauthorized draft, and banks will often swallow the loss, though not always. Consumers can seek a refund from whoever debited the account, but if that's a scam artist in another state, it can be impractical. The FTC has implemented rules that require companies using demand drafts to get expressed, verifiable authorization for the draft, said Jodie Bernstein, director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection. That means they must get something in writing or tape-record the conversation in which the consumer gives the authorization. If you don't want your account debited, Bernstein said, make sure you tell any telemarketer you deal with, "You do not have my permission to debit my checking account." And unless you know whom you're dealing with, don't give out any information about your checking account, she said. Otherwise, "you might as well be walking hand-in-hand with a scam artist right down to your local ATM machine, withdrawing your money and handing it over." [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This same report appeared Wednesday in the {Chicago Sun Times}. Just one more thing to be alert to. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 19:41:05 GMT From: scaf@pro-net.co.uk (Steve Coleman) Subject: BT Museum May Close Pat, The following article appeared in the {London Evening Standard} last night. If there are Digest readers planning a trip to London who would like to visit the BT Museum before possible closure, they should head for 145 Queen Victoria St, London EC4V 4AT (information on 0800 289 689). {London Evening Standard}, Monday, 18 March, 1996. BT MUSEUM MAY CLOSE The future of one of London's most fascinating -- if more obscure -- museums is under threat. Faced with declining numbers and an ever-growing demand for financial resources, the BT Museum at Blackfriars could soon be closing to the general public, writes Luke Blair. Among the options being considered are turning the archive into an appointment-only attraction, or closing it down altogether with a view to rehousing the unique collection of artefacts elsewhere. Around 22,000 visitors a year take advantage of the free entry to learn about one of the building blocks of contemporary civilisation. They can see the forerunner of the telephone -- the two-needle electric telegraph built in 1837 -- while marvelling at the 1906 Gell Perforator and the 1907 Wheatstone Automatic. Steve Coleman University of North London http://idun.unl.ac.uk/~hfa9colemas scaf@pronews.pro-net.co.uk THE FLESHTONES HALL OF FAME http://idun.unl.ac.uk/~hfa9colemas/fhof.htm ------------------------------ From: mk@TFS.COM (Mike King) Subject: Local Exchange Carriers Simplify ISDN Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 09:37:31 PST From: BellSouth Subject: Local Exchange Carriers Simplify ISDN BellSouth .......................................March 18, 1996 Local Exchange Carriers Simplify ISDN GAITHERSBURG, MD The National ISDN Council (NIC) announced today that 10 Local Exchange Carriers (LECs) will implement a uniform procedure to simplify establishment of ISDN service. These LECs are Ameritech, Bell Atlantic, BellSouth, Cincinnati Bell Telephone Company, GTE Corp., NYNEX, Pacific Bell, Southern New England Telecommunications Corporation, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, and U S WEST. The LECs have agreed to use the same format for the Service Profile IDentifier (SPID) assigned to ISDN terminals for new National ISDN lines. This format will enable easier installation of ISDN terminals. In most ISDN configurations, users are required to program the SPID value into their terminals in order for the terminals to operate. The SPID is a string of digits which the terminal uses to identify itselfto the network; it enables the network to provide the terminal with the correct features. According to Garrett Jenkins, NIC Chairperson and BellSouth Industry Liaison Manager, "The format we selected is easy for ISDN users to understand. Most users are served by LECs that support this generic format, and the adoption of a single format puts users in a better position to understand their SPIDs. Of course we'll continue to provide SPIDs when ISDN is ordered, but now instruction manuals for ISDN equipment will also be able to contain SPID information." Jenkins sees the new SPID format benefiting all types of users. "Since the generic SPID format can be published in equipment instruction manuals and in ISDN user guides, individuals and small businesses that install their own equipment will have additional sources of accurate information. In addition, large businesses, independent installers, and CPE suppliers that support many ISDN lines over a range of territory will no longer need different procedures for each location." The generic SPID format is comprised of 14 digits. The first 10 digits are the main telephone number on the terminal; the last four digits are dependent on the number of terminals on the interface and the services they support. The technical details for the generic SPID format were announced at the North American ISDN Users' Forum (NIUF) meeting March 15 in Gaithersburg, MD. In addition, an upcoming issue of the Bellcore "DIGEST of Technical Information" will include this information. In the past, each LEC developed their own SPID format based on the capabilities of the switches and systems deployed in each network. Lynn Wietlispach, National ISDN Operations Advisory Group (NIOAG) Chairperson and Ameritech ISDN Operations Manager, helped define the new format. "All of the current switch releases for National ISDN allow us to use SPIDs which are based on the telephone number plus a few other digits," Wietlispach said. "Consequently, the LECs are in a position to migrate away from the multiple SPID formats which were based on network restrictions that no longer exist." Bob Buehler, Chairperson of the CPE Industry Liaison Subcommittee (CILS) and Bell Atlantic Member of Technical Staff, interacts with ISDN customer equipment suppliers. "We heard that some users were confused by the multiple formats that existed. The generic SPID format will go a long way in eliminating that confusion for new customers." He added, "We were careful in developing this solution to ensure that it will not have any impacts on installations already in service." Michael Vallone, NIC representative and NYNEX Product Manager ISDN, notes that the generic SPID format is one component of a comprehensive approach to simplify ISDN ordering and installation. Two other components are ISDN Ordering Codes (IOCs) and Parameter Downloading. "IOCs significantly reduce the amount of information users need to specify when requesting ISDN service. Parameter Downloading allows the network to program the CPE for the user." Vallone added, "The NIC announcement of SPID format simplification addresses a need not covered by these other efforts. Also, the NIC is continuing to look at additional methods to help users establish ISDN service. For example, it is working with the supplier community to eliminate the need for SPIDs in certain configurations." The National ISDN Council (NIC) is comprised of representatives from Ameritech, Bell Atlantic, BellSouth, Cincinnati Bell Telephone Company, NYNEX, Pacific Bell, Southern New England Telecommunications Corporation, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, and U S WEST. The NIC coordinates the definition of National ISDN and addresses deployment issues across its participating companies. The NIOAG and CILS are subcommittees of NIC which focus on ISDN operations and CPE issues respectively. ISDN, or Integrated Services Digital Network, is a service that provides customers with high speed, digital voice and data communications over ordinary copper telephone lines. For More Information, Contact: Ameritech: Richard Maganini, 312 364 2134 Bell Atlantic: Ells Edwards, 302 576 5340 BellSouth: David Storey, 205 977 5001 Cincinnati Bell Telephone Company: Dick Hammersmith, 513 397 1050 GTE Corp., Bill Kula, 214 718 6924 NYNEX: John Bonomo, 212 395 0500 Pacific Bell: Mary Hancock, 415 394 3620 Southern New England Telecommunications Corporation: Bill Seekamp, 203 771 2136; or Beverly Levy 203 771 4474 Southwestern Bell Telephone Company: April Wygant, 314 331 9823 U S WEST: Bill Dietz, 206 345 5241 --------------------------- Mike King * mk@tfs.com * Oakland, CA, USA * +1 510.645.3152 ------------------------------ Subject: New Type of Cellular Antenna? Date: Tue, 19 Mar 96 09:21:47 -0800 From: Larry Schwarcz I just saw an ad for a cellular antenna that I've never seen before. The antenna is a 3-1/2" square that mounts inside your windshield without any external parts. The ad claims, "Take advantage of the same technology developed for the government and used by the F.B.I. and C.I.A. for the past six years - and experience the freedom of the Freedom Antenna." The company is Mito Corp in Indiana. Has anyone heard of this? Does it work as claimed? Is it as good or better than other cellular glass mount antenna's? Or is it just snake oil? FWIW, their phone number is 1-800-4333-6486, ext 347. I saw the ad in the March 18, 1996 issue of Autoweek on page 8. They don't give a price. Thanks, Lawrence R. Schwarcz, Software Design Engr/NCD Internet: lrs@cup.hp.com Hewlett Packard Company Direct: (408) 447-2543 19420 Homestead Road MS 43LN Main: (408) 447-2000 Cupertino, CA 95014 Fax: (408) 447-2264 Internal-only WWW: http://hpisrhw.cup.hp.com/~lrs/homepage.html [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It probably works okay, but not necessarily through any secret formula or technique of theirs. The fact is that in large urban areas across America, cellular towers appear with such frequency that there is almost complete saturation by cellular transmissions. I won't go so far as to say that you don't need any antenna at all on your cell phone -- at least not where transmitting is concerned to keep from damaging the unit -- but as long as the antenna is properly tuned or 'cut' to operate in the 800 megs area, virtually anything will work; the signals are that strong and pervasive. For my phone I have a little thin rubber thing about four inches long which I never use because it does not fit nicely in my pocket. I also have a little stubby thing about an inch long which the phone is perfectly satisfied with for transmission purposes. It fits in my coat pocket nicely so I use it instead. If I were to get really out in the boondocks I might need to use the larger one but thus far I have been to Milwaukee and back a few times on the Greyhound Bus from Skokie and never once was I 'out of contact'. The phone always showed a strong signal even up around the Wisconsin/Illinois state line where it goes into 'roam' mode. For a cellular antenna, as long as you get one which has been constructed properly it pretty much comes down to the one you think looks nicest. PAT] ------------------------------ From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Youngster Kidnapped by Internet Chat Companion Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 15:00:00 EST You may have seen this one in your paper in the past couple days. A thirteen year old boy here in the northern suburbs of Chicago was fond of chatting on IRC (Internet Relay Chat) with a guy in Tampa, Florida by the name of Richard Romero, a citizen of Brazil who was living in the USA. Romero, a fellow in his thirties known as 'Rick in Florida' to people on IRC and a couple of the other chat/CB programs one can connect to with computer had been in interactive conversations and email correspondence with this kid over a period of a month or so. The kid had called him on the telephone as well. This was found out when his mother got a recent phne bill from Ameritech. Well, the kid expresses his unhappieness at home and decides to run away. Romero agrees to help him. Romero flew to Chicago and checked in at a motel near here. The next morning the child is supp- osed to go to school but doesn't make it. The school calls the mother at about 11:00 AM to notify her that her son is absent. The mother goes to her son's room to discover that he has packed up many of his clothes and taken them with him, along with his computer stuffed in his backpack. Mom had already found the Tampa, Florida phone number on her bill and she had already seen a letter sent to her son in snail mail which included the kid's school ID (he had sent it to show his picture to Romero who then returned it). She had spoken with her son about this and requested that he cease further email and chat with Romero, so discovering that he had run off it did not take her much time to figure out what had happened, and she notified the police. Romero and the kid had a rendezvous somewhere and they then left together to return to Florida on the 9:15 AM bus from here in Skokie. They changed busses in Chicago and at 11:00 AM that morning were on their way to Tampa. The mother and the police had other ideas, and police met the bus in Louisville, Kentucky at the regularly scheduled dinner stop for passengers that evening. The boy was returned to his home, and Romero was arrested and charged with kidnapping, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, taking a minor across state lines for the purpose of immoral activity and whatever. Romero's mother in Tampa said she had given her son Rick $2000 to buy the computer a couple months earlier but did not realize that he would be spending 'sometimes ten hours per day' on the computer 'talking to people he met'. The police gave out Romero's home address and phone number in Tampa requesting that 'parents everywhere with teenage boys who spend a lot of time on the computer and who may be acting suspiciously' might want to check their phone bills and see if the same phone number showed up on their bill. If so, the FBI wants to hear from them also so they can investigate those cases as well. (Or should I say stir up the pot a little more.) The {Chicago Sun Times} editorialized on Wednesday saying that parents who assume just because their children are at home in their room on the computer that they are safe from the evils in the world around us perhaps should think again. This is true I guess, that parents should supervise their children's use of the computer -- especially when a modem is attached -- and see to it the kids are 'behaving themselves'. But then the same parents ought to be supervising what is watched on television and what is viewed at the talking-picture houses also. It might not hurt to get aquainted with your children's friends if you really want to raise your child properly. Parents might want to instruct their children that they should never go to meet a new friend in person they chatted with on the computer until they first tell their parents, the same as they should be doing with any new person they meet and become friendly with. The newspaper editorial referred to it as a 'chilling experience' which should serve as an example for all parents. Although the newspapers have their own axes to grind about the net, this story, or non-story perhaps grabbed the headline and most of the front page in the paper here. I again would note that the only thing new in life is the medium used to get the messages across; the messages are all the same as always. Computers have made things a lot easier for everyone, and that includes the people who like to hurt children. Had the newspaper people been involved with the net as long as some of us, stories like this would come as no surprise. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #131 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Mar 20 20:44:17 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id UAA11474; Wed, 20 Mar 1996 20:44:17 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 20:44:17 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199603210144.UAA11474@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #132 TELECOM Digest Wed, 20 Mar 96 20:44:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 132 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson India Grants More Licenses; Allows More Telecom Bids (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh) BellSouth Introduces New Digital Video Service (Mike King) Re: Telemarketers Take Control of the Phone Line? (Jeff Brielmaier) Re: Telemarketers Take Control of the Phone Line? (Kirk J. Bloede) Re: Spend Some Quality Time With Your Telemarketer (Glenn Foote) Re: NBA in Full Court Press (Ed Ellers) Re: Join the VON Coalition (Steve Bagdon) Re: Details on Chicago 312/773 Split (Joseph Singer) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 14:58:43 -0800 From: Rishab Aiyer Ghosh Subject: India Grants More Licenses; Allows More Telecom Bids The Indian Techonomist: weekly summary, March 18, 1996 Copyright (C) 1996 Rishab Aiyer Ghosh. All rights reserved 18 MARCH 1996: India grants more licences, to have 3rd round of bids Motorola's Indian cellular service delayed India's National Stock Exchange on the Web BBC to go its own way in Asia India grants more licences, to have 3rd round of bids March 16, 1996: As expected, the five winners in the second round of bidding for basic telephony held this January were issued letters of intent by the Indian Department of Telecommunications (DoT). The five will have to pay the first year's licence fee for the regions awarded to them - a total of $159 million - by April 10. The winners are, listed in order of decreasing estimated profitability of their regions, Reliance-NYNEX (Gujarat), Tata-Bell Canada (Andhra Pradesh), RPG-NTT-Itochu (Tamil Nadu), Essar- Bell Atlantic (Punjab), and Usha-Bell Atlantic (Bihar). Two first-round winners, Ispat-Hughes (Maharashtra, including Bombay, and Karnataka, including Bangalore) and Shyam-PTT Guangdong (Rajasthan) have not yet received their licences, as the bids are being disputed in court by losing bidders. With four licences previously granted to surprise first-round winner HFCL-Bezeq-Shinawatra, there are still eight circles left without a licensee (excluding the troubled state of Jammu and Kashmir, which has received no bids). These include medium- profitability B category circles that were unresolved in the first round due to "caps" - limits - placed on the number of licences per company, and ignored in the second round of bidding (along with poorer C category circles) due to high reserve prices set by the DoT. The DoT has, on March 15, issued a third tender for these leftover circles, with significantly reduced reserve prices. The only original first-round bidders may participate in this tender, and bids will be opened on April 15. Despite a whole month, and the lower reserve prices (cut by about 30%) uncertainty about general elections expected in early May could leave the DoT wanting. A fourth round will then be held, for any remaining circles, this time open to anybody, probably in August. Incidentally, the DoT denies that it has reduced the reserve prices at all. It claims it has merely reevaluated the net present value (NPV), which is the bid amount discounted according to the bidder's pay-out plan over the 15-year licence period. As the bid amount is really not important - winners are selected on the basis of the NPV - and only reserve NPVs were ever made public, this is just an ingenuous device to mask the fact that the DoT has followed the typical public-sector habit of overestimating revenues and underestimating required investment. Basic telephony licences, first- and second-round bids, and the new reserve prices can be found at http://dxm.org/techonomist/news/bids.html Motorola's Indian cellular service delayed ModiCom Network, a venture of Motorola and India's B K Modi Group, has asked for more time to pay for the licences to operate cellular services in the Indian states of Punjab and Karnataka, which it won through the bidding process. The Department of Telecommunications (DoT) has announced April 15 as the last date of paying the licence fee for cellular services. Most licences - for two private providers in each of 18 regions across India (excluding the four major cities, which already have cellular services) - have already been granted. ModiCom has been in some trouble, however, due to the change in its composition since the time of the bids (opened on August 5 last year), when Motorola was not a partner. The B K Modi Group owns 51% while the original partners were Vanguard Cellular Systems Inc (26%) and Telecom International (23%). In January, the Modis received DoT permission to change its partners, but Vanguard refused to leave. Vanguard has finally agreed to sell out, and ModiCom can be reconstituted. Motorola is expected to take a 20% stake, while 29% will be held by Lazard Asia, the regional branch of the financial firm (49% is the maximum foreign holding allowed in telecom service providers). Meanwhile, Motorola announced that it is developing alphanumeric pagers in the Hindi and Gujarati languages, soon to be followed by more of India's dozen or more widely-spoken tongues. Motorola is pleased with the Indian pager market (after many false starts, several competing paging services started nationwide last year), especially because of the extremely high penetration of alphanumeric pagers (95%). The pager market is expected to quadruple to some 750,000 subscribers within the second year of service. More information on cellular services in India can be found at http://dxm.org/techonomist/news/cellular.html India's National Stock Exchange on the Web India's National Stock Exchange (NSE) is the country's first exchange with a presence on the Internet's World Wide Web. It makes available to users around the world business news, current stock quotes, and a member's directory through an efficient interface that includes search capabilities. India's major exchange, the Bombay (now renamed Mumbai) Stock Exchange, switched to screen-based trading last year, as did its counterpart in the capital, Delhi. The NSE, though, is by definition a high-tech exchange - unlike the revamped Bombay and Delhi exchanges, the NSE never had, and does not retain, a trading floor. The NSE does not have offices; its member-brokers are scattered across the country, and trade through the VSAT links that connect their computers, making it somewhat similar to America's NASDAQ. The NSE web site is at http://www.nseindia.com/ and was designed by US-based Thaumaturgix Inc (http://www.tgix.com/) and an Indian financial technology consultancy, JCS Pvt Ltd. BBC to go its own way in Asia The British Broadcasting Corporation's BBC World news channel will separate from Rupert Murdoch's Star TV network across Asia on April 1. It will move from the AsiaSat 1 satellite to Panamsat 4 (which ironically also broadcasts BBC's American rival, CNN). The BBC has been part of the Star network since its founding in 1991 by the Hong Kong billionaire Li Ka-shing. Ever since Star TV was sold to Rupert Murdoch's News Corp - whose BSkyB network competes with the BBC in Europe - the Star-BBC relationship has been shaky. It reached its nadir when, after a BBC documentary critical of Chairman Mao, the channel was dropped from Star's northern beam. In the area covered by the southern beam - much of South-East Asia, West Asia, and especially India - the BBC is very popular, and claims a 25% viewership. The BBC now plans to develop local content, and broadcast programmes in Hindi, on a free-to-air channel. Despite the expiry of its broadcasting contract with Star, the BBC will still use Star's extensive marketing network, perhaps because it plans to broadcast along with Star on the encrypted (pay) channels on Asiasat 2. The Indian Techonomist: weekly summary. http://dxm.org/techonomist/news/ Copyright (C) 1996 Rishab Aiyer Ghosh (rishab@techonomist.dxm.org) Tel +91 11 6853410; Fax 6856992; H-34-C Saket New Delhi 110017 INDIA May be distributed electronically provided that this notice is attached ------------------------------ From: mk@TFS.COM (Mike King) Subject: BellSouth Introduces New Digital Video Service Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 09:36:47 PST Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 11:56:25 -0500 From: BellSouth Subject: BellSouth Introduces New Digital Video Service BellSouth .......................................March 13, 1996 BELLSOUTH INTRODUCES NEW DIGITAL VIDEO SERVICE FOR MIAMI BASED HERO PRODUCTIONS MIAMI-BellSouth is introducing a new generation of video broadband technology here in Miami that will facilitate the distribution of local video programming to national and international broadcasters or local cable systems. BellSouth rolled out its new "uncompressed digital switched video service" Wednesday in the Greater Miami and South Florida areas. The service, the first of its kind in the BellSouth region, provides video transmission signals over fiberoptic lines to Hero Productions, a video production house located in West Dade County. Its primary applications make possible the video coverage of events taking place at different venues around Miami and the distribution of program information to national and international broadcasters. The new service has the capability of providing video input from multiple locations throughout Dade County-such as The National Hurricane Center, Joe Robbie Stadium or the Miami Arena-through fiberoptic lines to a central officebased video switch in downtown Miami. The BellSouth switch then transports the video signals to Hero Productions for distribution to any broadcast or cable system that wants to pick up the video feed. The heart of the system is the new video transport switch deployed by BellSouth to interface with the 194Megabyte fiber transport technology offered by the new service. The switch can be customercontrolled via a privateline circuit to allow Hero Productions personnel the flexibility to reconfigure feeds from multiple locations on demand. The switch is a forerunner to BellSouth's broadband network of the future that will use SONETbased video transport and ATM switching. "This new service demonstrates BellSouth's commitment to deliver stateoftheart voice, data, video and entertainment services to its customers," said Bill Smith, vice president advanced networking for BellSouth Business Systems (BBS). "This is the first switch of its kind in the Southeast and one of two in the country. BellSouth brought this service to Miami to meet the explosive demand for entertainment, news, sports, television and sports production. "Miami is also rapidly becoming a hub for Latin television production, television commercials and movies. The sophistication of area TV stations-including two networkowned stations-local and foreign cable television operators, and production facilities made Miami an easy choice for this pilot program," Smith said. BellSouth has been providing broadcastquality video in South Florida and the Southeast region for more than 35 years. The company offers other video services through its Spectrus family of intraLATA video services, including Spectrus Multipoint Video Conferencing Service (MVCS), commercialquality video services and speciallydesigned Spectrus video services that meet individual customer requirements. Under special design, BellSouth also offers customercontrolled video switching networks for large applications. BellSouth provides telecommunications services in nine Southeastern states, including Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee. With its headquarters in Atlanta, BellSouth serves 21 million local telephone lines and provides local exchange and intraLATA long distance service over one of the most modern telecommunications networks in the world. ### For Information Contact: David A. Storey (205) 977-5001 Spero Canton, Miami (305)347-5455 ----------------- Mike King * mk@tfs.com * Oakland, CA, USA * +1 510.645.3152 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Telemarketers Take Control of Phone Line From: jeff.brielmaier@yob.com (Jeff Brielmaier) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 96 04:30:00 -0600 Organization: Ye Olde Bailey BBS - Houston, TX - 713-520-1569 Reply-To: jeff.brielmaier@yob.com (Jeff Brielmaier) >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: He did not hold down the hook *long >> enough*. Ten seconds was not enough time for things to happen. Calls >> will disconnect *immediatly* when the calling party hangs up, however >> the called party has to be gone a bit longer to force the issue if >> he wants. > This "seizing the line" is the single most irritating thing about > these sorts of calls: it is essentially a hijacking of my phone line, > as if the person who comes to your door to sell you something sticks > around for a while after you've told him you're not interested! > I'm just waiting for somebody to die because they're unable to call > 911 just at the right moment, only because some telesleaze has taken > over the phone ... > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It has happened. I guess according to > the law telemarketers using automated equipment are supposed to drop > the connection immediatly when they see the called party has done the > same, but not all of them are complying with that. PAT] I'd say good luck on suing the telemarketer in this case. About five years ago in Atlanta, the Public Service Commission (PSC) had threatened a well known telemarketer with line disconnection due to "line seizure". The telemarketer did a demonstration for the PSC that showed that it was not "his equipment" that was seizing the line, but it was the fact that Southern Bell took 10-15 seconds to return dial tone to the calling party when the called party hung up. (You could hear the remote hang up, but it took some time before you got dropped to dialtone.) The telemarketer also pulled Southern Bell in front of the PSC to admit that "normal" phone lines has this feature and it was not the telemarketer's fault. Ye Olde Bailey BBS Zyxel 713-520-1569(V.32bis) USR 713-520-9566(V.34/FC) Houston,Texas yob.com Home of alt.cosuard ------------------------------ From: Kirk J. Bloede Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 12:32:37 -0800 Subject: Telemarketers Take Control of the Phone Line Pat, you wrote: > Try hanging up for thirty seconds or so however, and it is different. > By then the phone central office has disconnected the other party > and returned your line to normal. The only problem is, if you lift > your receiver to check and make sure you got rid of the problem caller, > and you do so *too soon* (that is, the connection has not timed out yet) > then unfortunatly you start the clock all over again and you get to > wait another 30-40 seconds at that point. So don't be in a rush. Hang > up, but stay that way preferably until you need the phone again or at > least 30-40 seconds; then check, your caller will be gone. PAT] Just as a matter of interest, in about 1976 or so, in Denver, I had a problem with a repeated crank caller who would call (often in the middle of the night), and just sit there, not speaking. When we hung up the phone, he would stay on, and might be there five or ten minutes later when we picked up to make another call. Annoying, and a bit scary. Ultimately, I came to suspect who it was. Phone Company said there was nothing they could do, at that time only business lines had the ability to terminate a call if the calling party kept the line open. They suggested we click the switchhook to make a sound on the line, and then authoritatively ask into the line, "OK, did you get that trace?" and then hang up. A couple of tries with that, and the guy quit. Only other alternative offered was set up a new unlisted telephone number. I learned who it was through other means, about a year later. The trace "trick" can still be useful, however. So, apparently the technology has changed the way this is handled? (I haven't had a chance to test it, mercifully!). Kirk J. Bloede kjbloede@hooked.net [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes the technology has changed a great deal. Twenty years ago there were lots of phone exchanges using a type of switching equipment which was was held up for the duration. That is if someone called you and stayed off hook, then your line was held forever. The reason telco told you there was nothing they could do was because (a) a call had to be in progress to start the trace, meaning you would have to call them on another line to tip them off and (b) if they did start a trace at that point, it would be a long, very involved process ... not at all simple like today where a few keystrokes on a terminal tell the whole story. In those days, you'd call the operator and ask for a trace on the line. The operator would tell her supervisor. Her supervisor would call her counterpart in the central office. He would in turn delegate it to an employee. (Five minutes has passed). That employee then had to go in the frames where he would look and look and look and look until he found your connection. Then he would start tracing it back through the matrix, one digit at a time. All through this big maze of wires like a heaping plate of spaghetti; jumpers all over to dig through and sort out. He'd get to where he had it down to the last couple digits or so -- provided the call originated from the same central office -- and then he would hear that sickening sound of the connection collapsing; the dirty old man or whoever had hung up his phone. The guys in the frames who had been working on the trace would look at each other and say, 'well, the SOB got away this time; maybe next time we will catch him ...'. If the trace led to an incoming circuit from another central office somewhere, then the guys working in the one office had to call their counter- parts in the other office and get them to pick up the outbound circuit at that end and start looking through their frames over there. You think it was scary to pick up the phone ten minutes later and find the guy still on the line? How do you think people felt when they tried the trick they had seen in lots of Hollywood movies where they whispered (but so the caller could hear them) 'get the operator to trace this call' and the obscene caller familiar with the phone system responded saying, 'you just do that ... I'll sit here and talk as long as I feel like it; I'll stay on another twenty minutes if I choose...' which is about how long it took for an 'uncomplicated' same-exchange call to get traced if there had been no advance notice to telco. People had all kinds of misconceptions about what could and could not be traced. As an example, in the middle 1960's Queen Elizabeth (or the palace, perhaps) was receiving quite a few obscene calls on a regular basis. Raunchy and sick was the best way to describe the calls. At first the calls were a source of (well, I hate to say it) enjoyment, or at least good for a few laughs and jokes, but finally it got tiresome and a nuisance. Her Majesty's staff person responsible for phone service filed a formal request with British Telecom to catch the clown and punish him. After investigating and tracing a couple of the calls it became apparent they were coming in from the United States and BT contacted their liason at AT&T to ask for some help on it. A tech person at White Plains, NY which was then the gateway to the UK from here followed it along for a day or two and traced it back to Chicago, Illinois and Illinois Bell. It was just a small problem to trace it from there -- although a few more days had passed; they had to wait for this fellow to call each day -- back to a phone office on the near north side of town and the phone number WHitehall-4-6211 ... well my goodness, the Lawson YMCA switchboard. The very next day, a search warrant is served on the Chief Operator at Lawson to review their toll tickets. Lawson YMCA is a big place; a 21 story building with about 800 rooms and extensions served from the old four position cordboard (in those days) up on the fifth floor. Soon, they know exactly which room and which guest they're seeking, but the fun wasn't over yet. The same day, a couple guys from telco were at the Lawson phoneroom, climbing around inside the back of the board (these were large cabinet things) making a hookup to a tape recorder. The operators were all severely warned to 'keep your traps shut; just keep plugging in those calls; if we catch you tipping this guy off you will get fired!'. None of the operators said a word to the guy apparently, because sure enough the next afternoon he was on the phone again making another international call to the Queen. Now they had the tape recording, the copies of the toll tickets, etc and Illinois Bell whacked him hard. I think Lawson evicted him also. At the time the {Chicago Tribune} reported it, one wag asked if this was likely to cause some sort of 'international incident', and if INTERPOL should have conducted the investigation. No, said the {Tribune}, it was nothing that involved, 'just one sick queen conversing with another Queen.' PAT] ------------------------------ From: glnfoote@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Glenn Foote) Subject: Re: Spend Some Quality Time With Your Telemarketer Date: 20 Mar 1996 01:26:41 -0500 Organization: The Greater Columbus FreeNet Quinn Michael (QUINNM@bah.com) wrote: > The recent series of postings on telemarketing should evoke a number > of imaginative responses to these calls. Since they are apparently > unavoidable for the present (at least until Paul Begley et al can > eliminate them) why not have a little fun at their expense? Responses > which I have used with varying degrees of success and amusement > include: Did you know that at some companies, telemarketers are forbidden to hang up on you ? Remember, for each 20 telemarketers, there is only ONE supervisior! Now, if you can get the supervisior to come to the phone, and they can't hang up until you let them ... while *I* am wating patiently for the SAME suprevisior to come to the phone (after they finish with you) ... and PAT is next in line, then someone else ... The whole company comes to a giggling halt, while they are all waiting for the supervisior to "make the rounds" and talk with every prospect that wants to chat ... Oh yes, other questions include the names of the executives of the company, where the company is registered, etc. Also, things like dress codes are good for about ten minutes of conversation, as is smoking vs non-smoking, food at the desk, etc ... Have fun. I've found that most of them will be happy to talk as long as you like. Glenn "Elephant" Foote ...... glnfoote@freenet.columbus.oh.us ------------------------------ From: edellers@shivasys.com (Ed Ellers) Subject: Re: NBA in Full Court Press Date: 20 Mar 1996 06:47:18 GMT Organization: Pennsylvania Online [Usenet News Server for Hire] In article , j-grout@glibm29.cen. uiuc.edu says ... > The NBA's point of view is simple and defensible. > Reporting up-to-the-minute score and game clock information is news; > recreating game action (e.g., including the position of the > basketball) is a form of broadcasting (heck, many broadcasters, > including Ronald Reagan, used to make their living doing such > recreations). > If, as the NBA alleges, STATS tried to obtain permission to distribute > recreated game action from the NBA, failed to do so, and went ahead > and distributed it anyway without permission, STATS deserves severe > punishment. Come ON! You can't copyright facts and information, only the presentation. The fact that, say, Magic Johnson did such-and-such on the court is a legitimate news item, and I hope the NBA loses its shirt on this one. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 07:45:10 -0500 From: bagdon@rust.net (S and K Bagdon) Subject: Re: Join the VON Coalition > "A growing number of companies are selling software programs with > ancillary hardware options that enable a computer to transmit voice > conversations. This, in fact, creates the ability to "by-pass" local, > long distance and international carriers and allows for calls to be > made for virtually 'no cost.'" > And also, "...the misuse of the Internet as a way to "by-pass" the > traditional means of obtaining long distance service could result in a > significant reduction of the Internet's ability to transport its ever > enlarging amount of data traffic." Why, why, WHY are we trying to legislate common sense, AGAIN?!?! We have one group trying to tell the government what to do, and another group telling the government that this is wrong. Sound familiar? Some ISPs, and most *countires*, are serviced by a T1 to the local MAE entry point. For real time audio, you'll be lucky to get 24 or so conversations out of this, and that *doesn't* count e-mail traffic, file-transfer traffic, etc. How can anyone say that 24 or so active conversations with a little country in the third world is going to effect the world trade balance? Sure, two people talking from New York to LA are going to use their Pentium PCs and Macintosh PowerPCs and their T3 connected ISPs to save $.08 per minute, but would you just look at the capital expense required to save that money. When the balance of bandwidth becomes out-of-balance, the ISPs will just limit the use of their equipment for real-time audio and video. People, let the IPSs deal with this issue, don't bring the government into it! Steve B. bagdon@rust.net Katharine and Steve Bagdon http://www.rust.net/~bagdon/mr2.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 07:52:01 -0800 From: jsinger@scn.org (Joseph Singer) Subject: Re: Details on Chicago 312/773 Split Reply-To: jsinger@scn.org > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Where the annoyance factor is really > high on this one is due to the very irregular shape of the near north > side office known as 'Chicago-Superior' which includes the prefixes ........ covering an area of only a couple > blocks wide, and then only on one side of the street for part of > the distance. Those people are going to have several instances of > people in 312 with friends directly across the alley, etc in 773. > Ameritech offered to change the phone numbers of about a thousand > people in that area so that there would be a clean break at North > Avenue, and that got the residents in even more of an uproar than the > original plan, which was that the people north of there but in the > BITtersweet (248), DIVersey (348) and LAKeview (525) exchanges go > into 773 as part of the Chicago-Lakeview office. > But that always happens in cases of area code splits, just as it > happened with the original area codes years ago. This is why area code split days should be numbered IMO. There will come a point where an arbitrary decision to split an area won't have any logical meaning with one NPA getting smaller and smaller and more and more splits becoming necessary. It would really save a lot of people a lot of grief if we just _did_ do overlay numbering areas. This way no one has to change their numbers every few years. If one numbering plan system fills up all you have to do is pancake another numbering 'area' on top of the one(s) already in place. Here in western Washington we are dealing with the fact that NPA 206 will probably exhaust by 1998 even with the split of 206/360 in January of 1995. There are two proposals before our utility regulatory body the Utilities and Transportation Commission to either split the area with one _or_ two new numbering plan areas. It is estimated that even if they do either a one or two NPA plan for the area that even so NPA 206 will exhaust by 2005 or 2006. An overlay would solve a lot of problems. Granted it would make new ones such as people having to dial 10 digits for all local calls and new telephone customers would be "stigmatized" because they were issued numbers in the new NPA and would be considered "newbies" because of that. But even now many customers get issued to local exchange prefixes with non NNX and NXX codes. JOSEPH SINGER SEATTLE, WASHINGTON USA jsinger@scn.org ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #132 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Mar 20 22:57:20 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA25037; Wed, 20 Mar 1996 22:57:20 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 22:57:20 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199603210357.WAA25037@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #133 TELECOM Digest Wed, 20 Mar 96 22:57:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 133 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Bill Gates Gives Million Dollars to Our Library (TELECOM Digest Editor) Pacific Bell Details Resolving Wireless Phone Mike King) Pacific Telesis Welcomes Competitors (Mike King) Telintar vs. AT&T (Todd Achilles) San Diego Approves Pacific Bell's Plans For New Wirel (Mike King) Sprint Cellular? (Ken Jongsma) Caught Between Bettors and the Bank (Rick Prelinger) Hongkong Phonebook on Web (Sasanai Chanate) Bell Technical Reference Wanted (Jerzy B. Lont) MATRIX Telecom Reference Wanted (Doug Day) Finding Local Calling Area (Peter Hegedus) Re: Sound Output Direct to Phone (Stephen Knight) Re: Telephones in Bahia (Tad Cook) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Bill Gates Gives Million Dollars to Our Library Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 20:40:00 EST On Tuesday, March 19, Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates came to Chicago and presented the Chicago Public Library with a gift of one million dollars for the express purpose of getting the main library and all its branches 'on line' in the near future. I cannot begin to express my appreciation for what he has done. Some of you probably remember me in the past half-heartedly joking that should I ever win the Illinois State Lottery I would use the money to see to it that every public library and every public school in Chicago was equipped ASAP. Well, I have not ever won the lottery nor do I play in it, but I do feel the people in Chicago are very lucky and very blessed to have someone like Mr. Gates come to their aid. I've also said I would like to see a Freenet up and running here, and goals like that seem very elusive to me these days but at least with the gift of Mr. Gates, part of the task of getting the Internet into the lives of people who could so greatly benefit from it is now accomplished. He has been doing this, I guess, with several libraries in the United States, and I think it is fair to compare him and his generosity to that of Andrew Carnegie, to whom so many libraries were indebted for their beginnings a century ago. Carnegie as you will recall was 'into' steel, back in the beginning of the twentieth century when modern America was being built and steel mills were the employment for millions of Americans. Men such as Carnegie, John Rockefeller, Henry Ford, Theodore Vail; those men are all my heroes. And now as we approach the 21st century, it is no longer an industrial age we live in for the most part, but rather an information age, with people like Bill Gates at the forefront. And I daresay Gates will be remembered a hundred years from now in the same way Carnegie is remembered by many of us for his contributions to our society; in the same way Rockefeller is remembered and Henry Ford -- as people who made very substantial differences in our lives, differences for the good of society. I know, some of you will say I speak with a forked tongue; after all, he sends me money every month also: probably as much as I need even if not nearly as much as I want. He supplies my need if not necessarily my greed. :) But I am sincere in saying how much his presence here yesterday and his gift are appreciated by the library and all of us who use and enjoy it. Unless I am mistaken, I don't believe any of the newsgroups on the net have even commented on what happened in Chicago yesterday, or what Gates is doing around the nation with other libraries. I'd like to at least just make it known how I feel: thank you, Bill Gates. PAT ------------------------------ From: mk@TFS.COM (Mike King) Subject: Pacific Bell Details Resolving Wireless Phone Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 10:36:34 PST Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 09:47:12 -0800 From: tltinne@LEGSF.PacBell.COM Subject: NEWS: Pacific Bell Details Resolving Wireless Phone Interference <<<>>> Pacific Bell Details Plan for Resolving Interference from Wireless Digital Phones Company Working with Leading Organization of Hearing Aid Users to Develop Comprehensive Plan to Address Issue For Release: March 15, 1996 Contact: Lou Saviano, 415 394-3744 SAN FRANCISCO -- Pacific Bell Mobile Services announced today it is committing itself to work with hearing aid users and manufacturers on an ongoing basis to resolve the problem of interference that can occur between wireless digital phones and hearing aids. After extensive discussions with leaders of Self Help for Hard of Hearing People, Inc., the leading international organization of hearing aid users, PBMS has agreed to a step-by-step process through which the company and SHHH will work to accomplish the following goals: - Demonstrate at the Republican Convention in San Diego some of the new hearing-aid-compatible digital wireless phones that are being developed by Ericsson and tested by members of SHHH; - Support new research within the next few months to develop a mutually acceptable definition of an interference level which would be "reasonable" for hearing aid users to accept until long-term solutions are identified and made available; - PBMS' wireless phones will conform to that definition in 1997 if that can be done within applicable industry standards. If conforming to that definition would conflict with any industry standard, then we will seek the adoption of new standards so that PCS 1900 phones will be capable of satisfying that definition; - Work with the hearing aid manufacturing industry to develop ways to further reduce -- or eliminate -- the level of both "bystander" and user interference in 1998, through further design improvements to wireless handsets and hearing aids. "Digital wireless phones have many advantages over conventional phones, and we want people who use hearing aids to be able to benefit from them, just like everyone else," said Lyndon R. Daniels, president and chief executive officer of Pacific Bell Mobile Services. "We are pleased that SHHH has agreed to work with us and the hearing aid industry to better understand the nature of the interference problem, and to establish concrete milestones on the road to resolving it." "I am pleased that Pacific Bell Mobile Services understands the importance of ensuring that people who use hearing aids will be able to use these new wireless phones without interference," said Donna Sorkin, executive director of SHHH. "I strongly encourage others in the wireless industry and in the hearing aid industry to recognize the benefits of assuring universal access to new technologies." PBMS and Ericsson announced in February that Ericsson had developed prototypes of five modifications to its PCS 1900 handsets that would enable people with hearing aids to use the phones without experiencing interference. The company plans to test the handsets with members of SHHH in North Carolina and Washington, D.C., beginning later this month, to ensure that the modified sets will meet the needs of those with hearing aids. PBMS, Ericsson and SHHH are part of a joint effort by the wireless communications and hearing aid industries, as well as university researchers and federal agencies, to develop a range of solutions that will make wireless digital phones accessible to people with hearing aids. The industry group is expected to make its recommendations public in a few weeks. Pacific Bell Mobile Services is the wireless subsidiary of Pacific Bell. Pacific Telesis Group, the parent company of both Pacific Bell and PBMS, is a diversified telecommunications corporation based in San Francisco. Self Help for Hard of Hearing People, Inc., headquartered in Bethesda, MD., is the largest international consumer organization dedicated to the well-being of people who do not hear well. Founded in 1979, it has 12,000 members, including 1,600 in California. ---------------- Mike King * mk@tfs.com * Oakland, CA, USA * +1 510.645.3152 ------------------------------ From: mk@TFS.COM (Mike King) Subject: Pacific Telesis Welcomes Competitors Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 10:37:50 PST Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 15:39:41 -0800 From: tltinne@legsf.PacBell.COM Subject: NEWS: Pacific Telesis Welcomes Competitors <<<>>> Pacific Telesis Extends A Warm California Welcome To Out-Of-State Competitors "Welcome to California" Gift Baskets Sent to MCI, AT&T and Sprint Bosses For release: March 13, 1996 Contact: Jerry Kimata, 415 394-3739 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. (March 13, 1996) -- California's largest telephone company, which has built most of the state's vast telephone infrastructure over the past century, extended a warm welcome to dozens of companies that will now be able to resell its facilities and services. Up and down the state, from Yreka to San Ysidro, Pacific Bell today put out the welcome mat to dozens of new phone competitors in anticipation of the California Public Utilities Commission's expected decision to open all local phone markets to full competition. In the spirit of open competition, Pacific Bell sent "Welcome to California" baskets to the heads of long-distance giants AT&T, MCI and Sprint at their out-of-state corporate headquarters in New Jersey, Washington D.C. and Kansas City. California regulators today are expected to make a final decision on resale rates, opening the door for competition in local phone service. The ruling enables other telecommunications companies to resell Pacific Bell services. For the first time ever, Californians will have a choice in their local service providers. "Welcome to the neighborhood," said Lee Bauman, Pacific Bell Vice President- Local Competition, to the 65 companies that have filed to offer local service. "You will find that this is a wonderful state to live and do business in. "With this decision, the Commission puts us a step closer to providing long distance within the next twelve months," said Bauman. In 100 years, we've gotten to know California pretty well, and we'd like to share a little of our home state knowledge with our new competitors. Thanks to the opening of long distance, we hope to receive a similarly warm welcome from our competitors when we enter their business." "Welcome to California" The welcome baskets that were sent to the heads of MCI, AT&T and Sprint included the following California items: - A road map, showing that there is more to California than downtown Los Angeles or San Francisco's financial district. - A bottle of California chardonnay from the state's booming wine industry. - An avocado and an orange from California farmers who also want and need access to telecommunications services. - A garlic wreath from rural Gilroy and a Ghirardelli chocolate bar. - A tape of California Dreamin' tunes to brighten the day, because it's been a long cold winter on the East Coast and in the Midwest. - And finally, a Pacific Bell prepaid calling card. "Please feel free to give us a call," Bauman said. What Californians Want From Their Phone Company Bauman also offered a quick word of warning: "Our customers hold their local phone company to high standards. Now that you will be offering local phone service, they will hold you to these standards as well." Those expectations include: - A local phone company to be there when they need it. - A company that makes a significant investment in California's future through a meaningful contribution to universal service funding. - High marketing standards and zero tolerance for slamming. - Technological innovation to help move the state forward. Pacific Bell has wired more than 5,000 schools in the state to the Internet as part of its $100 million Education First effort. The corporation is also busy offering alternatives to cable television and a new generation of wireless phones. - One-stop shopping for their telecommunications services. Pacific Bell expects regulatory approval to offer long distance services within the next twelve months. - A strong statewide presence. As the state's largest private employer, Pacific Telesis Group employs over 49,000 Californians. Pacific Bell is a subsidiary of Pacific Telesis, a diversified telecommunications company based in San Francisco. -------------------------- Mike King * mk@tfs.com * Oakland, CA, USA * +1 510.645.3152 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 11:09:14 PST From: T. Achilles Subject: Telintar vs. AT&T PAT: In today's {Wall Street Journal} (3/19/96) there was a short article about a dispute between AT&T and Argentina's long distance carrier, Telintar. The article reads: WASHINGTON - The FCC told US long-distance phone companies to suspend payments to Argentina's international telephone provider, contending that Argentina hasn't played fair with US carriers. The move marks the first time the federal goverment has suspended payments to a foreign carrier because of a rate dispute. The order came after negotiations between AT&T and Argentina's Telintar to lower the charges -- known as accounting rates -- broke down. Telintar, jointly owned by Telecom Argentina Stet, France Telecom and Telefonica de Argentina, has blocked AT&T circuits into the country, officials at the FCC and AT&T said. "This is an intolerable violation of US law," FCC International Bureau Chief Scott Blake Harris said. "It is an attempt to injure carriers and disadvantage US consumers. We will not permit this effort to succeed." The FCC order halts payments to Telintar until AT&T's international circuits and its USADirect service are restored. I have three questions for TELECOM Digest readers: (1) Are there other recent examples of disputes such as this where the FCC has stepped in to protect a US service provider? (2) To what degree is this incident a violation of ITU agreements which may or may not abide by US law? (3) Do readers believe this is an isolated incident or one that could become an increasingly relied upon as international competition in telecommunications intensifies? Thanks, Todd Achilles Masters candidate in Business and International Studies University of Washington, Seattle, WA tachille@u.washington.edu ------------------------------ From: mk@TFS.COM (Mike King) Subject: San Diego Approves Pacific Bell's Plans For New Wirel Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 15:41:07 PST Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 15:27:00 -0800 From: Marcia.Flint@pactel.com (TELESIS.EA_SF_PO:Marcia Flint) Subject: NEWS: San Diego Approves Pacific Bell's Plans For New Wirel <<<>> San Diego Approves Pacific Bell's Plans For New Wireless Network "Personal Communications Services" (PCS) will make California debut in August at GOP Convention For Release: March 19, 1996 Contact: Lou Saviano, 415 394-3744 SAN DIEGO -- The San Diego City Council today voted to let Pacific Bell Mobile Services continue building its advanced wireless communications network, paving the way for the city to become a national showcase for new wireless services at the Republican convention in August. The 5 to 3 vote upheld the unanimous decision of the city's Planning Commission to grant permits for 12 antenna sites for the new "Personal Communications Services" or "PCS" network. The Planning Commission decision had been appealed to the City Council by representatives of a businessman who claims to have a major investment in a competing wireless technology. "The City Council's decision today is good for San Diego and good for its citizens," said Pacific Bell Vice President Randy Johnson. "The Republican Convention in San Diego will be the debut of PCS in California, and San Diego most likely will be the first city in California where residents will be able to have PCS." The decision makes good on Mayor Susan Golding's commitment to make San Diego the 'city of the future,'" Johnson said. "PCS is going to democratize wireless, by bringing down the high price of today's wireless services so that the safety, security and convenience of wireless is not limited to the affluent," Johnson said. Pacific Mobile Services plans to begin offering PCS service commercially in San Diego by January 1997. With the vote, San Diego joins more than 150 other cities in California and Nevada which have approved plans for Pacific Bell's new wireless network. The decision comes less than two weeks after San Francisco's Planning Commission approved PCS plans for its city. PCS is often described as the "next generation of wireless service." It is a digital wireless technology, offering better sound quality, greater security from unauthorized use, enhanced privacy, smaller phones with long-lasting batteries as well as more features and functions. "Safety is the main reason that more than two out of three customers buy wireless phone," said Lyn Daniels, president and chief executive officer of Pacific Bell Mobile Services. "Wireless communications enables people to get help in an emergency, to report crime or suspicious activities, to alert public safety officials to traffic accidents or hazards or to report drunken drivers." Pacific Bell Mobile Services is the wireless subsidiary of Pacific Bell. Pacific Telesis Group, the parent company of PBMS and Pacific Bell, is a diversified telecommunications corporation based in San Francisco. --------------------- Mike King * mk@tfs.com * Oakland, CA, USA * +1 510.645.3152 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Here in Chicago, Ameritech is cheerfully getting ready for the Democrats when they arrive in town this summer. They never did get paid the million dollars they were owed by the Democrats following the 1968 convention, and for any of the rest of us if we don't pay our phone bills promptly each month to the cranky collection agents at Howard Ridge Currency you know what happens ... Riots and civil disobedience have been promised for this time around just as they were in 1968; we'll see if that happens or not. PAT] ------------------------------ From: kjongsma@p06.dasd.honeywell.com (Ken Jongsma) Subject: Sprint Cellular? Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 04:03:50 GMT Organization: CompuServe Incorporated Pat... I have a question about 360 (nee Sprint) Communications. This week they ran an ad in the Albuquerque paper showing a coverage map that covered a good part of the state of New Mexico. Now, there are two providers in Albuquerque, US West and Cellular One (was Bell Atlantic up until a couple of months ago.) So my question is, how is 360 doing business in ABQ? Is it an arrangement like Frontier has? Ken [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am certain all they are doing is brokering whatever the best deal is they could get from one of the existing carriers. Frontier mostly stays on the 'B' side of things but here and there they show up as the 'A' carrier when it is more to their advantage. Today I got a letter from AT&T asking if I wanted to give them my cellular business; I guess they do the same thing and just resell whatever they get the best deal on. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 19:01:44 -0500 From: footage@well.com (Rick Prelinger) Subject: Caught Between Bettors and the Bank My business receives a large number of misdialed calls every day from bettors trying to reach a "numbers bank" in uptown Manhattan. Many callers do not speak English and are unable to understand they are reaching a wrong number. I realize that I can choose to change my number. On the other hand, has anyone else ever experienced telephone runoff as a result of illegal business being conducted over phone lines? Any suggestions from DIGEST readers would be most welcome. Rick Prelinger Prelinger Archives 430 West 14th Street, Room 403 / New York, NY 10014 USA 212 633-2020 / Fax: 212 255-5139 footage@well.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I know of an 800 number which gets a lot of 'wrong number' calls and their solution was to put a tape recorded message on the line to answer first saying 'you have reached , . If this is not what you are trying to reach please hang up now. To reach , please remain on the line and the operator will answer you.' Have you tried just being rude and replacing the reciever at the first hint the call is not intended for you? Do you know what is the predominant language(s) being spoken by the callers? If you did you could possibly have a short response prepared in that language and teach it to whoever answers your phones. Something that in that language said, 'you have reached a wrong number; please do not call this number again.' PAT] ------------------------------ From: Sasanai Chanate <"Sasanai "@ksc8.th.com> Subject: Hongkong Phonebook on Web Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 18:45:17 +0700 Organization: Cyberin Does anyone know the URL for HK phonebook on the web? PLease E-mail me. Thanks. ------------------------------ From: Jerzy B. Lont Subject: Bell Technical Reference Wanted Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 14:54:46 -0800 Organization: Ascom Infrasys, Solothurn, Switzerland Hi, I am looking for the following document: Bell Technical Reference PUB 41,009 (on Measurement of Transmission Quality on Telephone Circuits) Could anyone tell me, where and how can I get this reference? Thanking you in advance, Dr. Jerzy B. Lont Phone: +41 65 24 3276 Ascom Infrasys AG Fax: +41 65 24 3350 Dept. 3276 Email: jerzy.lont@infrasys.ascom.ch Glutz-Blotzheim-Str. 1 CH-4503 Solothurn, Switzerland ------------------------------ Reply-To: day_d@sanjose.vlsi.com Date: Tue, 19 Mar 96 09:26:49 PST From: day_d@sanjose.vlsi.com (Doug Day) Subject: MATRIX Telecom References Wanted I recently received a pamphlet in the mail from MATRIX Telecom. They claim that by using them as a long distance carrier you can save 10 to 25%. I was wondering if anyone has had any experience with them? Good or bad. Douglas Day Applications Engineer Network Products Division VLSI Technology TEL: 408-434-7660 FAX: 408-434-7866 email: doug.day@sanjose.vlsi.com ------------------------------ From: hegedus@iworld.com (Peter Hegedus) Subject: Finding Local Calling Area Date: 19 Mar 1996 18:17:07 GMT Organization: "Mecklermedia Corp." Reply-To: hegedus@iworld.com Here is the problem: Given two US/Canadian number, is it possible to determine whether they are local to each other? We contacted Bellcore's Traffic Routing Administration group, but we were told that they don't have the necessary database. Any information will be greatly appreciated! Peter Hegedus sysadmin,webadmin [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Are you saying one number is in Canada and one is in the USA and you wish to know if they are local to each other? I suggest the most authoritative answer would come from the local telcos involved. Have you tried asking them? Will the calls be coming equally from one phone to the other or mostly all from one specific side to the other? If two telcos are involved, you might want to ask each of them if the calls are going to be going both ways on the line. PAT] ------------------------------ From: sdk@cci.com (Stephen Knight) Subject: Re: Sound Output Direct to Phone Organization: Nortel Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 14:19:13 GMT In article , WK01739@worldlink.com (Bill MacIntosh) wrote: > I want to send my audio creation for a voice mail answer message > directly from my Power Mac to the phone. I tried holding the mouth > piece up to the speaker, but the sound was very poor. What will I > need to do this? If you want off-the-shelf, you can get an Apple GeoPort pod (which will hook your Mac directly to a POTS line). The pod also comes with MegaPhone, which is a really sweet voice-mail application. If you want to roll your own, you'll still need the GeoPort pod and then you'll need documentation on the Telephone Manager 2.0. It's not too bad to work with. Hope this helps, steve knight ------------------------------ From: Tad Cook Subject: Re: Telephones in Bahia Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 10:32:35 PST > On 18 Mar 1996 09:46:33 PDT, Tad Cook said: >> I didn't find any telephone bargains, but Brazilian merchants do have >> some unusual methods for encouraging people to buy; they urge people >> to write post-dated checks! Merchants compete with each other, >> advertising that they accept checks post-dated 60 days or more. This >> can be an important discount in an inflationary economy. At one small >> grocery store I was stocking up on Guarana (GWAD-A-NA), my favorite >> Brazilian soft drink. When their credit card verification terminal >> had trouble dialing in, they offered to accept my personal check, even >> after I explained that I was from Seattle! rlm@netcom.com (Robert McMillin) wrote: > If the local currency suffers from the sort of inflation you mention, > I'm sure he'd be quite happy to take it... in dollars, of course. Actually there is a minor economic miracle going on in Brazil right now ... inflation (relative to years past) is under control, which means that it is no longer running at several thousand percent per year. Brazil converted to a new currency (the Real) recently, which when I was there was equal to one dollar, although now it is a bit less. But I was not able to spend dollars there. I had to first exchange them for Reals. Thats another reason why the offer to take my check was surprising. Tad Cook tad@ssc.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #133 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Fri Mar 22 12:24:03 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id MAA16313; Fri, 22 Mar 1996 12:24:03 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 12:24:03 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199603221724.MAA16313@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #134 TELECOM Digest Fri, 22 Mar 96 12:24:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 134 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson BellSouth Radically Changes Toll Rates (Les Reeves) BellMobility to Use BellSouth's Cellemetry (Mike King) Life After Relays (Fco. Javier Garcia Algarra) Re: Bill Gates Gives Million Dollars to Our Library (Pierre Dupuy) Re: Bill Gates Gives Million Dollars to Our Library (Lynne Gregg) Re: Anatomy of a Phone Scam (Ken Levitt) Re: Anatomy of a Phone Scam (Daniel Ganek) Re: Centrex Switchboard (Cathy Efaw) Details Wanted on Detroit 810 Area Code Split (Rick Carlson) Re: Caught Between Bettors and the Bank (Steven Lichter) Where Can I Find the AT&T 843 Phone via Mailorder? (Kyle Harper) Re: Cellular Fraud Conviction Upheld (Paul Joslin) Re: Details on Chicago 312/773 Split (James V. Geluso) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lreeves@crl.com (Les Reeves) Subject: BellSouth Radically Changes Toll Rates Date: 21 Mar 1996 10:23:56 -0800 Organization: CR Labs BellSouth has totally revamped their intra-lata (aka: within your calling zone) rate structure. Gone are three rate periods. Gone is the evening rate from noon to one PM. Gone is one minute minimums. Gone is rounding; after the initial 30 second minimum you are billed in six-second increments. Sounds good, huh? Ah, the tariff is quicker than the eye. Note: The information below applies to BellSouth's Georgia intra-lata calling rates. I have been told that they have been granted similar rate changes in the rest of their seven state area. I cannot prove this is the case. If you are served by BellSouth and you make any calls *within* your lata, you should call your 0+ operator and inquire as to the rates. BellSouth operators are very good at explaining the new rates and rate structure. This month BellSouth has effected a major change on calls made within your lata. In my case the Atlanta lata covers more than one-third of the state, and includes over three million lines. Historically, these have been the most expensive cost-per-mile toll calls I could make. This is a hideous rip-off, since almost all of these calls originate, transport, and terminate over facilities owned by BellSouth. They are the least expensive toll calls BellSouth can provide. There are no reciprocal charges with other carriers or local telcos. It is pure gravy for them, and the new rates keep the gravy train on track. The main difference is that there are now only two rate periods. Previously there were three. The new periods are called "peak" and "off-peak". peak period: 7 AM - 6 PM Mon-Fri off-peak period: 6 PM - 7 AM Mon-Fri "weekend" is billed at "off-peak" rates. It begins at 6 PM Fri and ends at 7 AM Monday. Calls are billed with a 30 second minimum. After thirty seconds, charges are billed in six-second increments. The initial rate is almost the same as the subsequent minute rate. For those of you who have been brainwashed into thinking that six-second billing makes a huge difference, this is good news. The really good news in the new rate structure is that off-peak begins at 6 PM on Friday and extends to 7 AM on Monday. This is a much longer "weekend" than the previous 11 PM on Friday through 5 PM on Sunday. There is a bunch of bad news, however. The main problem is that it is still *extremely* expensive to call a few miles within your lata. I frequently call a location that is located 68 miles via V and H coordinates from me. For this call I am charged $0.24/min. This is absurd. I don't exceed $0.24/min on AT&T's non-discounted rates for calls under 1,500 miles. The other bad news is that the "off-peak" rates are much higher than the night-rates in the old rate structure. Granted you don't have to wait until 11 Pm or the weekend to take advantage of the "off-peak" rates. There are few alternatives to this highway robbery. AT&T gives a ten-percent discount off of BellSouth rates if you dial 10288 before your intra-lata calls. The best bet may be to buy a prepaid calling card with a flat rate of $0.18/min or so and use it *only* for your intra-lata calls. These cards always use some sort of 800 access number and a PIN, which makes any type of automated dialing a nightmare. Les Reeves -- lreeves@crl.com lreeves@america.net -- P.O. Box 7807, Atlanta, GA 30357 404.881.8279 -- ------------------------------ From: mk@TFS.COM (Mike King) Subject: BellMobility to Use BellSouth's Cellemetry Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 09:41:43 PST Forwarded to the Digest, FYI: Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 08:33:11 -0500 From: BellSouth Subject: BellMobility to Use BellSouth's Cellemetry Reply-To: info@corp.bellsouth.com BellSouth ............March 19, 1996 Bell Mobility to Use BellSouth's Cellemetry Leading Canadian wireless telecommunications company buys exclusive rights for Canada ATLANTA-March 19, 1996--Bell Mobility Inc., the leading wireless telecommunications company in Canada, and BellSouth Corporation (NYSE: BLS) have signed an agreement making Bell Mobility the exclusive provider of BellSouth's new Cellemetry(SM) wireless data technology throughout Canada. Under the agreement, Bell Mobility will install Cellemetry in selected markets beginning this summer and will offer Cellemetry services to all its customers by the end of the year. Later this year, Bell Mobility will announce which Cellemetry-based services it will introduce first. Terms of the agreement were not disclosed. BellSouth's Cellemetry service is an innovative new technology that uses idle capacity on cellular networks to send and receive short data messages. Because it requires minimal up-front investment, Cellemetry is an ideal and cost-effective way to provide a wide range of competitively priced specialized wireless data services, including: * security alarm and copy machine monitoring * remote wireless utility meter and vending machine readings * vehicle and package tracking. "Cellemetry provides a simple, economical way to make a variety of new services available to our customers," said Randy Reynolds, vice president - strategic planning for Bell Mobility. Were proud to be the first to offer Canadians the very latest in wireless services. "BellSouth's Cellemetry service gives innovative companies like Bell Mobility a way to reach new customers without building a new network. Bell Mobility's experience, market strength and dedication to wireless data make it the right match for BellSouth in bringing Bell Mobility to use Cellemetry ... First and Final Add the benefits of Cellemetry to an important and growing market," said Ed Reynolds, president of BellSouth Wireless Inc., the BellSouth unit which developed and markets Cellemetry. With Cellemetry, cellular carriers can offer two-way, real-time wireless services over existing cellular networks. Cellemetry sends very short messages-bursts of information up to 32 bits in length-using what is known as a control channel. Control channels are the communications channels used to exchange information, including mobile identification and electronic serial numbers, that allows cellular customers to make and receive phone calls. Cellemetry uses these same channels, automatically inserting a meter reading, inventory reading, alarm status report or other message in place of the registration messages. The Bell Mobility family of companies provides a complete range of wireless communications solutions-cellular, 1- and 2-way paging, data, satellite and airline passenger communications services-to more than 1 million Canadian customers. Bell Mobility companies are subsidiaries of BCE Mobile Communications Inc. (Montreal Stock Exchange: BCX), a publicly traded company which is 65 percent owned by BCE Inc. BellSouth is a $17.9 billion communications company, providing voice, video, data and wireless communications, directory publishing and other information services to more than 25 million customers in 16 countries. Internet users: For more information on BellSouth, vist the BellSouth Web page http://www.bellsouth.com. # # # For Information Contact: Angela Hislop, Bell Mobility Inc. 416-213-3308 aahislop@mobility.com Kevin Doyle, BellSouth Corporation 404-249-2793 --------------------- Mike King * mk@tfs.com * Oakland, CA, USA * +1 510.645.3152 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 14:34:44 +0100 From: algarra@tid.es (Fco. Javier Garcia Algarra) Subuject: Life After Relays Dear Pat: I send you this contribution for the Digest. As my English is rather disastrous, please feel free to correct my mistakes. Thank you. MORE : Life after relays ? ========================== I am posting this short notice about MORE system for fans of old crossbar exchanges. MORE is the Spanish acronim for Upgrading of Register, the control unit of electromechanical switches. First of all, let me explain the telecommunications environment in Spain. As in other European countries, telephone service has been a monopoly for many decades. Telefonica is a company with about 75% of private capital but the Government has controlled it since the 40's. There is more or less free concurrence in data transmision, GSM and other services. In 1998 finishes the monopoly of basic telephone service. In the late 80's there was a big growth of lines installed (now about 15 millions). About 9 millions were connected to old exchanges (a little amount of prehistoric step-by-step, and mostly ITT's PC-1000, PC-2000 and PC-32 systems and Ericssons's ARF) and the rest to Alcatel 1240, Ericsson AXE ans AT&T 5ESS. Telefonica decided to drop rural PC-32, and PC-2000 switches, but there left still about six millions of old lines of PC-1000 and ARF, and the price to change them for digital lines was very high. The MORE project started in 1989 to obtain a multiprocessor system able to control the old relay dinosaurs at a very low price. After six years of work of a team of about 50 engineers at Telefonica R&D Labs the system began to be installed. By the end of this year there will be in Spain two million of upgraded lines at a cost of only $45 per line, for a typical urban exchange with 20.000 suscribers. This price includes the installation, a digital line costs at least ten times more. The upgraded switches offer a lot of advantages: * Pulse or touch tone dialing. * Register signaling R2 and Socotel 2/5 (only used in Spain and France) * Routing analysis up to 18 suscriber figures. * Suscriber identification. * Detailed billing. * An enormous ease of management with a powerful man-machine interface. * Integrated traffic and quality measurements and ability to be remotely operated. * Integrated call generator. * Services like VPN, etc ... * Easy installation. The system doesn't need forced ventillation, uses the old switch batteries and can be installed step by step without disturbing the customers. MORE is a modular multiprocessor system. The backbone is a One-sided Clos LAN that can handle up to 128.000 HDLC frames per second and a traffic of 5000 Erlang. Each module consists of a m68000 microprocessor with 8 Mbytes of RAM that controls a special hardware depending on the nature of the interfaces that supports. These can be SCSI disks, SLIC's, DSP's for signaling and an hybrid circuit called PAE (Acces and Exploration Point) that allows to interact with the relays in a range of current and voltage very wide. Power supply is distributed. At this moment we are working to improve the system with more advanced features and whe hope that the familiar rain-drop sound of relays will stay alive for years. (Well, MORE it's quite less noisy, because all the control relays disappear). Javier Garcia Algarra Telefonica I+D algarra@tid.es [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks for writing. There was very little which needed correction. Please stay in touch with us from Spain. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Bill Gates Gives Million Dollars to Our Library From: pierre.dupuy@art.alcatel.fr (Pierre Dupuy) Organization: Alcatel Telecommunications France Date: Thu, 21 Mar 96 14:51:17 PST In article , you say... > On Tuesday, March 19, Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates came to Chicago ...... > libraries. I'd like to at least just make it known how I feel: thank > you, Bill Gates. In France, there is a news paper who has a devise saying : 'Sans la libert de blamer, il n'y a pas dloge flatteuse'. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Some of the above was unprintable due to ASCII characters not used on this system. I hope it can be understood as shown above. PAT] I think it is due to Beaumarchais, who, BTW, has done something to help for US independance (though he did not forget to also gain money in this story). It means more or less that you cannot believe someone's compliments if he does not have the freedom to blame. I think that you are in this situation (to freely blame whoever you want) and so I don't see the point of arguing the value of your compliments. I have nothing to do with BG (except to complain about the bugs he does not fix), but I would also say him thank you in such circumstances. Salut, Pierre Dupuy pierre.dupuy@art.alcatel.fr ------------------------------ From: Lynne Gregg Subject: Re: Bill Gates Gives Million Dollars to Our Library Date: Thu, 21 Mar 96 14:41:00 PST Dear Pat, Thank you for posting this news on TELECOM Digest. I don't happen to think you over-did it. I appreciate the fact that Gates focuses his contributions on education (including TELECOM Digest). When you're big, you're a big target. It opens you up to plenty of shots. Folks frequently overlook the good things that Gates does. Being a resident of Seattle's Eastside I cannot begin to tell you the tremendous impact that Bill Gates has had on our community. He's donated millions of dollars, computers, and software to our schools. A few years ago, the Issaquah project (George Gilder wrote an article about the project) placed computers and a network in the community school system. The kid across the street from me was a network administrator on the project. His experience resulted in a job offer to manage a corporate network for $45,000 a year. He's only a Junior in high school!! This is just a "little" story. Bill Gates has been directly responsible for creating hundreds of millionaires (who also contribute extensively to our community) through his operation in Redmond. He deserves a little recognition. Thanks for giving it to him. Regards, Lynne Gregg [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I really think over the next hundred years or so people are going to begin viewing him in the same way they view John (the original) Rockefeller. They'll hate him or like myself, they'll love him, but the evidence of his work will be very obvious everywhere. One of my favorite photos in an old collection I have around here somewhere is of John Rockefeller in his formal dress with top hat and tails on his coat, walking down 59th Street in Chicago near the corner of Ellis Avenue. He is walking and chatting with William Rainey Harper of the University of Chicago. I've another photo of him -- again in formal dress; he knew how to dress very well and fashionably -- on Riverside Drive in New York City. The cathedral-like Riverside Church is in the background of the photo *in the process of construction*; this photo is from about 1920. In the Chicago photo which is from about 1890, most of the land seen in the photo is just vacant, open fields; they are in the process of building the University of Chicago. And interestingly, people who have never seen photos of Rockefeller as a young man think mainly of him as an old man who is very gruff and crude, etc. The photos I have seen of him in his thirties and forties show a very handsome, dashing and dapper gentleman. In the 1890 photo, he and Harper were joking about something as they were walking along; both had very broad smiles. Watch for Gates to have the same reputation a century from now. What never ceases to amaze me are the people who put out messages on the net -- they even have the brass bedsprings to send messages to me for the Digest -- with little things in their .signature line saying 'Use of this message on the Microsoft Network is forbidden'. I have to wonder about them ... obviously at least where this Digest is concerned, which is all I have any control over, I just return the message to them saying I cannot accept it for publication under the terms they require. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Mar 96 18:05:47 EST From: levitt@zorro9.fidonet.org (Ken Levitt) Subject: Re: Anatomy of a Phone Scam > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Good report, and thanks for sending it in. > To me, the stench started getting pretty powerful as soon as they told > you to meet them in front of the store rather than inside in the office. > Have you mentioned yet to your regular UPS guy about the person who tried > to impersonate him? PAT] Looking back on it, I agree. The way it sounded on the phone was that I would need him with me on order to double park at the loading dock and that we would both go into the store to do the paper work. We only got one UPS delivery this week and it was not by my regular person. I do plan on telling my regular guy next time I see him. As an aside, the store security man suggested if anything like this came up again, to contact them and they would send a detective in my place to meet with the scammers. Ken Levitt - On FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390 UUCP: zorro9!levitt INTERNET: levitt@zorro9.fidonet.org or levitt%zorro9.uucp@talcott.harvard.edu ------------------------------ From: ganek@apollo.hp.com (Daniel Ganek) Subject: Re: Anatomy of a Phone Scam Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 17:12:42 GMT Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA In article levitt@zorro9.fidonet. org (Ken Levitt) writes: > Maybe this story will prevent others from falling for a similar scam. > I have left out many of the details to keep the size of this posting > somewhat reasonable. This identical scam has been going on in New England for years. Local TV usually does a story on it every couple of years -- probably the same guys. They steal some store receipts (Lechmere, Jordan Marsh, etc.) type the info onto it. This is the give away -- all these store use computers to generate receipts. dan [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Radio Shack had the same hassle a few years ago. Someone absconded with a few thousand blank reciepts and the software for printing them up to look rather genuine. Others in the fraud ring then shoplifted from the stores, generated a 'reciept' for what they had stolen and took the stolen merchandise back to another Radio Shack store to return it for a 'refund'. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Cathy Efaw Subject: Re: Centrex Switchboard Date: 21 Mar 1996 14:33:09 GMT Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Try Tone Commander -- they should be compatible. They have a unit with a busy lamp field. It is just a basic lamp field -- you cannot pull dial tone from the extensions that appear on that unit. But you can tell if that person is on the phone. ------------------------------ From: Rick Carlson Subject: Details Wanted on Detroit 810 Area Code Split Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 09:43:31 -0800 Organization: Manufacturing Service Center Has anyone yet heard the details on the upcoming 810 area code split in the northern suburbs of Detroit? ------------------------------ From: slichte@cello.gina.calstate.edu (Steven Lichter) Subject: Re: Caught Between Bettors and the Bank Date: 21 Mar 1996 06:33:00 -0800 Organization: GINA and CORE+ Services of The California State University footage@well.com (Rick Prelinger) writes: > My business receives a large number of misdialed calls every day from > bettors trying to reach a "numbers bank" in uptown Manhattan. Many > callers do not speak English and are unable to understand they are > reaching a wrong number. I realize that I can choose to change my > number. Many years ago a well known golf club had it Tee time numbers close to one of our CO numbers, everytime it would overflow then we would get the calls. We had the Public Office at the time advise them of the problem and told them they needed more lines, they would not add the needed lines. To solve the problem we took tee times when the golfers called, I think we had about 50 or so set for a 9:00 AM time for Tee off. A few of us went across the street to see what was happening and I now know that golfers get rather upset, to say the least. The next day they added ten more lines and the problem went away. I don't think the company would have liked what we did, but it was a real pain for us for a very long time. SysOp Apple Elite II and OggNet Hub (909)359-5338 2400/14.4 24 hours, Home of GBBS/LLUCE Support for the Apple II. slichte@cello.gina.calstate.edu ------------------------------ From: Kyle Harper Subject: Where Can I Find the AT&T 843 Phone via Mailorder? Date: 21 Mar 1996 14:04:10 GMT Organization: Motorola, Inc. Does anyone know where you can find the AT&T 843 phone mailorder? J&R quit carrying them. The AT&T phone stores (going out of business) have been discounting them to $139 where they are still in stock. Thanks, Kyle-Harper-rtcb10@email.sps.mot.com Motorola, Inc. Austin, Texas ------------------------------ From: crjoslin@hptemp2.sdrc.com (Paul Joslin) Subject: Re: Cellular Fraud Conviction Upheld Date: 21 Mar 1996 09:12:42 -0500 Organization: MIS Systems Engineering Reply-To: Paul.Joslin@sdrc.com In article Tad Cook writes: > Tenney, now 55, was sentenced to a year in the Salt Lake > County Jail. He has since been released and is still paying > $200 a month toward a $92,900 restitution debt to 10 victims. Does this mean Tenney is required to live another 38.7 years? Perhaps they could sentence him to answer telemarketing calls until the debt is completely repaid ... Paul R. Joslin 'The bigger the information media, the paul.joslin@sdrc.com less courage and freedom they +1 513 576 2012 allow. Bigness means weakness.' -- Eric Sevareid ------------------------------ From: st3sa@rosie.uh.edu (Atlemar) Subject: Re: Details on Chicago 312/773 Split Date: 22 Mar 1996 01:20 CST Organization: University of Houston > The following is excerpted from Bellcore Information Letter > IL-96/02-014 which provides industry notification of the impending > split of the 312 NPA, subject to any transcription risks. [snip] > Dialing procedures for the 312 and 773 NPAs after the split will be > the same as those currently used in the 312 NPA: > * All home NPA (HNPA) direct dialed "local" calls and "toll" calls > (generally calls that incur an extra charge) will be dialed on a > 7-digit basis with no prefix; i.e., NXX + XXXX (7 digits). Does this mean that a call from 312 to 773 (or vice versa) can be made with only seven digits? If so, I don't understand exactly how this split will free up telephone numbers. James V. Geluso st3sa@jetson.uh.edu [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That was not worded very well. It should have said seven digits *within* 312 or 773 and eleven digits (1 plus ten) for inter-area dialing. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #134 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Fri Mar 22 13:14:37 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id NAA22570; Fri, 22 Mar 1996 13:14:37 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 13:14:37 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199603221814.NAA22570@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #135 TELECOM Digest Fri, 22 Mar 96 13:14:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 135 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Youngster Kidnapped by Internet Chat Companion (Cole Cooper) Re: Youngster Kidnapped by Internet Chat Companion (Georg Oehl) Pacific Bell Concerned By CPUC Resale Order (Mike King) Wrong 800 Numbers (Greg Eaton) 888 Allocation Stats Now Available (Judith Oppenheimer) Separating Fact From Fiction in the Movies (Gregory Edwards) Sprint Sense Free Fridays - More Good News (Joel M. Hoffman) Re: Telemarketers Take Control of the Phone Line? (Mark Jeffrey) Re: New Type of Cellular Antenna? (Michael S. Berlant) Re: Internet Appliance (Hendrik Rood) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cole Cooper/srci/Stentor Date: 21 Mar 96 12:42:24 GMT Subject: Youngster Kidnapped by Internet Chat Companion I saw your note in the digest regards the kidnapping of a young person by someone who he met on the Internet, and you mentioned it might be an idea for parents to take more responsibility for their kids. To that end, I'm attaching a document I give out to our employees when they ask me about the same concerns. Feel free to pass it on to the Digest readers and keep a copy in your library for downloading. The last section, "Rules for On-line Safety" are a good guide for parents and kids to work together on. C.M. (Cole) Cooper - ISS Services Manager Stentor Resource Centre Inc. Alberta and British Columbia Floor 3 W 3030 2nd Avenue S.E. Calgary, Alberta T2A 5N7 Telephone: 403-531-4205 Cellular: 403-540-5387 Facsimile: 1-800-269-7571 Internet: cooperc@stentor.ca --------------------------- Child Safety on the Information Highway(Child Safety on the Information Highway was jointly produced by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and the Interactive Services Association 8403 Colesville Road, Suite 865, Silver Spring, MD U.S.A. 20910) Whatever it's called, millions of people are now connecting their personal computers to telephone lines so that they can "go on-line." Traditionally, on-line services have been oriented towards adults, but that's changing. An increasing number of schools are going on-line and, in many homes, children are logging on to commercial services, private bulletin boards, and the Internet. As a parent you need to understand the nature of these systems. On-line services are maintained by commercial, self-regulated businesses that may screen or provide editorial/user controls, when possible, of the material contained on their systems. Computer Bulletin Boards, called BBS systems, can be operated by individuals, businesses, or organizations. The material presented is usually theme oriented offering information on hobbies and interests. While there are BBS systems that feature "adult" oriented material, most attempt to limit minors from accessing the information contained in those systems. The Internet, a global "network of networks," is not governed by any entity. This leaves no limits or checks on the kind of information that is maintained by and accessible to Internet users. The Benefits of the Information Highway The vast array of services that you currently find on-line is constantly growing. Reference information such as news, weather, sports, stock quotes, movie reviews, encyclopedias, and airline fares are readily available on-line. Users can conduct transactions such as trading stocks, making travel reservations, banking, and shopping on-line. Millions of people communicate through electronic mail (E-mail) with family and friends around the world and others use the public message boards to make new friends who share common interests. As an educational and entertainment tool users can learn about virtually any topic, take a college course, or play an endless number of computer games with other users or against the computer itself. User "computing" is enhanced by accessing on-line thousands of shareware and free public domain software titles. Most people who use on-line services have mainly positive experiences. But, like any endeavor -- traveling, cooking, or attending school -- there are some risks. The on-line world, like the rest of society, is made up of a wide array of people. Most are decent and respectful, but some may be rude, obnoxious, insulting or even mean and exploitative. Children and teenagers get a lot of benefit from being on-line, but they can also be targets of crime and exploitation in this as in any other environment. Trusting, curious, and anxious to explore this new world and the relationships it brings, children and teenagers need parental supervision and common sense advice on how to be sure that their experiences in "cyberspace" are happy, healthy, and productive. Putting the Issue in Perspective Although there have been some highly publicized cases of abuse involving computers, reported cases are relatively infrequent. Of course, like most crimes against children, many cases go unreported, especially if the child is engaged in an activity that he or she does not want to discuss with a parent. The fact that crimes are being committed on-line, however, is not a reason to avoid using these services. To tell children to stop using these services would be like telling them to forgo attending college because students are sometimes victimized on campus. A better strategy would be for children to learn how to be "street smart" in order to better safeguard themselves in any potentially dangerous situation. What Are the Risks? There are a few risks for children who use on-line services. Teenagers are particularly at risk because they often use the computer unsupervised and because they are more likely than younger children to participate in on-line discussions regarding companionship, relationships, or sexual activity. Some risks are: Exposure to Inappropriate Material One risk is that a child may be exposed to inappropriate material of a sexual or violent nature. Physical Molestation Another risk is that, while on-line, a child might provide information or arrange an encounter that could risk his or her safety or the safety of other family members. In a few cases, pedophiles have used on-line services and bulletin boards to gain a child's confidence and then arrange a face-to-face meeting. Harassment A third risk is that a child might encounter E-mail or bulletin board messages that are harassing, demeaning, or belligerent. How Parents Can Reduce the Risks To help restrict your child's access to discussions, forums, or bulletin boards that contain inappropriate material, whether textual or graphic, many of the commercial on-line services and some private bulletin boards have systems in place for parents to block out parts of the service they feel are inappropriate for their children. If you are concerned, you should contact the service via telephone or E- mail to find out how you can add these restrictions to any accounts that your children can access. The Internet and some private bulletin boards contain areas designed specifically for adults who wish to post, view, or read sexually explicit material. Most private bulletin board operators who post such material limit access to people who attest that they are adults but, like any other safeguards, be aware that there are always going to be cases where adults fail to enforce them or children find ways around them. The best way to assure that your children are having positive on-line experiences is to stay in touch with what they are doing. One way to do this is to spend time with your children while they're on-line. Have them show you what they do and ask them to teach you how to access the services. While children and teenagers need a certain amount of privacy, they also need parental involvement and supervision in their daily lives. The same general parenting skills that apply to the "real world" also apply while on-line. If you have cause for concern about your children's on-line activities, talk to them. Also seek out the advice and counsel of other computer users in your area and become familiar with literature on these systems. Open communica- tion with your children, utilization of such computer resources, and getting on-line yourself will help you obtain the full benefits of these systems and alert you to any potential problem that may occur with their use. Guidelines for Parents By taking responsibility for your children's on-line computer use, parents can greatly minimize any potential risks of being on-line. Make it a family rule to: Never give out identifying information home address, school name, or telephone number in a public message such as chat or bulletin boards, and be sure you're dealing with someone that both you and your child know and trust before giving it out via E-mail. Think carefully before revealing any personal information such as age, marital status, or financial information. Consider using a pseudonym or unlisting your child's name if your service allows it. Get to know the services your child uses. If you don't know how to log on, get your child to show you. Find out what types of information it offers and whether there are ways for parents to block out objection- able material. Never allow a child to arrange a face-to-face meeting with another computer user without parental permission. If a meeting is arranged, make the first one in a public spot, and be sure to accompany your child. Never respond to messages or bulletin board items that are suggestive, obscene, belligerent, threatening, or make you feel uncomfortable. Encourage your children to tell you if they encounter such messages. If you or your child receives a message that is harassing, of a sexual nature, or threatening, forward a copy of the message to your service provider and ask for their assistance. Should you become aware of the transmission, use, or viewing of child pornography while on-line, immediately report this to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children by calling 1-800-843-5678. You should also notify your on-line service. Remember that people on-line may not be who they seem. Because you can't see or even hear the person it would be easy for someone to misrepresent him- or herself. Thus, someone indicating that "she" is a "12-year-old girl" could in reality be a 40-year-old man. Remember that everything you read on-line may not be true. Any offer that's "too good to be true" probably is. Be very careful about any offers that involve your coming to a meeting or having someone visit your house. Set reasonable rules and guidelines for computer use by your children (see "My Rules for On-line Safety" on last page as sample). Discuss these rules and post them near the computer as a reminder. Remember to monitor their compliance with these rules, especially when it comes to the amount of time your children spend on the computer. A child or teenager's excessive use of on-line services or bulletin boards, especially late at night, may be a clue that there is a potential problem. Remember that personal computers and on-line services should not be used as electronic baby-sitters. Be sure to make this a family activity. Consider keeping the computer in a family room rather than the child's bedroom. Get to know their "on-line friends" just as you get to know all of their other friends. ------------------- This brochure was written by Lawrence J. Magid, a syndicated columnist for the Los Angeles Times, who is author of Cruising On-line: Larry Magid's Guide to the New Digital Highway (Random House, 1994) and The Little PC Book (Peachpit Press, 1993). This brochure was made possible by the generous sponsorship of: America On-line, CompuServe, Delphi Internet, e-World, GEnie, Interchange On-line Network, and Prodigy Service. My Rules for On-line Safety I will not give out personal information such as my address, telephone number, parents' work address/telephone number, or the name and location of my school without my parents' permission. I will tell my parents right away if I come across any information that makes me feel uncomfortable. I will never agree to get together with someone I "meet" on-line without first checking with my parents. If my parents agree to the meeting, I will be sure that it is in a public place and bring my mother or father along. I will never send a person my picture or anything else without first checking with my parents. I will not respond to any messages that are mean or in any way make me feel uncomfortable. It is not my fault if I get a message like that. If I do I will tell my parents right away so that they can contact the on-line service. I will talk with my parents so that we can set up rules for going on-line. We will decide upon the time of day that I can be on-line, the length of time I can be on-line, and appropriate areas for me to visit. I will not access other areas or break these rules without their permission. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Please everyone, feel free to copy this message and distribute it to other newsgroups where you feel it might be appropriate. And to the author, thank you very much for sending in this very important message. Now watch the nasty messages and howls start coming in from 'certain places' on the net where they are very critical of any attempt to 'censor' what the children get to see and read. I've seen the viciousness elsewhere, so I fully expect to have a mailbox full of it here Monday. PAT] ------------------------------ From: g_oehl@informatik.uni-kl.de (Georg Oehl) Subject: Re: Youngster Kidnapped by Internet Chat Companion Organization: University of Kaiserslautern, Germany Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 10:58:19 GMT In article , TELECOM Digest Editor writes: [Story of 13-year-old boy running away from home with the help of a Net-acqaintence in his thirties] > The {Chicago Sun Times} editorialized on Wednesday saying that > parents who assume just because their children are at home in > their room on the computer that they are safe from the evils > in the world around us perhaps should think again. This is true > I guess, that parents should supervise their children's use of > the computer -- especially when a modem is attached -- and see > to it the kids are 'behaving themselves'. But then the same > parents ought to be supervising what is watched on television > and what is viewed at the talking-picture houses also. It might > not hurt to get aquainted with your children's friends if you > really want to raise your child properly. Parents might want > to instruct their children that they should never go to meet a > new friend in person they chatted with on the computer until > they first tell their parents, the same as they should be doing > with any new person they meet and become friendly with. Pat, I agree with you that parents should supervise -- to some extent or another -- what their teenage children are doing on their computer and perhaps check out a few of their friends that they are dealing with, but I think you make it a little too easy. Simply supervising your child is not going to do the trick, though. Why do you think the 13-year-old ran away from home? Because, Romero told him to? No. There must be a lot going wrong in a family if the child wants to run away from home. Would telling your child not to go with strangers help much in that case? Paying attention, loving and respecting your child would come first in my book of how to raise a child. That this is not always easy and working smoothly is another thing. If more parents would stick to these simple rules they would have a lot less explaining to do on why their children shouldn't go with strangers. Georg ------------------------------ From: mk@TFS.COM (Mike King) Subject: Pacific Bell Concerned By CPUC Resale Order Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 10:38:27 PST Forwarded to the Digest, FYI: Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 21:34:41 -0800 From: tltinne@legsf.PacBell.COM Subject: NEWS: Pacific Bell Concerned By CPUC Resale Order <<<>>> Pacific Bell Concerned By CPUC Resale Order For release: March 13, 1996 Contact: Jerry Kimata (415) 394-3739 SAN FRANCISCO -- Pacific Bell said today that a California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) order setting resale rates for local telephone services has a number of provisions which again place Pacific Bell in the position of subsidizing competitors' entry into the local phone market in California. The CPUC passed the order by a 3-2 vote. Commissioner Henry Duque said he would submit a dissenting opinion in which Commissioner Josiah Neeper would concur. "We continue to be concerned that we are being asked to resell our services below our costs, and discount them on top of that," said Lee Bauman, vice president-Local Competition. "The 17 percent discount on business service and 10 percent discount on residence service are simply not right. "We're also concerned over the confusion that customers may face, because the order doesn't require competitors to match up their call rating areas with ours," he said. "This can result in a caller not knowing which calls are local and which are toll calls, until after they are billed, of course. "Also, these provisions do nothing to encourage out-of-state competitors to invest money in the state's infrastructure," Bauman said. "Why should they, when they can get these services from us at wholesale prices far below our cost of providing them? This will only mean our competitors will take more money out of the state. "However, these resale prices are interim prices, and we're hopeful ongoing cost studies will correct the pricing in the future," he said. "A truly competitive market cannot be sustained with below-cost pricing. "Today's decision is a step toward establishing the competitive local phone market that must exist before we're allowed to enter long distance, and we support the process to open all markets to competition." The CPUC set an implementation date of March 31, 1996 for its order. Pacific Bell is a subsidiary of Pacific Telesis Group, a diversified telecommunications corporation headquartered in San Francisco. ------------------------- Mike King * mk@tfs.com * Oakland, CA, USA * +1 510.645.3152 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 00:04:48 +0000 From: Greg Eaton Subject: Wrong 800 Numbers In message <199603210357.WAA25037@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, "Patrick A. Townson" writes > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I know of an 800 number which gets a > lot of 'wrong number' calls and their solution was to put a tape > recorded message [Snip] Wrong Wrong and Wrong again -- as long as you are not the guy that pays the bills for the freephone number! When our company first got a memorable freephone number, I was amazed at the number of crank & obscene calls we received. That some people lived such sad lives, they called to abuse the person answering the phone just shocked me, but they are out there! The more "Entertaining Calls" were when callers genuinely misdialled and were wanting another company e.g Fedex, GA (A Major UK insurance co.), Elan (another parcels serice), well a little wind-up every now and again goes a long way. Having done the rounds of calling car insurance co.'s myself I knew all the questions generally asked, so off we go impersonating a large insurance company. A call comes in, start with the post (ZIP) code , (fits the way call centres work), and carry on from there. When you get round to asking questions like "What's your inside leg measurement", "What Colour is the Vehicle" or "Are you blonde or brunette" as long as you keep a straight face, and have a convincing answer to "Why do you need that information", it is amazing how much info. you can gather from the unsuspecting punter. Obviously it would be unethical to say "well sir/madam if you would just give us your credit card details, cover can commence immediately", but for the unscrupulous probably quite possible to get this info and bearing in mind you alreay have their name and address ... On another tack we have also setup a direct line into one of our sales and service depts. This means our regular VIP customers can call us, without tieing up our switchboard. However we have not issued this number to any cutomers yet, whilst we program the hunt group and fully test its functionality. The number happens to be very similar to the Vehicle removals dept. for a large part of South London. When someone rings you up having just had their card towed, there are generally easy pickers for the talented spoofer.-> "I am sorry the fee has to be paid in cash, we do not accept cheques or credit cards", "Please arrive in person with your passport", "Our opening hours are 05:30 am - 07:30 am", "Our address is (insert a totally fictious site)" or even "As your vehicle was parked illegally in a high security area, it is programmed for detonation unless collected in 90 minutes" - This works a treat given the current security concerns in London. We are now developing the ruse to include "Given the problems of space within Central London, your vehicle has been removed to our Gatwick Airport Site. (Approx 20 miles from the city centre). Then make up some completely random "Directions" to enable the punter to "find" the vehicle pound from terminal one. The best bit is they are paying for the call, either from a payphone or a mobile. Those of you that feel this is unethical, remember it is only a bit of fun, and most incorrect callers generally get told the correct number. Just check that number before you dial -- its a jungle out there ! Greg [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have to agree that sometimes in desparation it is fun to play those games on wrong number callers. Quite a few years ago I had a number which had previously been assigned to the janitor for an apartment building. The real estate company owners had never updated their list of numbers they gave to tenants in their buildings. Furthermore, they ignored my several requests that they do so. I finally got to the point I started taking calls for the janitor and giving the tenants a hard time. A caller says, 'there is no hot water in my apartment'. My answer would be that at the rent they paid, we did not provide hot water or heat in the winter. Another caller asks, 'when is the garbage going to be collected from the hallways?' and my answer would be not until all the filthy pigs who lived in that building moved out which probably would not be anytime soon. Still a third called to report that her neighbors had loud, noisy parties night after night and my response was to suggest she either get ear plugs or perhaps just go join the drunken orgy with them. After a couple weeks of that, the tenant's list of management telephone numbers was updated with (I presume) correct information. PAT] ------------------------------ From: callbrand@aol.com (CallBrand) Subject: 888 Allocation Stats Now Available Date: 21 Mar 1996 19:57:34 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: callbrand@aol.com (CallBrand) For those of you who are interested, I've added a section to my web page of 888 allocation stats, current right now through March 18. I'll update on a regular basis. URL: http://www.users.nyc.pipeline.com:80/~producer/ Judith Oppenheimer, President, Interactive CallBrand A leading source of information on 800 issues. CallBrand@aol.com, 1 800 The Expert, (ph) 212 684-7210, (fx) 212 684-2714 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 14:39:12 -0800 From: Gregory Edwards Subject: Separating Fact From Fiction in the Movies Pat: I've got a question maybe you could answer. In the book "Six Days of the Condor" (the movie was "Three Days of the Condor") the hero pulled a phone stunt of somehow wiring a number of pay phones together so when they traced him they went to the first pay phone, found it and then had to trace to the second, etc. In the movie "Sneakers" they did something similar, but just online. Is this real or just made up? BTW, thank you for your efforts on telephone information. Greg Edwards [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My first guess is that it is made up. I suppose it is possible. Any takers on this question? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Joel M. Hoffman Subject: Sprint Sense Free Fridays - More Good News Date: 21 Mar 1996 23:55:39 GMT According to a representative I just spoke with, there is indeed a $50/mo. usage requirement for Sprint's "free Friday" program, but _calls made on Friday count toward that $50_ even though you don't pay for them. So you can make $50 worth of calls every Friday, nothing else during the week, and pay only tax. (How much is tax, by the way? On $1,000 it could add up!) The representative specifically told me that 10333 access is insufficient for the plan, contra what some other folks here have reported. Joel (joel@exc.com) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There seem to be various conflicting reports from Sprint representatives on the several aspects or requirements of this program, so don't take anything for granted until you see your phone bill. Several people are saying that Sprint is not even charging the fifty dollars per month at all. Remember, there is just a few days left to sign up for Sprint's Business Sense program and get in line at the slop-trough for your twelve thousand dollars in free calls made on Friday over the next year. And if you try to sign up, don't let them give you 'no' for an answer. Inquire of Les Reeves for more details on this if you are not already familiar with the program. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Mark Jeffrey Subject: Re: Telemarketers Take Control of the Phone Line? Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 14:22:03 -0800 In article is written: >> The operator said the automated telemarketing call could keep the line >> for the duration of the call? > 30 seconds is too long. I find it hard to believe that SWBT requires > such a long time on hook for a disconnect. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well I don't know if it is thirty > seconds or if it is twenty seconds. In any event, ten seconds is not > long enough. But you are correct, the telemarketer is supposed to > be able to detect hangups and immediately discontinue the pitch. PAT] This is the old problem of conflicting requirements. The called party has to be given enough time so that they can put down the phone they answered (or even unplug it), and go to another room to continue the call. The same capability ("Terminal Portability") was also included in the ISDN standards, adding considerable complexity to the signalling. This aspect of the service was abandoned for ATM, as it was agreed to be meaningless in a broadband (mostly fibre or coax) environment. The network has no way to know whether the call is really finished, or if the called party will shortly "re-answer" and proceed with the conversation, so the onus has to be on the telemarketing system to hang up. Mark Jeffrey ------------------------------ From: lnsg1.miberl01@eds.com (Michael S. Berlant) Subject: Re: New Type of Cellular Antenna? Date: 21 Mar 1996 07:18:08 GMT Organization: EDS Singapore In article , lrs@hpisrhw.cup.hp. com says: > I just saw an ad for a cellular antenna that I've never seen before. > The antenna is a 3-1/2" square that mounts inside your windshield > without any external parts. Yes, they work. No, they are not as good as a real antenna. This is a passive repeater antenna. They wholesale for about $12. They are copper foil trapped inside two layers of "Colorforms" static cling plastic. You can see/feel the coil inside the plastic. There is an area about 1/2 inch square which "talks" to your cellphone inside the car/bus/camper. This is connected to a three-inch square area which relays the signal to the outside world. This type of antenna won't boost your output at all, but it is useful if the vehicle you are travelling in is particularly adept at absorbing your transmitted signal. Although I use a real car kit in my car, I keep one of these patch antennas in my travel kit with the power cord to use in rental cars when I travel. ------------------------------ From: hrood@xs4all.nl (Hendrik Rood) Subject: Re: Internet Appliance Date: Fri, 22 Mar 96 03:18:51 GMT In article , Stan Schwartz wrote: [talks about Internet-device deleted] > TransPhone uses a "thin client" protocol developed by Citrix Systems > Inc. to connect to a Windows NT server. That boosts performance while > allowing on-board memory to be kept at a low 512KB. This part triggered me. Such a device (a stripped computer connected to a TV or a monitor with the Citrix software) is all ready deployed for Internet access at the Dutch Cable Company Cai Westland. They use a cablemodem capable of speeds up to 155 kbps. More info http://www.caiw.nl/ ir. Hendrik Rood Stratix Consulting Group BV, Schiphol NL tel: +31 20 44 66 555 fax: +31 20 44 66 560 e-mail: Hendrik.Rood@stratix.nl ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #135 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Fri Mar 22 13:56:42 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id NAA27047; Fri, 22 Mar 1996 13:56:42 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 13:56:42 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199603221856.NAA27047@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #136 TELECOM Digest Fri, 22 Mar 96 13:56:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 136 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Sound Output Direct to Phone (Paul Boots) Re: Sound Output Direct to Phone (Skot) Re: Dialing For (no) Dollars on the Internet; Solving Problems (Chris Gray) Re: Caller ID/Calling Card Question (Robert Holloman) Re: Join the VON Coalition (Bill Sohl) Re: Sprint Cellular? (Lars Poulsen) Employment Opportunity: Hardware Engineers Wanted (Masoud Loghmani) 800 Number - Who Really Owns It? (Kevin R. Ray) Telephony Toolkits (George Borges) Re: How to Profit From Advertising on the Internet (amsjonw@data.telia.se) Equipment Needed For Purchase (Clifford McGlamry) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 11:20:38 +0100 From: bootsch@worldonline.nl (Paul Boots) Subject: Re: Sound Output Direct to Phone Hi Bill, You're wish is mine. There was a reply to a similar question in the Digest V16 # 126. I did a custom wiring myself since I haven't found a patch as described in the Netherlands. So if you can't get one too here's the custom wiring sugestion: You can just about connect any audio device to a phone line. Your Mac is stereo, the phone is mono. Take a plain stereo audio wire with on one end a mini stereo jack, like the one that comes with your Mac. The other side doesn't matter where gonna cut the wire. Take a phone cord that goes from the set to the hand-set and cut one of the connectors. Strip both cables, the audio cable has a thin wire for each channel wrapped in a ground wire. Figure out the colors used for the microphone to go to the set. Mine are red and yellow, used as example. Connect the yellow phone wire to both ground wires from the audio cable and connect the red to both channel wires. Plug into the Mac and into the set and play any sound you like. Good luck, Paul Boots Tel:+31 10 243 0931 * Fax:+31 10 243 0932 * Bootsch@luna.nl ------------------------------ From: Magnum@Primenet.com (Skot) Subject: Re: Sound Output Direct to Phone Date: 21 Mar 1996 11:00:01 -0700 Organization: magnum In article , sdk@cci.com (Stephen Knight) wrote: > In article , WK01739@worldlink.com > (Bill MacIntosh) wrote: >> I want to send my audio creation for a voice mail answer message >> directly from my Power Mac to the phone. I tried holding the mouth >> piece up to the speaker, but the sound was very poor. What will I >> need to do this? Bill; Check out TFLX. Been out on the Mac since 1986. Works on ANY Mac from the MacPlus to the newest Macs. If you want more information send me your address and or Fax number so I can send you a brochure. Or call for our 24hr demo line (you can even do Fax on demand) from any touch tone phone (818) 701-5051. Check our our Home WWW page for lots of information. Single line TFLX system Multi line 1-128 line DUET Macintosh and PC systems. magnum@Primenet.com http://www.primenet.com/~magnum/ Skot ------------------------------ From: cgra@btmaa.bel.alcatel.be (Chris Gray) Subject: Re: Dialing For (no) Dollars on the Internet; Solving Problems Date: 22 Mar 1996 15:41:23 GMT Organization: Never was my forte Reply-To: grayc@btmaa.bel.alcatel.be In article , Paul Robinson writes: < {snippery galore} > I said this many times in the past, but it bears repeating: Where the > U.S. can win over the Japanese, the Europeans, the Koreans, and every > other country is our ability to be willing to take risks, and possibly > make mistakes and fail. Hm, seems to me the Japanese and the Germans have both made some pretty spectacular mistakes in the last 72 years ... > No other country has the culture to permit such > things; in Japan, a failure in {Kindergarten} can mean the difference > between whether you can get into a University or end up going to a trade > school! Or get nuked by the U.S. Chris Gray Chris_Gray@bcs.org.uk Compuserve: 100065,2102 ------------------------------ From: Holloman@cris.com (Robert Holloman) Subject: Re: Caller ID/Calling Card question Date: 22 Mar 1996 16:02:51 GMT Organization: Concentric Internet Services > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: One thing to remember is that you are > in Ameritech territory on both ends of the call; they seem to have > their act together pretty well throughout their five state territory > regards interconnectivity and exchange of information, etc. The other > thing to remember is that calls placed on Calling Cards technically > are placed 'through an operator'. Even if all you get is the robot > operator, there is still a level of handling or an intermediate step > or two which does not occur on 'direct-dialed' calls. Right now I do > not think any operator handled calls anywhere show caller-id. Am I > wrong on this anyone? PAT] I was in a hotel recently and tried to make an AT&T calling card call to my mother back in Clayton, NC. I usually go through 800-CALL-ATT, but I decided to dial 0-919-553-xxxx instead (may have had to dial 9 or such first) since a note on the phone said it uses AT&T for LD calls. After the bong (I don't believe it stated AT&T) I entered my calling card number. When an operator came on the line I decided to hang up and use the 800-CALL-ATT method instead. Mom's number was busy, so, without hanging up, I pressed # and tried her number again and got through. I asked her why the line was busy (she has call waiting) and she said someone had called and hung up on her without saying anything. She said she dialed *69 and it read back a number with an 803 area code. That 803 number was almost surely the main number for the hotel I was calling from, in Columbia, SC. So dialing 0+ from this hotel doesn't just pass the number, but it also starts ringing the called party before you even finish entering in the calling card number. My boss has made such calls from the same hotel and had people ask him why he takes so long to respond to their "hello"'s. Someone has even hung up on him a time or two. Weird. ------------------------------ From: billsohl@planet.net (Bill Sohl) Subject: Re: Join the VON Coalition Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 13:08:23 GMT Organization: BL Enterprises bagdon@rust.net (S and K Bagdon) wrote: > someone else first wrote: >> "A growing number of companies are selling software programs with >> ancillary hardware options that enable a computer to transmit voice >> conversations. This, in fact, creates the ability to "by-pass" local, >> long distance and international carriers and allows for calls to be >> made for virtually 'no cost.'" > Why, why, WHY are we trying to legislate common sense, AGAIN?!?! We > have one group trying to tell the government what to do, and another > group telling the government that this is wrong. Sound familiar? Comments on bandwidth limitations deleted for brevity. Consider also the following: What would the FCC be able to to outlaw? Monitoring the use of the internet by type of application and trying to enforce a restriction are not something easily done today, much less enforceable. Can the FCC not stop or outlaw the availability of the technology that permits the Internet phone. The majority of internet phone technology is software, not hardware. Is the FCC going to outlaw Internet Phone software? I really doubt it. Heck, the governement couldn't even stop the net distribution of PGP encryption software and that really was against US law. Also, keep in mind that the Internet is not just a USA network. Well over 100 other countries have Internet nodes and regardles of what the USA (via the FCC) may want to limit, people outside the United States are free to ignore them if they choose. Attempting to stop voice over the internet has as much chance of succeeding as telling people that local tariffs didn't permit sending data over residential lines. Bill Sohl (K2UNK) billsohl@planet.net Internet & Telecommunications Consultant/Instructor Budd Lake, New Jersey ------------------------------ From: lars@spectrum.RNS.COM (Lars Poulsen) Subject: Re: Sprint Cellular? Date: 22 Mar 1996 10:01:42 -0800 Organization: Rockwell International - CMC Network Products In article kjongsma@p06.dasd. honeywell.com (Ken Jongsma) writes: > This week [360 (nee Sprint) Communications] ran an ad in the > Albuquerque paper showing a coverage map that > covered a good part of the state of New Mexico. > Now, there are two providers in Albuquerque, US West and Cellular One > (was Bell Atlantic up until a couple of months ago.) So my question > is, how is 360 doing business in ABQ? Is it an arrangement like > Frontier has? Remember that there is no cellular telephone company named "Cellular One". "Cellular One" is a licensed service mark, under which all sorts of A-side carriers do business, because it sounds better to be a part of the well-known national "Cellular One System" than to be "Albuquerque Cellular". A large portion of "Cellular One" was actually "McCaw Communications", and has now renamed itself to "AT&T Cellular". As you have just observed, another large chunk was actually Sprint, and has now renamed itself to "360". It will be interesting to see how much of "Cellular One" is left when the dust settles. Lars Poulsen Internet E-mail: lars@RNS.COM RNS / Meret Optical Comm:s Phone: +1-805-562-3158 7402 Hollister Avenue Telefax: +1-805-968-8256 Santa Barbara, CA 93117 Internets designed and built while you wait ------------------------------ From: Masoud Loghmani Subject: Employment Opportunity: Hardware Engineers Wanted Date: 22 Mar 1996 15:17:53 GMT Organization: Digital Technics Inc. Digital Technics Inc. is a growing telecom R&D firm located in Columbia, MD. We have an informal campus environment where the only limits for your growth are your imagination and creativity. We are looking for hardware engineers with knowledge of telecom standards and hands-on experience in design and implementation of uP/uC based boards with a mix of analog and digital circuitry. If you are looking for an exciting challenge with an excellent potential for growth, join us for a great ride into the future of telecom. You can reach us at: dti@access.digex.net or via snail mail at: Digital Technics Inc. 7100, Columbia Gateway Drive, Suite 190 Columbia, MD. 21046 fax: 410-312-4384 You can also visit us at: http://www.access.digex.net/~dti/index.html ------------------------------ From: kevin@mcs.com (Kevin R. Ray) Subject: 800 Number - Who Really Owns it? Date: 22 Mar 1996 09:10:07 -0600 Organization: MCSNet Services I've looked everywhere and can't get a straight answer to point me in the right direction here. Maybe someone out there can help, here's the situation: I have a 800 number which was assigned to me through Pager company "A". This number has been "mine" for well over a year and is widely distributed. Their service is lacking and coverage no longer acceptable. I want to switch over to Pager company "B" and keep the same 800 number. Is this possible? I've called company "A" and asked to have the number released to me, specifically asked for a "release authorization". I didn't tell them about pager company "B". Simply stated that the number would become a real phone line (and I'll do that as a mid step if need be). They point blank said "NO", but I was given a higher up employee to talk to whom I have not called yet. Now pager company "B" is telling me they must legally release that number to me by law. Is this true and what is the law so I can reference it if need be? Bottom line: who REALLY "owns" that number? And how can I keep it??? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You will probably find in the tariff filed by Pager Company A a reference to the ownership of the numbers in question. I think you will find they are more like a telephone answering service with a block of numbers of which they 'allow' you to use one of *their* numbers for your message receiving purposes. You are not using the line for any two-way conversation. The paging company is receiving a message for you and passing the message along. Pager Company B is correct that usually carriers have to release numbers on request (unless for example they have something in their tariff which allows them to refuse release in the event of a delinquency in your credit) but I imagine Pager Company A can legally say that the number never 'belonged' to you to start with; it was merely assigned to you as a matter of their convenience in routing messages sent to you. I think you lose. PAT] ------------------------------ From: gborges@geoware.com (George Borges) Subject: Telephony Toolkits Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 19:29:05 GMT Organization: GeoWare Software Design Reply-To: gborges@geoware.com I've been charged with the task of implementing a four-line IVR system. It'll be developed under VB. My question is: Has anyone had any experience with the various CTI toolkits for VB? I'm currently leaning towards Visual Voice Pro by Stylus but would love to hear from anyone with experiences with this or any other toolkit. Thanks for any assistance. George ------------------------------ From: amsjonw@sim-pm.data.telia.se Date: Fri, 22 Mar 96 12:53:25 GMT Reply-To: amsjonw@sim-pm.data.telia.se Subject: Re: How to Profit From Advertising on the Internet ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) writes: > You'll discuss it with them, won't you? 1-800-700-5366. Pat, can you also post a non-800 number so the folks outside the USA can do our part? Thanks, jw [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Umm, I think you may have missed the point of the joke; that is, perhaps you are unclear on the concept. No, I won't give you a non-800 number for the clowns. I don't know what it is anyway. But if you really want to be a good sport and help educate these folks, try calling AT&T through the Pittsburgh IOC -- I guess it would be the USA Direct program or similar -- and asking them to ring up the 800 number for you. You'll pay the cost of the portion to the USA and the company on this end will pay for the USA portion. See if your local PTT has arrangements to ring toll-free numbers here in the States. If that won't work, then save your money. I would say save it anyway unless the 800 number is equipped to accept calls from around the world purely at the owner's expense. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 22 Mar 96 18:00:25 EST From: Clifford D. McGlamry <102073.1425@compuserve.com> Subject: Equipment Needed For Purchase Robin Hood Telecommunications is attempting to purchase the following equipment: 125 Northern Telecom M-2008 with display in BLACK 5 Northern Telecom M-2616 with display in BLACK 8 Northern Telecom NT8D02-AB digital line cards Refurbished is preferred, but will consider new. Contact Malcom Lee at 770-939-8700 or return E mail to 102073.1425@compuserve.com Malcom Lee Robin Hood Telecommunications ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #136 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Mar 25 02:36:01 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id CAA25975; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 02:36:01 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 02:36:01 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199603250736.CAA25975@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #137 TELECOM Digest Mon, 25 Mar 96 02:36:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 137 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson How Some Netizens Abuse the First Amendment (TELECOM Digest Editor) Does Traditional Corporate PBX Service Still Exist? (Lisa Hancock) Who is FCI? (Email Spammer Alert) (Elana Beach) The World Upside Down: Digital Costs More Than POTS (Robert McMillin) Pacific Bell Concerned by CPUC Resale Order (Leonard Erickson) Inter-Tel "Axxess" Phone System (Alan Frisbie) Telephone Abuse at USDA (Tad Cook) New Area Codes in SoCal -- Boundary Questions (Linc Madison) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 00:58:12 EST From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: How Some Netizens Abuse the First Amendment In 1961, Chicago attorney Newton Minow, even then impassioned about the carnage in one of America's greatest promises became famous for his speech in which he called television a vast wasteland. These days he is even more impassioned about the shabby intellectual corruption of still another of America's greatest blessings: the First Amendment to the Constitution. I note that my comment of about three years ago that 'Usenet is a sewer, a cesspool' is still making the rounds and quoted from time to time also. In a new book he has co-authored with Craig Lamay entitled "Abandoned in the Wasteland: Children, Television and the First Amendment", he traces developments step by step to show how television has become a modern American version of the cruel and decadent Roman circuses. In one very fine statement in his book, he put his finger on the underlying problem facing the growing body of angry Americans who are trying to deal with the culture of vulgarity overwhelming our society today. He said, "The minute broadcasters say 'First Amendment', that means all the rest of us are supposed to shut up with our complaints." That has long been the pattern on Usenet and the Internet as well, hasn't it? System admins, news admins, webmasters and others who exercise considerable control over the downright junk and garbage which appears in newsgroups and web pages -- if for no other reason than they refuse to take a stand against passing it all over the net -- would like to have you think that there are no reasons behind the de-civilizing problems of America today. Everything on the net is 'accidental'; people who would like to use it without having to grit their teeth and who would like to allow their children to use it without having to constantly monitor the stuff which is available are left adrift in a fearful and purposeless anomie. It is hardly surprising that with no rock to stand on, even capable people are left with the anxiety that nothing can ever really be done. But Newton Minnow is having none of that social chaos theory that so debilitates us. Speaking now of television -- that great promise to us now almost a half century old for all intents and purposes -- Minnow shows in his book how the elite in the television industry who originally saw television as a kind of treasured 'public interest' utility eventually came to think of it as a tool of the market to be employed with puerile disconcern for the nation and with concern, in truth, for their own profit and personal agendas alone. Is the Internet such a public interest utility or is it just a play- thing for the elite -- or the 'cabal' as they have sometimes been referenced in the past? From Albert Einstein at the splitting of the atom, worrying that this scientific 'wonder' exceeded mankind's capacity for moral calculation, we ended up with "... television is just another appliance ... it is a toaster with pictures", in the words of Mark Fowler, Federal Commun- ications Commissioner under President Reagan. And now there comes the 'Internet Appliance', another toaster perhaps, this time with messages to read and simulated pictures to view? It is not my intention to specifically seek fault with the recent device by that same name; I am sure it is a fine piece of craftsmanship. It is the 'just another appliance' aspect which troubles me. Television missed the mark long ago. It held so much promise and potential. It frankly has been a disgrace to the First Amendment. And now there comes the Internet, and in particular the Usenet newsgroups and the thousands of web sites which have sprung up in the past year or so. Another great promise, or a soon to be broken promise; one that would humiliate the founders of our nation? It is amazing to me that system admins no doubt think of themselves as good family people, upstanding citizens, men and women who surely would not want their own children to see a lot of the garbage being circulated on the net. They surely would not want to be thought of in, say, the way decent citizens used to look at pornographers. They would not want to be thought of as disseminators of hate and anti-semetic notions. So what do they do? How do they get out of this dilemma? They bring up the First Amendment -- and they actually do so with a straight face. And that is where Minnow, former head of the FCC becomes concerned about the influence television has had over the past thirty-five years or so: he points out in his book how so many Americans on so many levels are seeking to excuse their own excesses and greed and vulgarity by claiming the 'right' to 'free speech' when the amendment does not even remotely apply to their cases. We now see the Internet in the news on an almost daily basis. Like television in 1950-60, this great new promise is starting to be shaped and molded, and now is the time the system admins and webmasters and news admins have an *extremely* important role in the development of the net if only they will accept it and administer it wisely. Minnow again: "If I stopped someone on the street today, they surely would not know the First Amendment **only applies to the government**. For so long the public has been brainwashed and guilt tripped into believing just the opposite, that we all have some moral, ethical, and legal obligation to live with the garbage around us. The First Amendment does not restrict or speak to producers, editors or publishers or distributors of ideas, opinions or concepts." And here on the Internet, we witness the same kind of brain washing and guilt tripping from the system admins, the ACLU, and the EFF. Somehow, all of us are in it together is what they would like to have us believe. Time and again in the process of abusing the First Amendment they abuse Martin Neimoller at the same time with the thing about how 'they' (whoever 'they' are) first came for one category of people, then for another category of people, and pretty soon there was no one left to speak out against the tyranny, oh, boo-hoo-hoo, what a sad chain of events, etc. Minnow again: "Now the broadcasters are claiming the 'V-Chip' violates the First Amendment -- and the American Civil Liberties Union is backing them on it. How can putting power in the hands of parents violate the First Amendment?" It is simple, Mr. Minnow. It is the same line of perverted reasoning we see on Internet all the time from the people who constantly find fault with the Communications Decency Act. Instead of accepting it for what it is intended to accomplish, and attempting to work in good faith to meet the requirements of the law and help the Internet and Usenet reach the potential it could have; to help this 'great new promise' become something other than the 'vast wasteland' that tele- vision became, organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the ACLU have done nothing but thwart the intention of Congress and fight and belittle the desires of the American public every step of the way. Minnow again: "I hear these television executives say that television has the 'First Amendment right' to broadcast early (i.e. the minute the polls close on the east coast) election results to the west coast people, telling them who has already won the election before the west coast people have even gone to vote in many cases. I ask them if it isn't a lot more honest to say they have advertisers paying them lots of money and making lots of profit for them by doing this." Yeah, and on the net we hear the elite among us chattering about the same 'First Amendment rights'. They are never honest enough to say where things are really at with them. When is the last time you heard a web site administrator say, 'look, I put up all the junky and vulgar and lewd web pages at my site because customers pay me good money each month ...'; when is the last time you heard a news admin say the main reason he keeps alt.infinite.varieties.of.kink on his spool replete with a large number of binaries to look at and slobber over is because if he dropped them his customers would go to some other site to spend their money and get their vicarious thrills each day? We never hear that. Instead its always about how first 'they' came for the pornog- raphers and what that means is before long 'they' will be coming for the {New York Times} as well or some equally silly excuse. I wonder how dumb the EFF/ACLU people think the rest of us are? They were in court in Philadelphia very recently (see latest issue of Computer Underground Digest) trying to convince a panel of three judges that when they say 'First Amendment', the rest of us had better shut up and take what is handed to us. The net is as much *ours* as it is *theirs* whether they like it or not. I for one do not intend to shut up anytime soon and I hope you won't either. You've all heard of scams on the Internet; we have discussed them in this Digest. Well the biggest scam of all on the Internet right now is the fraud being perpetrated on the federal court in Philadelphia by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Found- ation. They think *they* are going to dictate the future of this medium, this great new promise over the next half century or so. I urge the Court to completely reject the arguments presented by the plaintiffs. Let's begin to distinquish between true liberty and mere license, and have the courage and honesty to call the latter what it is instead of continuing to abuse and misuse the First Amendment, the greatest blessing any of us in America have today. PAT ------------------------------ From: hancock4@cpcn.com (Lisa) Subject: Does Traditional Corporate PBX Service Still Exist? Date: 24 Mar 1996 04:52:57 GMT Organization: Philadelphia City Paper's City Net When I was trained as a cord PBX operator years ago, phone company literature emphasized the importance of service to the caller. For example, the caller was to be kept posted periodically as you rang the extension, or kept on hold waiting for a busy to clear. If the extension didn't answer or was busy, you were to offer the caller some alternatives (as appropriate to the call and the company.) But nowadays companies have voice mail switchboards. If you don't know the extension number or name, you're forced to listen to a long list of options, none of which may be the right department for you. (Operators on large PBXs knew not only which dept to connect a caller to, but which extension within a department for a particular problem.) On voice mail, if you select an extension and no one answers, you have to call back. Even on systems served by a human operator, once she connects you she leaves call and doesn't come -- doesn't check if no answer or busy. As a caller, it frustrating dealing with this!!! Does anybody know things have evolved this way? All companies do it, so you can't simply take your business elsewhere. And heaven help you if you have a rotary phone (as quite a few people still do) -- then you're left in voice mail jail. Nightline (Ted Koppel) did a report on voice mail problems, apparently without impact on the industry. I wonder if the cessation of of renting equipment changed the attitude of the phone companies on helping their PBX customers provide good service. In the old days, the phone cos sent training advisors out and published lots of literature encouraging excellence in service. We even had little cartoons "Be accurate" "Be prompt" taped on our switchboard. Comments from anyone in the telecom industry? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I agree that what you are seeking is very good and preferable to the present method. There is just one problem, or maybe a couple: The volume of phone traffic in recent years has increased so greatly that if companies were to offer any form of personal service at all where incoming calls to the switch- board are concerned, they would need twice as many operators as they have now and their expenses would increase quite a bit. I know some people who don't even like being left on hold at the beginning of a call. If the operator or phone clerk answers the phone and responds by saying politely 'please hold the line, I will be with you as soon as possible', those people hang up quite indignant. "I guess the comp- any does not think much of me and my business". I resisted the temp- tation to respond to those people by saying, "yes, how inconsiderate it was of those other callers to dial in here without first checking to see whether or not you would be wanting to speak with us about something before they got in your way ...". Generally I would just hold my tongue and keep on taking calls as quickly and accurately as possible. Another thing: the public does not like honesty. :) A recording can answer the line and tell the caller to please hold until a rep becomes available, and that recording can go on for five or ten minutes before you get served. People may get annoyed but they stay on the line. But let a live person answer the phone saying, 'please hold until someone is available to help you; you will be on hold approximatly five minutes' and the little preciouses become so bewildered. 'Five minutes' you hear them cluck in the background as you hit the hold key. A minute or so later if not sooner they hang up and dial right back in again, thinking somehow this time they will reach someone else who won't 'do that to them'. Now I notice that the local number here for public transit information 312-836-7000 plays a recording for their queue when one exists saying matter-of-factly, 'we answer calls in the order received; our representatives are not permitted to answer calls out of order based on their simplicity. Do not hang up and dial back in since you will lose your place in line and go to the end of the queue.' "... but all I wanted was to ask just one small thing ..." said the lady, to which the rep replied, " ... that's all any of them want lady; it is too bad they did not consult you first and put your needs ahead of their own, eh? How inconsiderate of the other callers ..." If business places today with a large, heavy volume of incoming calls even tried to give cosistently prompt, fast personalized phone service i.e. no one ever has to wait on hold, each person is transferred to the correct party immediatly, their expenses would be horrendous. PAT] ------------------------------ From: elana@netcom.com (Elana who?) Subject: Who is FCI? (Email Spammer Alert) Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 1996 21:41:38 GMT OK, you guys ... let's track this one down if it hasn't been done already. I got this email spam today. Who are these FCI guys? The fact that they do email spamming is already one black mark against them ... Elana >From @msn.com Sat Mar 23 12:55:59 1996 Date: Sat, 23 Mar 96 20:41:44 UT From: Subject: Amazing!! Dear Internet User, The following is unsolicited mail to tell you about a unique opportunity. This is not a chain letter or a get rich quick scheme FCI is absolutely hot!!! Your earning potential is unlimited. This is the best completely FREE opportunity... or are there others at all? FCI is absolutely AMAZING, because: * There are no hidden charges * No fee to sign up as a distributor * Commissions as high as 5%, sixth level * Huge Market... everyone in the U.S. * Free Personalized web page with custom CGI script (interactive) * I will give you customers as my organization grows- to help you develop your downline. Do you need an extra $1000 per month, with little work on your part... That's income that will always be growing and will continually give a monthly residual. Everyone can use some extra money... and everyone you know uses long distance... put the two together and you have unlimited income potential. Or you may wish to use the 24 hour toll free number to sign up... it is capable of taking 256 calls at the same time. Fax on Demand: Call 703-455-0341 from your FAX machine and request document #3698 Toll Free: Call 1-800-223-6477 sponsor # Additional Facts: 1 You Sign up just FOUR people 4 2 They EACH sign up FOUR people 16 3 They EACH sign up FOUR people 64 4 They EACH sign up FOUR people 256 5 They EACH sign up FOUR people 1024 6 They EACH sign up FOUR people 4096 | V Approximately $4000/month Residual Income (average long distance usage less than $20/month per person) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And it goes on and on, raving about the way the money will come rolling in. I left the 800 number above in case you wish to consult with them on this wonderful opportunity, however I deleted the number to punch in for your 'sponsor'. I guess you could just punch in all zeros or all nines. I imagine you will want to chat with them soon and ask them where they have been all your life and why you had not been offered such a great deal before. PAT] ------------------------------ From: rlm@netcom.com (Robert McMillin) Subject: The World Upside Down: Digital Costs More Than POTS Organization: Charlie Don't CERF Date: Sat, 23 Mar 1996 17:47:45 GMT Our company makes a lot of calls in a month. We also have a lot of phone lines. These two things in combination would have led me to believe that we might save some money by converting our GTE POTS lines to T1 service. Not! The base rate effectively goes up by about two dollars per line per month, from around $25/line*month to $27/line*month. Call me naive, but shouldn't digital be *cheaper* than a phalanx of POTS lines? There's only one copper line to screw up, new phones can be allocated by software magic (not by installing new copper), and since new T1 lines are supposedly installed using HDSL, maintenance costs (based on my observations) ought to the same as for POTS. At the same time, I contacted Pacific Bell about this. The business voice rep there told me that the way they have their T1 service provisioned, you pay a flat fee (from memory, about $350) for the luxury of the T1, and then pay for each channel you use on it as though it were a POTS line. Yow! (She also said Pac*Bell is within about a month of offering last-mile dial tone within what is presently GTE land. Also, GTE/Pac*Bell SS7 connectivity is about three months away, meaning you'll be able to use auto-redial and CID features with GTE customers.) Is it just me, or is the aforementioned situation plain nuts? Robert L. McMillin | rlm@helen.surfcty.com | Netcom: rlm@netcom.com WWW: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/rl/rlm/home.html ------------------------------ Subject: Pacific Bell Concerned by CPUC Resale Order From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 96 13:32:34 PST Organization: Shadownet > "We're also concerned over the confusion that customers may face, > because the order doesn't require competitors to match up their call > rating areas with ours," he said. "This can result in a caller not > knowing which calls are local and which are toll calls, until after > they are billed, of course. This sort of thing is most states have "1 means toll". That way, if you think it's a local call you dial seven digits (in same area code) or ten digits (if it's a different area code). If you get the "call cannot be completed if dialed" message, then you dial it as 1+10 and *know* it's a toll call. But California has *not* done it that way, and the only reason most of us can see is because they were *in favor* of consumers not knowing a call was toll when *they* got the money. Only now that they have competition are they showing concern for the customer. Bah! Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow) shadow@krypton.rain.com <--preferred leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com <--last resort ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Mar 96 17:31:47 PST From: Alan Frisbie Subject: Inter-Tel "Axxess" Phone System Organization: Flying Disk Systems, Inc. One of my customers is trying to select a new telephone system for his company. As their primary computer consultant, I was asked for my comments. Since I am not a telecom expert, I am turning to this group for help. A telecom salesman is trying to sell them a system, "Axxess", from Inter-Tel in Chandler, Arizona. Can anyone tell me anything (good or bad) about this company and/or their products? Their glossy brochures are full of glittering generalities (as is the salesman), but short on real technical specifications. For instance, the salesman says that the system is "fully LAN and WAN capable". These are nice buzzwords, but don't really tell me how it relates to a telephone system. As a telecom novice, I am unsure what questions I should be asking. Could someone give me a few pointers? The company needs about 20 extensions for sales and customer service, with about 30-40 additional extensions. Customer service is *very* important, so they want to use ANI/CNID to best advantage. What does this phone system offer in this regard? Also, since one person may be performing multiple job functions, we want to be able to direct multiple extension numbers to the same physical phone, with the extension number display on the phone. This would allow the employee to answer the phone with the appropriate greeting: "Widget Sales", "Product Support", etc. Can this system do that? Is it normal practice to loan a copy of the system documentation to potential customers? I would like to ask for this, but am unsure what kind of reaction I would get. Thanks, Alan E. Frisbie Frisbie@Flying-Disk.Com Flying Disk Systems, Inc. 4759 Round Top Drive (213) 256-2575 (voice) Los Angeles, CA 90065 (213) 258-3585 (FAX) ------------------------------ From: Tad Cook Subject: Telephone Abuse at USDA Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1996 23:51:56 PST Hundreds of Cases of Telephone Abuse at Agriculture Department By KEVIN GALVIN Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) -- The U.S. Department of Agriculture has fallen prey to telephone scams that cost taxpayers thousands of dollars, the Government Accounting Office reported Friday. "The extent of USDA's telephone abuse and fraud problem is unknown and could be costing the department thousands of dollars each month," the report said. "The department lacks adequate management controls over the $50 million it spends each year for commercial telephone services." In one case last year, hackers accessed a Agriculture Department contractor's voice mail and made about $50,000 in international calls at the department's expense. The government didn't seek reimbursement for the calls, the GAO said. The congressional auditors found 652 collect calls to the Agriculture Department from prison inmates, which cost the department $2,600 over a four-month period. Many of the inmates' calls were forwarded long-distance, and the cost of those calls could not be determined. "We also found that USDA is vulnerable to other fraud and abuse because it does not track and monitor employees' use of telephone company credit cards," said the report requested by Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee. Telephone abuse is one of the fastest growing crimes in the country, according to the report, costing industry and government $9 billion a year by one estimate. Other abuses at the Agriculture Department highlighted in the GAO report included calls to chat lines in the Dominican Republic, calls to job hotlines outside the department, and one call to a sex entertainment line in the Dominican Republic. The department knew about abuse of its system in 1994 but did little to address it, the GAO said. However, the report applauded the department's recent efforts to improve its telecommunications management. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1996 21:06:52 -0800 From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com (Linc Madison) Subject: New Area Codes in SoCal - Boundary Questions My latest PacBell phone bill came with two inserts, one about Caller ID blocking options, and the other about area codes 562 and 760, which will go into effect in southern California next year. The brochure contains GEOGRAPHICALLY PRECISE maps of the new area codes, unlike the hideous monstrosity they pass off as a map in the phone book. However, there are a couple of questions raised by the maps as regards the boundaries of area codes in eastern Los Angeles County. First off, I had always thought that the current area code 714 snuck across the border into Los Angeles County, but in fact it's the other way around -- a small slice of Orange County is actually in the 310/562 area, the towns of La Habra and Alamitos. Part of 909 does poke into L.A. County, though, in Pomona, Claremont, and San Dimas. Secondly, it looks quite clear from the map that (old 714) 619 (future 760) intrudes into eastern L. A. County somewhere the area near Valyermo, possibly around the Ski Sunrise area. (Yes, skiing in Los Angeles County -- the elevation ranges from sea level to over 10,000 feet/3000 m.) It's a little bit difficult to track the boundary, because Coldbrook just to the south is in 818, the entire eastern edge of Kern County is in 619 (Boron, California City, Cantil, Inyokern, Ridgecrest), the northern part of L.A. County is in 805 (Lancaster, Palmdale, Pearblossom, Valyermo, Acton, Santa Clarita), but the map shows a finger of the new 760 poking westward on the south side of the southeast corner of 805. My ASCII map-making skills aren't highly honed, but I'll give it a shot: 805 | | --------------------------------+-------+ 760 | 818 | +-------+ | +-+ +----+ +--------+ +-------+ | | +--+ | | | _ \ / | | +-+ | / |/\ +----+ +-----+ | --------------+ / | | 310 213 \____________/ 909 | The easternmost edge of 805 is shown as a straight north-south line, which would place its southeast corner well within Los Angeles County. In fact, according to this map, Pearblossom and Valyermo aren't in 805 at all, they're in 619/760. Of course, this same map also shows two nonexistent "notches" in the California/Nevada state line near Death Valley Junction. The *only* listing I can find that shows 619 as an area code for a point in Los Angeles County is the Ski Sunrise Ski Area, which is in L.A. County but served out of the Wrightwood exchange, just over the line in San Bernadino County. Pacific Bell's press release on the 619/760 split doesn't mention L.A. County. Thus, Los Angeles County includes: ALL of 213, 310 (post-split), and 818; ALMOST ALL of 562 (except small piece of Orange Co.: La Habra/Alamitos) two parts of 805 (a tiny bit in the westernmost part of LACo, around Westlake Village, and, by land area, the northern half of LACo) a small part of 909 (Pomona area); NONE of 714; and *possibly* a small part of 619/760, plus TWO new area codes entirely within LACo in 1997-98. All for a mere 8.8 million people. Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #137 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue Mar 26 04:12:16 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id EAA25732; Tue, 26 Mar 1996 04:12:16 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 04:12:16 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199603260912.EAA25732@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #138 TELECOM Digest Tue, 26 Mar 96 04:12:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 138 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Who is FCI? (Email Spammer Alert) (John Rice) Re: Who is FCI? (Email Spammer Alert) (Gary Novosielski) Re: Who is FCI? (Email Spammer Alert) (Bill Walker) Re: How Some Netizens Abuse the First Amendment (Dave Farber) Re: How Some Netizens Abuse the First Amendment (Tom Betz) Re: How Some Netizens Abuse the First Amendment (Henry Baker) Re: How Some Netizens Abuse the First Amendment (Eric Florack) Re: How Some Netizens Abuse the First Amendment (Anita M. Wilcox) Re: How Some Netizens Abuse the First Amendment (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh) Re: How Some Netizens Abuse the First Amendment (John Hines) Re: How Some Netizens Abuse the First Amendment (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 public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: rice@ttd.teradyne.com (John Rice) Subject: Re: Who is FCI? (Email Spammer Alert) Date: 25 Mar 96 22:33:03 CDT Organization: Teradyne Inc., Telecommunications Division In article , elana@netcom.com (Elana who?) writes: > OK, you guys ... let's track this one down if it hasn't been done > already. > I got this email spam today. Who are these FCI guys? The fact that > they do email spamming is already one black mark against them ... > >From @msn.com Sat Mar 23 12:55:59 1996 > Date: Sat, 23 Mar 96 20:41:44 UT > From: > Subject: Amazing!! > Dear Internet User, > The following is unsolicited mail to tell you about a unique opportunity. > This is not a chain letter or a get rich quick scheme I forwarded a copy to 'postmaster@msn.com' (my usual action with something like this) and recieved a reply today that the user account in question has been removed and the subscriber will no longer be welcome on msn. John Rice K9IJ rice@ttd.teradyne.com ------------------------------ Organization: GPN Consulting Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 00:58:37 -0500 From: Gary Novosielski Subject: Re: Who is FCI? (Email Spammer Alert) In TELECOM Digest V16 #137, elana@netcom.com (Elana who?) wrote: > OK, you guys ... let's track this one down if it hasn't been done > already. > I got this email spam today. Who are these FCI guys? The fact that > they do email spamming is already one black mark against them ... I don't have any info on the company, but one of their spammers is history. I complained to as soon as I received the original message (looks like lots of people from 'round these parts got a copy), and just received this response: > From: "Postmaster@msn.com " > Subject: RE: Spam: "Amazing!!" > We sincerely apologize for the repetitive unsolicited E-mails from > Mr. Sam Meltzer (McRenH@msn.com). A general consensus for Usenet abuse > is to give a user a second chance. This second chance has been blown. > His account with MSN has since been terminated and he will no longer > be able to hold an account with The Microsoft Network. MSN makes it an > utmost priority to handle and eliminate such net abuse. Once again we > do apologize if this caused you any inconvenience. > Postmaster@msn.com Gary Novosielski mailto:gpn@village.ios.com PGPinfo: keyID A172089 GPN Consulting http://village.ios.com/~gpn 2C 5C 32 94 F4 FF 08 10 B6 E0 DE 4F A2 43 79 92 ------------------------------ From: wwalker@qualcomm.com (Bill Walker) Subject: Re: Who is FCI? (Email Spammer Alert) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 12:28:22 -0800 Organization: QUALCOMM, Inc. It's nice to see that MSN considers spammers worthy of immediate account termination. I get enough junk mail at home. I certainly don't need junk email. Bill Walker, QUALCOMM, Inc., San Diego, CA USA WWalker@qualcomm.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 09:00:26 -0500 From: Dave Farber Subject: Re: How Some Netizens Abuse the First Amendment It is sad to see editorials of that nature in TELECOM Digest. I assume you will publish counter arguments in a lead position also. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But of course I will. Don't confuse me with my competitor the {Washington Post} where if you say something they find disagreeable you'll be lucky if they even allow you to purchase a tiny classified advertisement in the future, let alone say anything in their op-ed section. I'll use the rest of this issue to print a sampling of today's mail on the topic in fact. By the way Dave, why are you so sad? Is it because you'd prefer to see this Digest just follow the party line and leave the thinking up to the lawyers at the ACLU? Admittedly, it would make their jobs a lot easier if they were not always having to fight two battles: one against the government and the other an attempt to save the rest of us from ourselves. Think back for a moment to what the late founder of the ACLU, Roger Baldwin had to say in 1920: In his remarks at the founding of the ACLU, Mr. Baldwin did not mince words; he said 'the purpose of any civil liberties organization is to promote anarchy.' Other than the fact that the ACLU is in large part funded by the Roger Baldwin Foundation, we don't hear much about him these days. Nor do we use the words 'anarchy' and 'anarchist' must these days either. They are sort of old fashioned terms, but what they stand for is still pretty much in vogue at the ACLU. Anyway, let's see what some others have to say. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Tom Betz Subject: Re: How Some Netizens Abuse the First Amendment Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 10:11:42 -0500 TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: > You've all heard of scams on the Internet; we have discussed them in > this Digest. Well the biggest scam of all on the Internet right now is > the fraud being perpetrated on the federal court in Philadelphia by > the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Found- > ation. They think *they* are going to dictate the future of this medium, > this great new promise over the next half century or so. I urge the > Court to completely reject the arguments presented by the plaintiffs. Pat, I like you and respect you, but you have this all wrong. EFF/ACLU/ALA et. al. are arguing against GOVERNMENT dictating the future of this medium. Nobody's telling you to shut up; they are trying to prevent GOVERNMENT from telling you to shut up. There's a big difference. The Internet has been successful so far because Government has largely kept its hands off. Plaintiffs in this case just want to keep it that way. You can daily find reports on the testimony at . Read the arguments; they are nothing like your characterization of them. Tom Betz --------- ------ (914) 375-1510 -- tbetz@pobox.com betz@panix.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I don't have anything wrong. You see, I am reading the arguments; in addition to the Web site you mentioned they are being summarized in Computer Underground Digest as well. Let's take a quick look at the second day: they were all busy trying to convince the court that a novice attempting to use a search engine on Little (and) Women as in the book of the same name by Louisa May Alcott would produce all these unpredictable and perfectly horrid (in the perspective of the new law) results. Why my goodness, we would all wind up in the penitentiary after spending an afternoon at the library scanning through the results. There was more, but that was one I thought particularly funny. What is not funny is the plaintiffs are trying to snow the Court with a lot of computer jargon and highly technical phraseology. The Court doesn't know a search engine from an automobile engine. To be perfectly blunt, what I have seen of the (rather one-sided) arguments to date has been the plaintiffs presenting the Court with some very extreme examples and illustrations and trying to pass them off as the norm. The judges sit there and scratch their heads. What is needed is a Friend of the Court who is also quite highly computer literate to give *neutral and unbiased* expert testimony; someone who is not reluctant to tell the old-boys network to just can the crap. Hey, I could get up there and make my computer say whatever I wanted also; so could you. You don't suppose the ALA is in there beating on any drums of their own also do you? And you know something? Dave Farber said earlier in this issue he hoped I would allow other comments, etc ... and that is a damn sight more than the ACLU would *ever* consider in the arguments now going on. Can you imagine *them* ever permitting expert witneses with opposing viewpoints who were equally computer literate to tell the Court anything unless the Court so ordered that others be heard (as I hope it would, but doubt that it will). PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 06:52:59 -0800 From: hbaker@netcom.com (Henry Baker) Subject: Re: How Some Netizens Abuse the First Amendment Here in L.A., Hollywood Boulevard goes from the sublime (the Hollywood Bowl) to the ridiculous (Frederick's of Hollywood) and worse. But that is the nature of boulevards -- they connect the world such as it is, not as someone would like it to be. So it is with the Internet. Its most important task is connectivity -- connecting the world as it is, not as someone would like it to be. www/ftp directory: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/hb/hbaker/home.html [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I would not suggest that the boulevard be closed or that any of the spectacles therein be banned. I just feel we have the right to have alternate boulevards. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 13:47:06 PST From: Eric_Florack@mc.xerox.com (Florack,Eric) Subject: Re: How Some Netizens Abuse the First Amendment In #137, Pat says, in part: > But Newton Minnow is having none of that social chaos theory that > so debilitates us. Speaking now of television -- that great promise > to us now almost a half century old for all intents and purposes -- > Minnow shows in his book how the elite in the television industry who > originally saw television as a kind of treasured 'public interest' > utility eventually came to think of it as a tool of the market to be > employed with puerile disconcern for the nation and with concern, > in truth, for their own profit and personal agendas alone. ....(and)..... > Minnow again: "Now the broadcasters are claiming the 'V-Chip' violates > the First Amendment -- and the American Civil Liberties Union is > backing them on it. How can putting power in the hands of parents > violate the First Amendment?" > It is simple, Mr. Minnow. It is the same line of perverted reasoning > we see on Internet all the time from the people who constantly find > fault with the Communications Decency Act. Instead of accepting it for > what it is intended to accomplish, and attempting to work in good > faith to meet the requirements of the law and help the Internet and > Usenet reach the potential it could have; to help this 'great new > promise' become something other than the 'vast wasteland' that tele- > vision became, organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation > and the ACLU have done nothing but thwart the intention of Congress > and fight and belittle the desires of the American public every step > of the way. Pat: we agree fully, apparently, with one addition: Anyone who thinks that distrbuton of the kind of sludge we're talking about here, doesn't affect mainstream society, and it's choices, obviously cannot conceive of a society in which people will actually pay good money, sending one message over and over, in an attempt to influence buying decisions. But of course, there are people on NY's Madison Ave who can describe that phenom to anyone who's interested, in great detail. In short, such people have no concept of reality. My regards to you. /E ------------------------------ From: uplink@uplinktech.com (Anita M. Wilcox) Subject: Re: How Some Netizens Abuse the First Amendment Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 21:17:34 GMT Organization: UpLink Technologies Reply-To: uplink@uplinktech.com ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) wrote: > That has long been the pattern on Usenet and the Internet as well, > hasn't it? System admins, news admins, webmasters and others who > exercise considerable control over the downright junk and garbage ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Sys admins don't have control over what appears in a newsgroup. Only the person posting the message has that control. > which appears in newsgroups and web pages -- if for no other reason > than they refuse to take a stand against passing it all over the net -- Right, and have some turkey come and sue me for abridging his "rights" -- no thanks. This society is far too litigious for sys admins to "take a stand". We'd be driven out of business in a week. I don't dispute that there's a lot of crap on Usenet and the web. The biggest problem is in the enormous manpower it would take to scan through the multiple thousand newsgroups daily. Small service providers don't have those kind of resources. Until someone writes a program to detect porn, it's not something that we have any control over. Besides, regular pornography isn't illegal. Tasteless and disgusting, sure, but legal. As for the Web, aside from not hosting porn on your system, there isn't much else you can do. The only real solutions that I've found are to ban children entirely from my system or to allow them only with "Net Nanny" and the like. We are stuck between a rock and a hard place. I would gladly provide "clean" access for those who preferred it if I could. Unfortunately, I can't do it at this time for technical as well as financial reasons. If I ban "indecent" stuff I risk being sued by those who want that stuff (and lose their business) . If I do carry it, I risk being sued by parents whose children see that stuff (and lose their business too). Perhaps a V-chip like rating system would be beneficial, but there are a lot of technical hurdles to overcome. Things have developed according to the free-for-all style of the Internet for many years. It's going to take time to implement any changes and get them propagated across the entire net. Think of it as you would any lumbering bureaucracy - sloww-moving and resistant to change. Just don't indict all of us who have next to no control over things. A lot of sys admins do take the stand you indicated, but many of us agree that change would be great, but can't do anything because of the technical limitations of trying to do that. Big changes are coming to the Net by the necessities of dwindling address space and such, so there should soon be better ways of rating/filtering Usenet. Just have a little patience :-) Anita [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Anita, if you are going to sit there and tell me about all the 'technical difficulties' there are in calling up your editor, inserting the 'active' file and deleting the lines which contain the names of 'news'groups which are just plain filthy, then you have no business in the job you are holding. Anyone who has read my messages over any period of time here knows I have never said a sys admin has to sit and read through millions of words in thousands of messages each day. If it is such a hard job for you then hire me to come there for a half-day. In one quick motion I could easily do what Compuserve did: go through and eliminate *from that site only* several dozen 'news'groups which no longer would be carried there. That would mean that arriving messages for those groups would be rejected in the stream as unwanted. It means your users on attempting to post to those groups or read those groups would be told they did not exist. It means when you pass news to other sites you don't pass those groups any longer because they are no longer on your spool. Contrary to what you say about system admins having no control over what appears in newsgroups, quite the opposite is true. They have *complete* control over the matter. See my comments about about editors and active files. A system admin who does not want a partic- ular group can have it gone in a few minutes or less. I am not saying the admin needs to sit daily and read it all and pick through it message by message; neither an I saying the admin should just broadly go through and delete newsgroups wholesale -- and the admin should **never** make decisions like that based on his personal attitudes or sexual orientation or whatever. What you do is sit down and over a period of two or three days scan through a newsgroup and get a reasonable overview of the whole thing. If in your sampling it is consistently a waste of spool space and in bad taste, then you kill the group. Maybe you set up a schedule where every two or three months you go back and give a 'second look' to some of the groups you had earlier removed. Maybe you change your mind then, or maybe you don't, but it is this thoughtless attitude 'I can't do anything about it so I have to go along with all of it' that I find distressing. Can system administrators change the face and complexion of Usenet overnight if they want? You bet they can. Finally Anita, you say it comes down to damned if you and damned if you don't ... get sued by parents whose little precious children would never have had those ideas on their own had they not seen them first on a newgroup on your machine or conversely get sued by the Dirty Old Man's Association For the Advancement of Pedophile Newsgroups for causing them to have to go look elsewhere to get their kicks ... why God forbid, even one of your competitors. Well since you have a choice in the matter, why not take the high road? There is always room for more quality on the net; God knows there is very little of it now. PAT] ------------------------------ From: rishab@nntp1.best.com (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh) Subject: Re: How Some Netizens Abuse the First Amendment Date: 25 Mar 1996 18:48:23 GMT Organization: Best Internet Communications Pat, I'm sure you will receive much rabid prose against your recent rant, so I shall be composed and as brief as possible. - The First Amendment is part of the _US_ Constitution. In various other Bills of Rights (including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, to which the US is a signatory) there is no specific distinction made between _government_ and private restrictions on free speech. Basic human rights, in the naturalist school of law, have nothing to do with governments. It is incidental, _not_ essential to free speech rights that the 1st Amendment mentions government (actually, just Congress) -- it was, and is usually presumed that free speech rights can conflict with property and other rights when extended to cover private premises. - Whatever the arguments against sysadmins using the 1st Amendment as an excuse for the state of USENET, your apparent aupport for Rights, 1948, to which the US is a signatory) there is no specific the Communications Decency Act, and especially your argument against the CDA suit are without substance. "The Congress shall make no law and the CDA was clearly passed by the Congress. What sysadmins should do is an entirely separate issue, perhaps beyond the letter of the 1st. - You say that the Internet is "ours". Who do you mean? "We" - if taken to include all the users of the Internet and not, to use your own words, some "elite" or "cabal" - includes everyone who reads alt.sex.whatever, and presumably there are many of them, or they wouldn't exist. Actually the Net is neither "ours" nor "theirs" but everybody's. This is why the "look what happened to TV" argument breaks down. If you want to watch serious educative science programmes on TV, but the "lowest common denominator" does not, you have little choice but to grin and bear it (unless you're lucky enough to get BBC World, as I do in India). This is because it costs a lot of money to produce and broadcast TV programming, even if it is trash, and it is only to be expected that those who stump up the money will want the highest returns. However, it does not require huge investment to produce quality "Internet programming" - all you need is something to say, which is perhaps why there's so much trash on USENET. - If you can't see the difference between "Boxing Helena" and alt.sex.fetish.amputee then I don't know what to say (apart from the fact that much content on that newsgroup is for _real_ amputees who have _real_ problems with sex). A film, or a TV programme, is made by a single producer; choice is limited due to high entry barriers. System administrators IN NO WAY share the relationship to USENET traffic as TV executives do to their programming, as you have yourself hinted in earlier posts (where you pointed out, correctly, that sysadmins are not publishers). If USENET is mucky, sysadmins are not greatly responsible. Keeping muck out is hard work (as you of all people - a newsgroup moderator - should know). There is no reason why sysadmins should take on such work for someone's definition of general social good. OTOH I would expect, as the Net gets into more ordinary homes (people with $60,000+ incomes, who form much of the Net and computer user population, are not always "ordinary"), there will be more and more "responsible" sysadmins running "Family ISPs". If there is a demand for these, they will do well. (The last such experiment, Prodigy, is not much of a success, but that is because of several reasons.) As far as your "USENET is a cesspool" quote is concerned, I would like to respond with another one. The great chronicler of the industrial revolution, Alexis de Tocqueville, wrote about Manchester in 1835: "From this foul drain the greatest stream of human industry flows out to fertilize the whole world. From this filthy sewer pure gold flows. Here humanity attains its most complete development and its most brutish, here civilization works its miracles and civilized man is turned into a savage." In my opinion, this could apply to the Web, and USENET too. It's not so bad out there. Quick, tell me how many people read comp.dcom.telecom? Rishab The Indian Techonomist - newsletter on India's information industry http://dxm.org/techonomist/ rishab@dxm.org Editor and publisher: Rishab Aiyer Ghosh rishab@arbornet.org Vox +91 11 6853410; 3760335; H 34 C Saket, New Delhi 110017, INDIA [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have no idea how many people read it. I know there will soon (probably in May) be about five thousand names on the mailing list. You are correct that one cannot make a complete comparison between television and the net. There are differences, but consider this one similarity: how long do trash programs on television stay alive if stations refuse to carry them? I only suggest that if system admins used the same discretion as newspapers and television stations in deciding what 'columnists' or 'comic strips' or 'features' or 'syndicated programs' they were going to carry and not going to carry the net would be a lot better place. PAT] ------------------------------ From: jhines@Mcs.Net Subject: Re: How Some Netizens Abuse the First Amendment Date: 25 Mar 1996 16:18:29 GMT Organization: MCSNet Internet Services Reply-To: jhines@Mcs.Net In , ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) writes: > That has long been the pattern on Usenet and the Internet as well, > hasn't it? System admins, news admins, webmasters and others who > exercise considerable control over the downright junk and garbage > which appears in newsgroups and web pages -- if for no other reason > than they refuse to take a stand against passing it all over the net -- > would like to have you think that there are no reasons behind the > de-civilizing problems of America today. Everything on the net is > 'accidental'; people who would like to use it without having to grit > their teeth and who would like to allow their children to use it > without having to constantly monitor the stuff which is available > are left adrift in a fearful and purposeless anomie. It is hardly > surprising that with no rock to stand on, even capable people are > left with the anxiety that nothing can ever really be done. I would separate Usenet from web pages. With a web page, there is some accountablity, you can find out who is behind it, and hold them accountable. Someone is paying somebody for the service, so there is a trail. With Usenet, and an anonymous remailer, or enough knowledge to fake a post, you don't have that accountablity. Thats why its a sewer, cause there is no way to hold anyone accountable for anything. The First Amendment gives us the right to say what we want, without government censorship, but with that right comes responsiblities (eg not yelling fire in a theatre, not slandering/libeling someone, honoring copyright provisions, etc.). Usenet give people a way to exercise their right, without taking the responsiblity for what they say. A web page doesn't. john [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Just as newspapers reserve the right to refuse to sell advertising space to companies or individuals they deem fraudulent or disreputable, so should ISPs. It should be part of the contract every ISP has with each customer that the ISP's sole discretion will decide what can and cannot appear on a web page and that they need not explain their decision to the client. The newspapers do not explain their advertising policies. They just say they will not accept a certain advertisement and that is that. PAT] ------------------------------ From: psyber@usa.pipeline.com (John Cropper) Subject: Re: How Some Netizens Abuse the First Amendment Date: 25 Mar 1996 10:59:29 GMT Organization: Pipeline USA On Mar 25, 1996 00.58.12 in article , 'ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)' wrote: > Let's begin to distinquish between true liberty and mere license, and > have the courage and honesty to call the latter what it is instead of > continuing to abuse and misuse the First Amendment, the greatest > blessing any of us in America have today. Pat, if people were taught that words actually have meaning, as well as to take responsibility for what they put in the public forum, we'd ALL be better off. John Cropper, President NiS Telecom Division POB 277, Pennington, NJ USA 08534-0277 voice/fax: 1-800-247-8675 psyber@usa.pipeline.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: People must begin to realize that ideas have consequences. We'll have more on this topic tomorrow, based on the 'Youngster Kidnapped by Internet Chat Companion' thread which also appeared here last week. I'll probably have more on this thread as well. And I sincerely hope that more of you will write and express your thoughts, just as I sincerely hope that an attorney will approach the Court *soon* -- before the ACLU gets this all twisted and distorted -- and advise the Court that the plaintiffs speak for only a small minority of the netizens and that with all due respect to the Court, it is shortchanging itself if a Master is not appointed soon to sort out -- if you will, the fact from fiction -- and to referee the arguments and present an unbiased summary to the Court for its consideration. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #138 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Mar 27 01:47:19 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id BAA06591; Wed, 27 Mar 1996 01:47:19 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 01:47:19 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199603270647.BAA06591@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #139 TELECOM Digest Wed, 27 Mar 96 01:47:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 139 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: How Some Netizens Abuse the First Amendment (Lisa Hancock) Re: How Some Netizens Abuse the First Amendment (Alan Dahl) Re: How Some Netizens Abuse the First Amendment (Robert McMillin) Re: How Some Netizens Abuse the First Amendment (Daniel Rosenbaum) Re: How Some Netizens Abuse the First Amendment (Matthew B. Landry) Re: How Some Netizens Abuse the First Amendment (Tom Betz) Re: How Some Netizens Abuse the First Amendment (John Bredehoft) Re: How Some Netizens Abuse the First Amendment (Colin Rafferty) Communications Decency Act Input Requested (R. Thomas Berner) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: hancock4@cpcn.com (Lisa) Subject: Re: How Some Netizens Abuse the First Amendment Date: 27 Mar 1996 01:18:13 GMT Organization: Philadelphia City Paper's City Net It is quite true many people misunderstand the scope of the First Amendment and "censorship". I find it interesting that mainstream newspapers are always ready to jump to the defense of a high school paper in which the principal cut something intended for publication. They call it "censorship" and violating the free speech rights of the students. But they forget that they, as editors, "censor" articles in their own newspaper all the time. Further, the publisher of the paper has final authority and RESPONSIBILITY for what goes into the newspaper. So a school principal, on behalf of the school district as the publisher of a school newspaper, is responsible for what goes into a paper, and thus has a right and duty to control it. Likewise with Internet providers. A few colleges have ceased carrying certain alt. newsgroups the administrators find offensive, and of course people scream "censorship". But the college owns the computer system, and has the right to determine what goes out on it. To me, First Amendment means I have the right to express any opinion I want, and the government can't stop me. If I want to set up an Internet site and broadcast, say, material advocating we renounce the Declaration of Independence and re-unite with England, it's my right to do so. Or stand on a corner and hand out mimeographed circulators advocating it. I think this right is critical to our freedom, and ironically not protected as it should be. If I were to espouse Nazi beliefs, the ACLU would be real quick to protect my right to speak. But suppose I wanted to say a public prayer at a ceremony -- would the ACLU come to my aid then? Sometimes in small towns and groups minority opinions get drowned out and not a fair hearing. But I can't force people to listen to me if they don't want to. I do NOT have the right to shove my opinions down their throats. Other people have a right to peace and quite and security. I don't like the ACLU. They claim to be protecting our Constitutional rights, but I think they are very selective at who and what they The ACLU claims to protect "free speech". That means they'll defend some filthy drunk to scream in my face on a subway where I have no choice but to take that abuse (and his germs.) The ACLU is nowhere to be found when it comes to MY right to peace and security -- to be left alone. There's a movement to allow demonstrations inside shopping malls (which are private property) even if the mall owner objects, on the grounds that "malls are the new Main Street of America." That's all well and good, but what about private property rights which is another quite explicit Constitutional Amendment? Sometimes enforcing one right will encroach upon another. How is that balanced? I don't recall the ACLU ever enforcing property rights. When it comes to religion, the ACLU is real quick to fight against it in public places on the grounds that allowing any sort of prayer at a public gathering is now "establishing a state religion". But don't speakers have a first amendment right? If the mayor of a town wishes to thank G-d for the opportunity to be at a new school dedication, isn't he allowed to express an opinion as part of his speech? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The ACLU has no interest whatsoever in property rights. They find insistence by citizens on having their property rights rather a nuisance at times when there is a conflict with 'free speech'. That of course does not apply to *their own* property of course, just yours and mine. I've often said the best thing that could happen where ACLU attorneys -- and some federal judges for that matter -- are concerned would be to have their noses rubbed in their own mess from time to time. Instead of sitting in their very elegant courtrooms and offices all day then rushing to get the 5:15 train to outer suburbia where they drink their martinis dry and fulminate about all the ways they saved the rest of us from ourselves that day, let's have a law that all federal judges and ACLU lawyers have to live in the Chicago Housing Authority buildings on the south side of Chicago, say around 35th and State Street or so. Let's require them to ride public transportation around town such as the subway late at night instead of having their chaueffer pick them up and drive them to their homes in the distant suburbs. Then after a month or so of them seeing how things *really* happen, go to their courtroom and ask, 'Well judge, where do we go from here? What next, your honor?' Wouldn't it be great watching the ACLU lawyers have to dodge the bullets for a change and have some nasty person on the subway go postal on them? "Well Counsel, what next?" :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: Alan Dahl Date: Tue, 26 Mar 96 18:14:11 -0800 Subject: Re: How Some Netizens Abuse the First Amendment ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) writes: > then hire me to come there for a half-day. In one quick motion I > could easily do what Compuserve did: go through and eliminate *from > that site only* several dozen 'news'groups which no longer would be > carried there. That would mean that arriving messages for those groups > would be rejected in the stream as unwanted. It means your users on > attempting to post to those groups or read those groups would be > told they did not exist. It means when you pass news to other sites > you don't pass those groups any longer because they are no longer on > your spool. > Contrary to what you say about system admins having no control over > what appears in newsgroups, quite the opposite is true. They have > *complete* control over the matter. See my comments about about > editors and active files. A system admin who does not want a partic- > ular group can have it gone in a few minutes or less. I am not saying Umm, so what do you do when, because so many sys admins have banned alt.sex.fetish.whatever.disgusting.thing, folks from over there decide that they'd rather start posting their filthy photos to rec.sports. baseball, comp.ibm.pc or, even worse, one of the K12 groups? At least the way things are group names pretty much describe the contents of the messages in that group. Once you start massively banning groups I see that structure breaking down. IMHO giving the users a way to control their own access is better than the sys admin censoring based on group name. If you have any suggestions on how to ban access to the "bad" groups without resulting in "bad" messages posted to "good" groups I'd be interested but I suspect that there is no easy way to do so. Alan Dahl | alan.dahl@attws.com Analysts International Co. | (NeXTMail OK) -or- 10655 N.E. 4th St. Suite 804 | adahl@eskimo.com Bellevue, WA 98004 | PH: (206) 702-5231 http://www.eskimo.com/~adahl | FAX: (206) 702-5452 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That is like saying that there is no real way to deal with spammers, that some one or more persons will always slip something in an inappropriate newsgroup. At the point what you say begins to occur, and I don't think it will, then you are dealing with a single individual breaking the rules, and it would behoove the system administrator at the originating site, upon being notified -- as he surely would be in thousands of email letters -- of his user's transgressions to deal with that user as appropriate. You seem to be saying that people have to 'get this out of their system' one way or another; that if they do not have a specific newsgroup to post their grafitti or sexual fantasies they will just go rip off someone else's newsgroup to do it. I do not think so for the simple reason I have never advocated not allowing people to post what they want in 'appropriate' (to that context) forums; I've just suggested a lot of admins might want to take a higher road and not carry it. There will always be sites that do carry it of course. PAT] ------------------------------ From: rlm@netcom.com (Robert McMillin) Subject: Re: How Some Netizens Abuse the First Amendment Organization: Charlie Don't CERF Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 01:13:50 GMT On 25 Mar 1996 07:52:59 PDT, hbaker@netcom.com (Henry Baker) said: > Here in L.A., Hollywood Boulevard goes from the sublime (the Hollywood > Bowl) to the ridiculous (Frederick's of Hollywood) and worse. But > that is the nature of boulevards -- they connect the world such as it > is, not as someone would like it to be. > So it is with the Internet. Its most important task is connectivity -- > connecting the world as it is, not as someone would like it to be. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I would not suggest that the boulevard > be closed or that any of the spectacles therein be banned. I just > feel we have the right to have alternate boulevards. PAT] With the government putting up roadblocks? That's hardly what I'd call an "alternate". On 25 Mar 1996 09:18:29 PDT, PAT said: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Just as newspapers reserve the right to > refuse to sell advertising space to companies or individuals they > deem fraudulent or disreputable, so should ISPs. It should be part of > the contract every ISP has with each customer that the ISP's sole > discretion will decide what can and cannot appear on a web page and > that they need not explain their decision to the client. The newspapers > do not explain their advertising policies. They just say they will > not accept a certain advertisement and that is that. PAT] Such an approach has been tried with Prodigy. It doesn't work, because the courts then hold that the company can be held liable for offense to bluestockings upset by what the censors *do* pass on. The "ISP == bookstore" analogy is a long way away from being accepted by the law. Your calls for an "unbiased" analysis of Usenet and Internet content generally are just another way of calling for disinformation of the sort {Time} magazine has delivered. It's begging for some raw meat to throw before Ralph Reed's yokel minions at the Christian Coalition. We have a pretty good idea of the kinds of things he *doesn't* want available. We can be assured, given his enthusiastic support of the CDA, that the Coalition would be mighty influential in deciding what we adults can and can't see. I don't want him looking over my shoulder, period. Your arguments, from what I can tell, are that the Internet is full of trash and therefore should be censored. The problem with this is that we can apply the same logic to the printed word. I'm sure you'll dismiss that as employing a hopelessly "slippery-slope" argument, but the history of governments indicates they all want to grab more power, not cede it. Despite your ill-informed comments to the contrary, the Founders were well aware of what they were doing when they nailed the Amendments onto the Constitution, namely, preventing just the sort of thing you're advocating for the Net. It's what the First Amendment is about, not the "free speech for me but not for thee" attitude I see so prevalently displayed by this group's moderator. Robert L. McMillin | rlm@helen.surfcty.com | Netcom: rlm@netcom.com WWW: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/rl/rlm/home.html [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If my attitude were what you say it is, then what is your message doing here? And I do not claim any special rights for myself. There is no 'for me but not for thee'. Are you suggesting that if some system admin somewhere decided not to accept or distribute this Digest that I would have some legal right to force him to accept it? In fact, some system admins do not accept TELECOM Digest. That is their privilege. I am sure not running around suing them or making up bogus First Amendment claims to get my way. PAT] ------------------------------ From: drosenba@panix.com (Daniel Rosenbaum) Subject: Re: How Some Netizens Abuse the First Amendment Date: 26 Mar 1996 09:16:06 -0500 Organization: Panix I can't speak for Dave, but I suspect that he's sad for the same reason I'm sad: that an otherwise valuable resource is being used as a forum for idiotic reactionary twaddle. That said, Pat, I should add that this is of course your soapbox, to do with as you like. Too bad that your thinking (to use the term loosely) on the issue at hand doesn't measure up to the quality of your other work. Your screed is as jarring as David Bunnell's PC World editorial back in the days about Georgia sodomy laws. As right as he may have been, it was the wrong forum. When we discussed the matter some time later, Bunnell disagreed -- as, no doubt, will you. My respectful suggestion is that you stick to infrastructure issues in these pages. Dan Rosenbaum Editor, NetGuide drosenba@panix.com et al @ infinitum [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: 'Idiotic reactionary babble'; that is any opinions you do not agree with, right? Not having seen the editorial of David Bunnell or its context, I cannot say one way or the other. I would like to ask you though why you believe the topic of telecommunications should only concern the infrastructure; why it should not equally be concerned with the policies and politics which are inexonerably wound up as part of it as well. Don't you realize that politics have had a great deal to do with *how* our present infrastructure came to be in place? PAT] ------------------------------ From: mbl@conch.aa.msen.com (Matthew B Landry) Subject: Re: How Some Netizens Abuse the First Amendment Date: 26 Mar 1996 14:52:16 GMT Organization: Flunkies for the Mike Conspiracy TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to jhines@Mcs.Net: > deem fraudulent or disreputable, so should ISPs. It should be part of > the contract every ISP has with each customer that the ISP's sole > discretion will decide what can and cannot appear on a web page and > that they need not explain their decision to the client. The newspapers So let me get this straight. In order to protect "true liberty" as you call it, the government should commence dictating what types of contracts private individuals and corporations may execute between one another? Or are you merely insisting on the right to go on ranting about what said individuals and corporations should do on their own initiative? If the latter ... well, congratulations, because it's happened. You can say that you think the current arrangement is dead wrong until you're blue in the face and all that will happen is that a lot of people will get angry with you, but in truth that's likely to happen no matter what you say. If the former ... find a dictionary and look up "liberty". I read the c.d.t in spite of my many differences of opinion with your periodic editorials because it consists predominantly of valuable technical information, as opposed to the endless political (and quasi-political) arguments found pretty much everywhere else on the net. This is due in very large part to the time contributions you make for its maintainance, and for that I and I'm fairly sure most everyone else are grateful. From my perspective, this thread and similar ones like it merely detract from the value of the Digest and c.d.t. Matthew Landry ------------------------------ From: Tom Betz Subject: Re: How Some Netizens Abuse the First Amendment Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 12:56:05 -0500 Organization: Some Tom Betz wrote: > TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: >> You've all heard of scams on the Internet; we have discussed them in >> this Digest. Well the biggest scam of all on the Internet right now is >> the fraud being perpetrated on the federal court in Philadelphia by >> the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Found- >> ation. They think *they* are going to dictate the future of this medium, >> this great new promise over the next half century or so. I urge the >> Court to completely reject the arguments presented by the plaintiffs. > Pat, I like you and respect you, but you have this all wrong. > EFF/ACLU/ALA et. al. are arguing against GOVERNMENT dictating the > future of this medium. > Nobody's telling you to shut up; they are trying to prevent GOVERNMENT > from telling you to shut up. There's a big difference. The Internet > has been successful so far because Government has largely kept its > hands off. Plaintiffs in this case just want to keep it that way. > You can daily find reports on the testimony at . > Read the arguments; they are nothing like your characterization of them. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: [...] > And you know something? Dave Farber said earlier in this issue he > hoped I would allow other comments, etc ... and that is a damn sight > more than the ACLU would *ever* consider in the arguments now going > on. Can you imagine *them* ever permitting expert witneses with > opposing viewpoints who were equally computer literate to tell the > Court anything unless the Court so ordered that others be heard (as > I hope it would, but doubt that it will). PAT] That's the DOJ's job. Their inclusion of the Rimm "study" notwith- standing, Justice has some pretty sharp lawyers on the job. ACLU can't prevent the DOJ from providing such evidence as you wish to see; that's what adversary proceedings are all about. Maybe you should contact them and offer yourself as an expert witness. I don't understand why you insist that ACLU has the obligation to counter its own arguments; I must presume that this is the result of a pure antagonism toward the ACLU on political grounds. Do you also have such an antagonism toward ACLU's co-plaintiff, the American Library Association? Tom Betz --------- ------ (914) 375-1510 tbetz@pobox.com | tbetz@panix.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Maybe I should offer myself in that way. The ACLU has no obligation to 'counter its own argument' any more than the old 'Moral Majority' organization had any obligation to look for people who were moral to be its members and supporters. Names are chosen for organizations based on what the founders of the organization wish to convey to the public about themselves. The Moral Majority was a misnomer if one ever existed, but the group calling itself a 'civil liberties' union is similarly situated. Liberty for a small, very tiny part of the population perhaps. They need not counter their own argu- ments, they need merely be quiet while others do so. But you know and I know that whenever anyone has attempted to go up against the ACLU and counter some of their arguments in the past, the ACLU has stopped at nothing to discredit the speaker. One night several years ago I was on the phone on a radio talk show on station KOA out of Denver. Some nights KOA comes through loud and clear -- like gangbusters to use a colloquial term -- all the way over here in Chicago depending on the atmosphere, etc. The guest was this guy who was the head of the national ACLU organization. I mentioned that many federal judges are themselves members of the ACLU -- you can look this up for yourself; all federal judges are required to have 'biographies' of themselves on file -- and this guy was really incredulous. "Well," he said, "I can't see anything wrong with that. What is your point?". I said my point was it would appear the judge was a member of the plaintiff in many cases before the court; hardly a fair situation. He thought it was just awful that I would criticize that. After all, he said, all they were doing was representing the First Amendment, and 'everyone knows what that says; what possible problem could there be ...' After a few minutes of this banter, he motioned for the program host to hit the 'panic button' and cut me off the air. Regards the American Library Association, well yes, you could say that we have no love lost. They also seem to feel they can do such a better job than parents when it comes to deciding what is and is not appropriate for children. Is Judy Blum still running that organization? If there is anyone more offensive than an ACLU attorney I would have to say it is probably her. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 12:24:13 +0800 From: johnb@bird.Printrak.Com (John Bredehoft) Subject: Re: How Some Netizens Abuse the First Amendment Organization: Printrak International Inc. Reply-To: johnb@Printrak.Com Portions of Patrick Townson's article in TELECOM Digest, Volume 16, Issue 137, Message 1 of 8: > Minnow again: "If I stopped someone on the street today, they surely > would not know the First Amendment **only applies to the government**. > For so long the public has been brainwashed and guilt tripped into > believing just the opposite, that we all have some moral, ethical, and > legal obligation to live with the garbage around us. The First Amendment > does not restrict or speak to producers, editors or publishers or > distributors of ideas, opinions or concepts." > And here on the Internet, we witness the same kind of brain washing > and guilt tripping from the system admins, the ACLU, and the EFF. > Somehow, all of us are in it together is what they would like to have > us believe. Time and again in the process of abusing the First > Amendment they abuse Martin Neimoller at the same time with the thing > about how 'they' (whoever 'they' are) first came for one category of > people, then for another category of people, and pretty soon there was > no one left to speak out against the tyranny, oh, boo-hoo-hoo, what a > sad chain of events, etc. > Minnow again: "Now the broadcasters are claiming the 'V-Chip' violates > the First Amendment -- and the American Civil Liberties Union is > backing them on it. How can putting power in the hands of parents > violate the First Amendment?" > It is simple, Mr. Minnow. It is the same line of perverted reasoning > we see on Internet all the time from the people who constantly find > fault with the Communications Decency Act. Instead of accepting it for > what it is intended to accomplish, and attempting to work in good > faith to meet the requirements of the law and help the Internet and > Usenet reach the potential it could have; to help this 'great new > promise' become something other than the 'vast wasteland' that tele- > vision became, organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation > and the ACLU have done nothing but thwart the intention of Congress > and fight and belittle the desires of the American public every step > of the way. Agreed that the "slippery slope" application (first they came for the pornographers...) probably does not apply in this case. Agreed that the First Amendment only applies to Congress. (Thanks to Catherine Hampton, who uses the First Amendment as her .sig) > "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, > or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom > of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to > assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Agreed that producers et al do *not* have to provide lowest-common- denominator material. Each individual, within his or her Constitutional rights, should be able to produce material as he or she pleases. Agreed that the V-chip doesn't violate the First Amendment, since it does not restrict speech any more than a tax on newspapers (yes, newspapers are taxed in California), or a tax on telephone use, restricts speech. However, as long as we're agreed that the First Amendment *only* applies to Congress, one must acknowledge that the First Amendment *does* apply to Congress in general, and the Communications Decency Act in particular. No, there is no "unlimited" Constitutional right to free speech, but if Congress *is* going to abridge this right, there needs to be a compelling reason for doing so. Although the promoters of the CDA speak of banning "child pornography," et al, the *actual* language of Sections 502 and 507 is much broader. [a portion of Section 502 of the CDA] > `(d) Whoever-- > `(1) in interstate or foreign communications knowingly-- > `(A) uses an interactive computer service to send to a > specific person or persons under 18 years of age, or > `(B) uses any interactive computer service to display in > a manner available to a person under 18 years of age, > any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other > communication that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms > patently offensive as measured by contemporary community > standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs, regardless > of whether the user of such service placed the call or > initiated the communication; or > `(2) knowingly permits any telecommunications facility under > such person's control to be used for an activity prohibited by > paragraph (1) with the intent that it be used for such activity, > shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned > not more than two years, or both. This portion of the CDA goes beyond "child pornography," unless you consider MAD Magazine, the Bible, and printed medical journals as purveyors of smut. There are existing, legal printed communications that are patently offensive in some community or another; if these sexual and excretory discussions are permitted in printed matter, why are they prohibited on the Net? [a portion of Section 507 of the CDA] > (a) IMPORTATION OR TRANSPORTATION- Section 1462 of title 18, > United States Code, is amended-- > (1) in the first undesignated paragraph, by inserting `or > interactive computer service (as defined in section 230(e)(2) > of the Communications Act of 1934)' after `carrier'; and > (2) in the second undesignated paragraph-- > (A) by inserting `or receives,' after `takes'; > (B) by inserting `or interactive computer service (as > defined in section 230(e)(2) of the Communications Act of > 1934)' after `common carrier'; and > (C) by inserting `or importation' after `carriage'. [here is some of the illegal material under Section 1462 of title 18] > (c) any drug, medicine, article, or thing designed, adapted, or intended > for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral use; or any > written or printed card, letter, circular, book, pamphlet, advertisement, > or notice of any kind giving information, directly or indirectly, where, > how, or of whom, or by what means any of such mentioned articles, > matters, or things may be obtained or made... In this case, my previous objection doesn't apply, since this material is illegal both on the Net and in printed matter. I just hope that the pro-lifers don't plan to publicize abortion methods on the Net. Basically, the vast majority of Representatives and Senators, both Republican and Democratic, took the opportunity to say "I hate pornography" by passing a vague and flawed law which unnecessarily abridges the freedom of speech. If they had limited the abridging to "child pornography," there wouldn't be an issue, and Apple Computer, Microsoft, Netcom, and a number of companies (not just the ACLU and the EFF) wouldn't be fighting the CDA in court. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: How Some Netizens Abuse the First Amendment Reply-To: Colin Rafferty From: craffert@ml.com (Colin Rafferty) Date: 25 Mar 1996 18:06:45 -0500 Before my submission to comp.dcom.telecom, I would like to tell you about myself so that you do not make any assumptions about me: I am an adult who enjoys looking at dirty pictures. I regularly download and view pornography, and I want to maintain the ability to do so. You may now disregard me as a porn-fiend, and keep your mind closed. In your article, you muddle the differences between government censorship and private editing. If some ISP to have approval over what people put on their home pages, that is its right. If I don't like it, that is my problem. On the other hand, if the US Government wants to have approval, that is censorship. The former is freedom of expression. The latter is government censorship, and is illegal. The CDA is being fought by the American Library Association and others because it is a direct violation of the First Amendment. Congress has made a law abridging the freedom of speech in a manner the the Supreme Court has explicitly said is invalid. The word "indecent" is not allowed. > I wonder how dumb the EFF/ACLU people think the rest of us are? They > were in court in Philadelphia very recently... trying to convince a > panel of three judges that when they say 'First Amendment', the rest > of us had better shut up and take what is handed to us. The net is as > much *ours* as it is *theirs* whether they like it or not. I for one > do not intend to shut up anytime soon and I hope you won't either. They do not want you to shut up. They want you to be able to say whatever you want. It is you who wants to stop people from doing what they want. You use the excuse that you are "protecting children", or "cleaning up the garbage". By wanting the government to censor what we say, you do not deserve your own liberties. You have a problem with people fighting the CDA. It is your right to criticize them. However, if in doing so, you have "by means of a telecommunications device knowingly... create[d]... and initiate[d] the transmission of any comment... which is... indecent", then you "shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than two years, or both". Please note that we are not using your personal definition of "indecent", but any community's definition of this. The Federal Court in the Bay Area may find your comments indecent according to their community standards, and will indict you. This may be ridiculous, but that is the point. You have a problem with the EFF and ACLU "thwart[ing] the intention of Congress". I say, good for them. The intention of Henry Hyde and his cronies is to mislead and misinform the American people. He should be thrown out of Congress. In a perfect world, he would be tarred, feathered, and ridden out of Washington on a rail. What part of "Congress shall make no law" do you not understand? Colin Rafferty Violate the Communications Decency Act. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Mar 96 17:51 EST From: R. THOMAS BERNER Subject: Communications Decency Act Input Wanted Forwarded FYI to the Digest: Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 15:48:07 -0400 To: newscoach-l@freedomforum.org From: bbuchanan@freedomforum.org (Brian Buchanan) Subject: Comm. Decency Act input "The Communications Decency Act: Saving Our Children or Sacrificing Our Rights?" The Freedom Forum's First Amendment Ombudsman, Paul McMasters, is hosting a program Friday morning, March 29, on the Communications Decency Act at the World Center headquarters. U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who opposes the new law, will be the featured speaker and take questions after his remarks. That will be followed by a roundtable discussion among panelists representing a full range of perspectives on the CDA and an invited audience. We would like to have your questions and comments for possible inclusion in the round-table discussion: -- Any specific examples of either on-line providers or users who already have censored themselves or "toned down" their material out of concern for running afoul of the law. -- Challenges to state laws similar to the Communications Decency Act. -- Examples of, or comments about, on-line material that offends you or that you think need to be restricted. We look forward to hearing from you. Your responses may be used in the program, and possibly on the air. Our e-mail address is news@freedomforum.org. Thank you. Brian J. Buchanan, director/journalism programs, The Freedom Forum, 1101 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22209. Phone 703/284-2859. Fax 703/284-2879. E-mail bbuchanan@freedomforum.org [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Readers: use this opportunity to get your opinions over to Mr. Buchanan ASAP for their event on Friday, just two days away. A lot of you have very good things to say. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #139 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Mar 27 14:17:10 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id OAA25617; Wed, 27 Mar 1996 14:17:10 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 14:17:10 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199603271917.OAA25617@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #140 TELECOM Digest Wed, 27 Mar 96 14:17:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 140 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Sudden Change in Telecom Archives (TELECOM Digest Editor) Cellular Vanity Dialing (Brian Brown) Can PacBell Stop Caller ID on My Phone in Maryland? (Paul Robinson) AT&T Guidelines For 900 Numbers (silk@cityscape.co.uk) Cellular Roaming/Billing Coordination (Jerry Kiernan) Anti-Tax Groups Aim to Deceive (Tad Cook) Should Cable Company go HFC or Digital? (Mark Gregory) How to Conference Two POTS Lines? (Gary Novosielski) Cellular Rates, NY and Elsewhere (Joel M. Hoffman) Does Traditional Corporate PBX Service Still Exist? (Joel M. Hoffman) A Note to Those Who Ordered Clocks (TELECOM Digest Editor) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 12:37:39 EST From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: Sudden Change in Telecom Archives Without apparently any real coordination or advance notice, someone decided to change the location of the Telecom Archives. They are now at mirror.lcs.mit.edu rather than (as before) at ftp.lcs.mit.edu. Therefore, anonymous ftp should be directed to mirror.lcs.mit.edu and users of the Telecom Archives Email Information Service should direct their email inquiries to 'tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu'. Sorry for the short notice; I found out about when I woke up this morning and people were writing and calling me saying mail to the old archives address was bouncing. PAT ------------------------------ From: brianb@cfer.com (Brian Brown) Subject: Cellular Vanity Dialing Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 16:41:18 GMT Organization: ConferTech, International Is this a common thing? As everyone knows, 800 or 888 vanity numbers often have an extra letter or two beyond the normal 7 digits(e.g. 1-800-DIS-COVE). When I dial one of these numbers with the extra letter on my cell phone, I get a special information tone error message that tells me my call cannot be completed as dialed. This makes it a real pain to dial vanity numbers, because you have to count out the seven digits as you call and make sure not to dial above seven. Is this everywhere? My cellular carrier is US West. Brian Brown ConferTech, International ------------------------------ From: Paul Robinson Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company/TDR, Inc. Silver Spring, MD USA Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 05:21:38 EST From: Paul Robinson Subject: Can PacBell stop caller ID on my phone in Maryland? In Comp.Risks, Henry Baker mentions that there is a feature available to allow someone to have their number be set to block caller ID: > PacBell will allow you to do `complete blocking' of caller ID for > *free* -- but you have to call 1 (800) 298-5000 and specifically > request this. You also have to listen to this 2-3 minute canned > speech extolling the virtues of caller ID before they'll let you > get complete blocking. I called the number, and a live operator spoke to me, asking if I was calling about this feature. When I said yes, she asked me for the billing number to be changed. I sort of played dumb, and she repeated the request, this time saying "the telephone number" I wanted to have this done for. However, Pacific Bell serves California. I called from a phone in Silver Spring, Maryland! (Two miles from Washington, DC). I hung up, resisting the temptation to be silly, give her my actual number and complain, "Well, why are you taking calls from here if you only operate in California?" If Pacific Bell can't even set up an 800 number that only operates in their service area, I shudder to think what kind of other mistakes they are likely to make. I mean, if they use one of their own numbers ("own" meaning one issued by them for intra-state calling), it's internal and there's no cost to them, whereas if they are using a nationwide 800 number, they'll have to be "paying" the carrier something, even if it's a set-off of charges owed. It's still revenue loss. > This number supposedly works 24 hours/day, 7 days/week. Well, it was around 5:15 in the morning here, which would make it 2:15 there, so that's probably right. Paul Robinson General Manager Tansin A. Darcos & Company/TDR, Inc. ------------------------------ From: silk@cityscape.co.uk (Susie) Subject: AT&T Guidelines For 900 Numbers Date: 27 Mar 1996 13:37:47 GMT Organization: IP-GOLD User Hello there, Thanks for reading this plea for help. Does anyone have an e-mail address for AT&T regarding 900 numbers? I need to ask them for a copy of their guidelines for this service. Please e-mail me if you have an address or even better if you know the guidelines. Thanks and Best Wishes, Susie [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I was unaware that AT&T was even still selling this service other than servicing what accounts they already had. I know someone who inquired about AT&T 900 service some time ago and got the impression from the person he spoke with at the company that they were not at all eager to have new customers. I do not know of any specific email address for them, however you could try calling their general customer service number 800-222-0300 and getting transferred. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Jerry Kiernan Subject: Cellular Roaming/Billing Coordination Date: 27 Mar 1996 11:24:39 GMT Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services How do roaming times get captured and the charges billed when roaming? Is there some sort of clearinghouse that pulls all this data together? I'm interested in Asia in this regard as it seems to me to be the area with the biggest growth in celluar communications. Any help will be appreciated. CIBERNET seems to capture most roaming charges here in the US. What is the comparable organization (s) for Asia? ------------------------------ From: Tad Cook Subject: Anti-Tax Groups Aim to Deceive Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 10:22:08 PST Anti-Tax Groups Aim to Deceive as Filing Deadline Approaches By Helen Huntley, St. Petersburg Times, Fla. Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News Mar. 25--Have you heard that the federal income tax is voluntary? That wages don't really count as taxable income unless you work for the federal government? That citizens of the 50 states are "nonresident aliens," not subject to U.S. laws? No? You obviously haven't visited "Terra Libra" or one of the other tax fantasylands springing up on the Internet's World Wide Web. The computer network is the latest marketing avenue for anti-tax groups. There's De-Taxing America in Alto, Mich., which charges $795 for a package to help you "get out of the system." Solutions! Data Services Co. in Cincinnati sells its package at a relatively cheap price of $500. Terra Libra in Phoenix says it can make you money through its multilevel marketing program. "If you think the government has the authority to pass a law saying your money belongs to them, you're a fool," said De-Taxing America's Barrie Konicov, who says he hasn't paid taxes since 1991. "People who pay taxes are slaves." Konicov is a Libertarian, as is the most famous anti-tax leader, Irwin Schiff, frequent talk show guest and presidential candidate. Schiff still claims income taxes are voluntary, even though he was sent to federal prison for tax evasion and the IRS collected the royalties he was due from his book, How Anyone Can Stop Paying Income Taxes. Indeed, as April 15 approaches, anti-tax theories sound appealing. And they often work -- initially. If you don't count your wages as taxable income, as the anti-tax groups suggest, chances are good the Internal Revenue Service will mail you a refund check. But that strategy usually doesn't work indefinitely: Odds are the IRS is eventually going to catch you. "More than 3,000 of what we call tax protesters have now been convicted in the United States since the mid-'80s," said Holger Euringer, IRS spokesman for Central and North Florida. The IRS has made a push in recent years to crack down on people who either don't file a return or refuse to pay their taxes. IRS computers are programed to pick up on discrepancies between returns filed by individuals and information forms filed by companies reporting what they have paid employees and subcontractors. The likely result: a bill for back taxes, penalties and interest. Another possibility: a criminal investigation. "The things they're suggesting that you do quite often are illegal and quite often will get you into some serious difficulty," Euringer said. "In our area this is not a new problem," he said. "We had the Keystone Society here in the early 1980s and we're still collecting from people who followed their advice." Other groups that have been active here are the Pilot Connection Society and the Carolina Patriots. Much of what the groups say is protected by the First Amendment granting freedom of speech, and no one regulates what goes up on the Internet. However, in December, six people involved with the Pilot Connection Society were convicted of mail fraud along with tax evasion and other charges. The group sold an "Untax Package" for prices of up to $2,500. The anti-tax strategy typically involves filing various letters and petitions with federal courts, employers, the IRS and other federal agencies. One suggestion the anti-tax groups make is to file a return reporting zero taxable income along with a cover letter explaining your point of view. "Our right to labor in a lawful occupation is an inborn and absolute prerogative, and the government may not impose a charge or fee for the exercise of such a right" is a typical claim made in one of the sample letters that can be found on the Internet. Other arguments used by tax protesters include: The definition of income does not include wages; no law imposes an income tax; federal jurisdiction does not apply to states and their citizens; and the income tax is not constitutional. The tax protesters' conclusion is that payment of income taxes is voluntary, and they choose not to volunteer. The IRS position is that the income tax was authorized by the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and paying is not optional. Normally, the IRS pursues collection through civil channels -- notices, audits, a lien on a house or car, a levy against a bank account or a paycheck. In some cases, the government goes further, filing criminal charges against people who fail to pay taxes based on anti-tax claims. The government says it usually wins, but not always. For a criminal charge to stick, the government has to prove "willful intent." In other words, there has to be proof that the citizen knew he was supposed to pay, but didn't. However, years may go by before federal prosecutors get around to bringing a case. It took nearly six years for Altamonte Springs police Officer Jeffrey K. Frazier to be charged with income tax evasion and failure to file returns, even though he made no secret of what he was doing. The IRS says that in 1990, Frazier even threatened the city finance director with criminal prosecution for theft for withholding too much in taxes from his paycheck. According to the IRS, Frazier reported only $317 of his more than $32,000 in gross income for 1989 and claimed nine exemptions -- netting him a full refund of the $7,466 that had been withheld from his paycheck. After that, the IRS says Frazier filed false W-4 forms to reduce his withholding and tried to revoke his Social Security number, both strategies that some anti-tax groups recommend. He was arrested in January and his case is pending. The IRS now instructs employers to reject invalid W-4 forms and to send the IRS any statements that employees submit supporting the claims in the W-4 forms. "The IRS gets many leads from employers," Euringer said. And the obligation to pay taxes -- including Social Security taxes -- continues whether or not you have a Social Security number, he said. Anti-tax arguments frequently are adopted by groups that also reject other areas of federal jurisdiction. California tax protester Phillip Marsh was among 11 people indicted in Tampa recently for conspiracy and obstruction of justice. The group is accused of threatening federal judges with kidnapping and execution, threatening jurors and causing mistrials. ---------------- ON THE INTERNET: Visit "sptimes.com", the World Wide Web site of the St. Petersburg (Fla.) Times. Point your browser to http://www.sptimes.com ---------------- tad@ssc.com | Tad Cook | Seattle, WA | KT7H | [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Another of the common arguments heard is that the law establishing the IRS is invalid because it was not properly passed, and that the 16th Amendment was not correctly ratified. I won't mention any names, but the leader of one of the largest and best known tax-resistance groups used to be a top collections/enforcement officer for the Illinois Department of Revenue. A couple of veterans who were with the Internal Revenue Service for years have also at one time or another jumped ship and started getting involved with the tax resistors. But be aware and cautious: those 'former' government employ- ees are snakes; real vermin. Did you ever wonder why the IRS so seldom loses a court case? They know which judges to have assigned to hear cases. Here in Chicago, one federal judge for many years cheated extensively on his own taxes every year. Finally the IRS sat down with the judge and had a 'little talk'. Now when tax evasion or tax protest cases come up here in the Chicago area, guess which federal judge is assigned time and again to the case ... ... guess how he rules ... . A few years ago the IRS had one of the top honchos, a leader of one of the resis- tance groups on trial. He presented the usual arguments which have long since been resolved in Appeals Court. He also presented a couple of factual matters pertaining to his own alleged liability which were somewhat more difficult to resolve in favor of the IRS. Throughout the trial, one of the Big Men from the local office of IRS stood in the back of the courtroom listening intently to the whole thing and glaring at the judge. Finally the judge blurted out, "I am getting blackmailed by the IRS ...". The Big Man heard that and turned around, and stormed out of the courtroom. Apparently the IRS has taken many tax evaders and 'turned them', that is, converted them for their own good in catching and prosecuting other tax evaders. I guess a few federal judges know that to be the case. PAT] ------------------------------ From: rcomg@cse.rmit.EDU.AU (Mark Gregory) Subject: Should Cable Company go HFC or Digital? Date: 26 Mar 1996 05:54:15 GMT Organization: Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Australia. Hi, I have been asked by a cable company who have all of their cable in power poles and want to put some underground whether the underground link should be analog or digital. Should they put in a digital backbone or transmit using analog HFC. They want to protect themselves against the future. They want data and telephone capabilitiover the link and expect a lot of internet traffic using cable modems. Please email to me if you have any comments. Thank you, Mark Gregory, Course Leader m.gregory@rmit.edu.au PH+61 3 96603243 FAX+61 3 96621060 http://www.co.rmit.edu.au Department of Communication and Electronic Engineering, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Australia ------------------------------ Organization: GPN Consulting Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 02:06:51 -0500 From: Gary Novosielski Subject: How to Conference Two POTS Lines? A few years back there used to be a switch-box device marketed by Radio Shack that would plug a single line phone into an RJ-14 jack, and let you select either of the two lines, or conference both lines together. I think it had a hold button too, but the conference feature is what interests me. Now, when I need one, this device seems to have disappeared from the market. Radio Shack doesn't have it, Hello Direct doesn't have it, even Mike Sandman doesn't have it. (At least their catalogues don't list it.) I know some two-line phones have this feature, while others don't, but I really don't need yet another phone, just the ability to (very occasionally) conference two POTS lines together. If this device is typical of most consumer telecom gizmonics, I suspect the circuitry inside is pretty simple. I've had the experience of opening up such devices and kicking myself for paying twelve bucks for $1.98 worth of parts in a roomy plastic box (with, admittedly, an FCC number on the bottom). So, can someone tell me what's needed, electrically, to conference two POTS lines together? Is it enough to just bridge them tip-to-tip, ring-to-ring, or is additional isolation needed? If so, what would the circuit for such a device look like? I've got access to a decent junk box of parts, including a network from an old 2500 phone if that would help. I've checked the telecom-archives already: close, but no cigar. Thanks in advance. Regards, Gary Novosielski mailto:gpn@village.ios.com PGPinfo: keyID A172089 GPN Consulting http://village.ios.com/~gpn 2C 5C 32 94 F4 FF 08 10 B6 E0 DE 4F A2 43 79 92 [TELECOM Dgiest Editor's Note: Remember, the archvies moved. Well actually it is in the same place, but the machine is now known as 'mirror.lcs.mit.edu'. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Joel M. Hoffman Subject: Cellular Rates, NY and Elsewhere Date: 26 Mar 1996 14:57:26 GMT Organization: PSI Public Usenet Link Here in the New York area, cellular rates run roughly $0.65/min., not counting the "free minutes" included with the common plans. I was astonished to learn that in TX, $0.20/min. is closer to average. What's going on? We have three cellular carriers in NY (Nynex, AT&T and "Cellular One"), but the rates are all higher than elsewhere in the country, even though here the population density ought to make lower rates possible. Further, Nynex charges "roaming" rates inside it's own network. I don't know if the other carriers do, too. Is this a matter of price-colusion, or is cellular service really that much more expensvie to operate in NY? Joel (joel@exc.com) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I was rather surprised to find out how expensive cellular service was in New York also. Ameritech in their five-state region here in the midwest charges 35/18 per minute and has a fairly low monthly service charge as well. The prices for cell phones are *really* outrageous in Los Angeles, Atlanta and Miami. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Mar 96 10:15 EST From: joel@exc.com (Joel M. Hoffman) Subject: Does Traditional Corporate PBX Service Still Exist? Lisa Hancock wrote: > When I was trained as a cord PBX operator years ago, phone company > literature emphasized the importance of service to the caller. For > [Modern "voice mail" systems are nice to callers.] Agreed! (My favorite example of this comes from Seagate Computers, who, at least a few years ago, had a welcome message: "Thank you for calling Seagate Computers. If you would like an on-line tutorial of our phone system, press '6' now." As though I have nothing better to do with my time!) This is but one more example of how (some) technology has actually made things HARDER. It used to be I would pick up the phone and press '0' to get an operator, right away. "555-1212" gave me directory assitance, right away. Now, I get machines with both. And they speak slowly. Too slowly. With too many words. 555-1212 asks if I want to let AT&T directory link service complete my call for an additional ... fifty cents. I can accept by pressing '1' at any time during this message. I can decline by pressing '2.' What I CANNOT do is get the number I need. > As a caller, it frustrating dealing with this!!! Does anybody know > things have evolved this way? All companies do it, so you can't simply > take your business elsewhere. And heaven help you if you have a rotary > phone (as quite a few people still do) -- then you're left in voice mail > jail. Most places will eventually give you a person if you pretend you have a rotary phone; that's what I usually do. But the local telco (Nynex, yuck!) doesn't service people with rotary phones. When my phone service went out, and I called Nynex from a cellular phone (at $0.65/min!), I got an announcement that "all of our operators are currently busy. If you're calling from a touch-tone phone, press '1'. If you're calling from a rotary phone, please call back later.) > problem, or maybe a couple: The volume of phone traffic in recent > years has increased so greatly that if companies were to offer any > form of personal service at all where incoming calls to the switch- > board are concerned, they would need twice as many operators as they When you call IBM's world headquarters, you get a person. It's wonderful. Joel (joel@exc.com) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 12:59:18 EST From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: A Note to Those Who Ordered Clocks This is a note to those of you who contacted Jim Hill regards getting one of the old Western Union clocks. Quite a few of you responded to him and got back information. Some of you then ordered one or more of the clocks. This is just a followup to inquire if you have received your clocks and if you are satisfied with your purchase, etc. As was pointed out, all of the clocks in the collection he aquired had been laying around in a storage area for *years*; all were in need of at least some cosmetic work; and some required attention to the works because of rust and other decay. His supply is pretty well gone now. He said a number of inquiries are still coming in daily and he is filling what he can from what remains available. He thinks he might be able to negotiate for a few more with 'an old man who wants an arm and a leg for them' if there is interest. One person wrote me to say that the works he got had a lot of rust and would require quite a bit of restoral work. I think Jim is going to try and find a different set of works for him. A couple people said the electrical wiring was very frayed and probably should be replaced in the ones they got. In one case, the sweep second hand had been bent but then straightened out. The one I got had no real problems with the works other than needing a suspension spring which I am looking for now. The glass on the front was cracked and the bottom of the case was rusted. Someone wrote inside the cover of mine the date and note: "June 1, 1969 adjusted". Suffice to say, anyone who gets one or more of these should, at a minimum, have an interest in restoring old clocks and some limited knowledge of how they operated, etc. Please write to me and let me know about the one you received if you have not done so already. For inquiries about obtaining one of the old Western Union clocks or possible replacement parts and such, write direct to Jim Hill: eli@seldon.terminus.com. PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #140 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Mar 27 17:55:13 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id RAA22713; Wed, 27 Mar 1996 17:55:13 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 17:55:13 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199603272255.RAA22713@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #141 TELECOM Digest Wed, 27 Mar 96 17:55:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 141 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Scams, Scams and More Scams (Florida Times-Union via Tad Cook) Intel Drops Out of Cable Modem Race/Focus on Silicon (Rick Walsworth) Bell Canada's "Name That Number" Lookup Service (Tim Meehan) Visual Call Waiting? (Witold Dziewaltowski-Gintowt) Remote Call Forwarding (External Device) (Gary Brown) Long Distance Wholesale Club (John Mayson) Telecom Services for The Health Care Industry (Tara D. Mahon) Seeking Carrier To Route 800 by Zip Code or County (Judith Oppenheimer) CTI/ASAI Presence on Usenet From Lucent Technologies/AT&T (Aaron Spurlock) Having File Transfer Problems Across Modem/Termserv/Telnet (Mark Inaba) Need Pre-Paid Calling Cards (Ken Wells) Digicall/Digivox Information Wanted! (Alex van Es) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tad Cook Subject: Scams, Scams and More Scams Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 08:59:25 PST The {Florida Times-Union}, Jacksonville, Opportunities Column By Simon Barker-Benfield, The {Florida Times-Union}, Jacksonville Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News Mar. 25--Joe Chesser has become something of an expert on the home-based business opportunity industry. This is an industry that includes some legitimate business people offering real opportunities -- and some other people who are offering nothing but problems. A large component of the industry is companies that advertise dozens of turnkey, prepackaged, businesses-in-a-box aimed at people who want to make extra income working out of their homes. Wrapped around some of these boxes is a message: The work is easy and does not require much effort, knowledge or investment. Chesser, a Branford resident, has another message: He has tried a few of these businesses and they are all hard work. And regulators offer a warning: Watch your wallet. These biz op sellers typically rely on late-night TV infomercials -- and magazine and newspapers ads -- to recruit buyers. They also participate in home business shows in various cities. The infomercials are often the first clue that the biz op sellers are preparing to make a sweep through Jacksonville. And the pitches are invariably built around personal testimonials. "I learned how to make $200,000 a year," says one person interviewed in a recent infomercial. "I made $60,000 last year and I expect to triple that," said another. It all sounds intriguing, but very few details are provided. The details are made available later -- at a sales meeting. Except the sales meetings are not called sales meetings, they are are called "seminars" or "briefings" and are held at a local hotel or motel. Sometimes they are free, sometimes a fee is charged. One recent $10 seminar managed by the Vision Group of Cleveland, Texas, at the Radisson Riverwalk Hotel was attended by about 200 hopeful or curious people, and one reporter. It lasted four hours -- no coffee provided -- with two restroom breaks, which the sales staff used to close on sales. The format was a series of pitches delivered by relays of men talking really fast, urging the audience to spend anything from $495 for a three-ring binder full of information to $3,000 for a business-in-a-box. And the opportunities presented ranged from selling advertising on the Internet to making a killing on overstocked merchandise, auctions, prepaid telephone cards and foreclosed real estate. Frank Tucker can always tell when people offering business opportunities in foreclosed real estate are working Jacksonville. The promoters' customers start calling. Tucker is a senior vice president at First Union National Bank of Florida, and he is in charge of marketing foreclosed real estate. "They call and ask, 'What have you got, we want to make a killing,"' Tucker said. Foreclosed houses are a perennial favorite of the business opportunity industry. The promoters say there is a glut of foreclosed property on the market, which creates opportunities for people without capital to buy and sell heavily discounted homes and make large profits. Offers are often linked to services that will provide lists of foreclosed homes. What Tucker says the promoters fail to mention is there is no glut of foreclosed homes in Florida, successful speculators are the ones with cash, and lists of foreclosed properties are available from major lenders for free. Dreams are for sale in infomercials, in newspaper and magazine ads, at trade shows and seminars -- and dreamers attract predators, say both federal and state regulators. "There are thousands of these deals on the street," said Bob James of Florida's Division of Consumer Affairs, the state agency that regulates some of the business offers. In just three cases involving vending machines, display racks and 900-prefix telephone numbers investigated by the Federal Trade Commission last year, investors were taken for almost $64 million. But the local Better Business Bureau, the Consumer Affairs division and the FTC all were unable to provide any recent cases in Jacksonville. Many of the business offers are technically legal, and people who do end up throwing away money are often too embarrassed by their greed and foolishness to file a complaint, a state official said. Spotting scams Clearly, many business opportunities are offered by honest people. The trick, of course, is trying to figure out which deals are honest, which are crooked and which are somewhere in between. The pitches are appealing, and manage to beguile the experienced and inexperienced alike. At one end of the scale is Chesser, who has been selling insurance for the past 16 years and lives in the south Suwannee County town of Branford. His wife is worried about her bank job -- the bank has been sold -- so they have been trying to broaden their sources of income. He has invested in home business kits before and so far this year has invested about $2,000, with mixed results. One business he has explored was built around the idea of providing child-monitoring services using a phone and a computer. "We found out you can't do that unless you are sitting there monitoring the computer," Chesser said. "Since I work and she is working, that kind of was out," Chesser said. "Most everything we are trying to do, we can't do, because you've got to be there to do it," Chesser said. The fundamental reality of these businesses is that the products do not sell themselves -- they require hard work and lots of marketing. "That is what I have found with all of this home business stuff," said Chesser, who is forging ahead with satellite TV service -- another home-based business opportunity. At the other end of the scale is Deanna Reach, who works in the grocery wholesale business in Las Vegas. Her husband is a security guard. To earn a little extra income, they bought a 900 number business for $2,500. And, says the Federal Trade Commission, they become one of thousands of people caught up in schemes where promoters promised big returns for doing very little work operating 900 numbers. "It just turned out to be a scam," said Reach. Here's how the 900 number scam worked. In legitimate businesses, companies lease 900 telephone numbers, where callers pay to hear anything from stock market reports to sports trivia -- even Florida Lottery results. In the Reachs' case, a promoter promised to also handle all the paperwork and collections. All they had to do was to pay for advertising the 900 number and sit back and watch the money roll in. But the money didn't roll in. "The numbers simply didn't generate the kind of volumes to make the kind of money that was promised,"said Allen Hile, assistant director of the Federal Trade Commission's division of marketing practices. In the Reachs' case, they got two responses after spending an additional $2,500 for advertising. But the Reachs were lucky. They got $4,000 of their $5,000 back, after Deanna Reach raised hell in Nevada and California and got some help from a friendly lawyer at the California Attorney General's Office. As a result of this and other cases, the FTC this month went after seven promoters offering 900-number businesses. It is taking the promoters to court, alleging they lied about potential profits or failed to substantiate their profit claims, as federal law requires. So, how does an investor spot a beguiling scam as opposed to a legitimate business opportunity? The first line of defense is to thoroughly check out the company offering the business opportunity, said Janice Donaldson, program director at the Small Business Development Center at the University of North Florida. "We caution people to be sure and talk to distributors and other people that have already gone into that business," she said. That also means making sure promoters provide the disclosure documents that they have to file with state or federal officials. In Florida, business opportunity sellers by law have to file a disclosure document with the Division of Consumer Affairs. There are similar FTC regulations. And Florida's Division of Consumer Affairs offers these tips on spotting bogus offers: Is there pressure to sign a contract right away? Are there claims of guaranteed earnings? Are there promises that no experience or selling is needed? Are there claims about huge profits? But ultimately, say the specialists, the best defense is to use common sense. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 14:49:47 -0800 From: Rick Walsworth Subject: Intel Drops out of Cable Modem Race/Focus on Silicon I hadn't seen this posted yet, thought it may be of interest to your readers. RMW Intel Drops Modem Plans For Internet Jeff Pelline, Chronicle Staff Writer After much bravado, Intel Corp. quietly has dropped plans to make modems to offer high-speed access to the Internet via cable TV systems. Instead, the Santa Clara chipmaker will focus on helping cable- modem makers cut costs for their products and license related technologies to them. Intel now is using its cable modems in commercial trials in Castro Valley with cable TV giant Viacom. Competition among the dozen or so cable-modem makers, including General Instrument, Motorola and LANcity, will be fierce, and a shake-out could result. Intel said it is not making any about-face in its strategy. It will continue to spend "tens of millions of dollars" in the market, more than originally budgeted, said Avram Miller, the company's vice president of corporate development. Miller also said the trials, in Castro Valley and elsewhere, will continue. However, the pending sale of Viacom's cable TV operations to Tele-Communications Inc. is likely to reshape, or end, the Castro Valley test later this year. Englewood, Colo.-based TCI is teaming up with @Home to offer high-speed Internet access starting in Sunnyvale using Motorola modems. The East Bay could be included later this year. In December, in a ballyhooed announcement, Intel, AT&T Network Systems, HP and Hybrid Networks said they would team up to develop products for Internet access on cable systems. It coincided with a big cable show in Anaheim. Intel will continue to work with those companies, Miller said. It also will help the industry develop standards for the modems. As reported, some of Motorola's clients are concerned about whether they will receive enough of the company's modems to meet expected demand. They also worry whether the products will include enough of the most popular features. Motorola denies that any such problems will occur and says it will meet the delivery schedule. ------------------------------------------ Rick Walsworth rickw@com21.com http://www.com21.com ------------------------------ From: duke@interlog.com (Tim Meehan) Subject: Bell Canada's "Name That Number" Lookup Service Date: 27 Mar 1996 16:14:30 -0500 Organization: Interlog Internet Services -Voice (416) 975-2655 -Data 515-1414 In this month's phone bill I found a new useful service that Bell is offering -- Name That Number. By dialing 1-416-555-1313, and entering the ten digit number, callers are given (for a 50 cent fee) the name and locality of the owner of that number. There are a few conditons: *This service only works for Bell numbers in Ontario and Quebec *Unlisted numbers, payphones, and subscribers to name blocking are not listed. I called it a few times and, surprisingly, the names are pronounced propery about 80% of the time. They pronounced my name as well as my father's correctly. Tim Meehan - Toronto +1 (416) 449-2369 duke@interlog.com - http://www.interlog.com/~duke ------------------------------ From: Witold Dziewaltowski-Gintowt Subject: Visual Call Waiting? Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 11:36:08 +0000 Organization: Cognos Incorporated The latest (March 25, 1996) TELECOM UPDATE from Angus TeleManagement mentioned a new service from Bell Canada called Visual Call Waiting. Unfortunately, the brief note did not describe the feature itself. Can anyone shed some light on Visual Call Waiting? Virtually, Witold Dziewaltowski-Gintowt Cognos Incorporated Software Engineer 3755 Riverside Drive voice: (613) 738-1338 x.3664 P.O.Box 9707, Stn. T fax: (613) 738-0002 Ottawa, Ontario Canada K1G 4K9 ------------------------------ From: gb Subject: Remote Call Forwarding (External Device) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 12:51:55 -0800 Organization: HealthNet Medical Services Group: On-Site Mobilabs/PrivaTest/AnotherOpinion: Medical Research & Case Review Help. We are in need of an external remote call forwarding device that can reroute a phone line (that carries our modem transmissions) from one teleprinter to a site where another teleprinter or a PC is. Because of the confidential nature of our business, we cannot simply add this feature to our telephone service through the telephone company. Some have suggested an external "store and forward" device that might combine the modem capabilities of the "Espresso" Communications Mailbox with the remote call forwarding capabilities of the VF 1000 by Muratec. Great idea ... but where is such an animal? Others have said perhaps we could find this feature buried somewhere in a voice/fax/modem card for a PC. Still, others have said that a telephone/answering machine somewhere should have this capability (while still utlizing a single line, if possible). We even considered setting up a basically dummy PC with no more than a FAX/Modem card and tiny hard drive that could "store and immediately forward" incoming data via some sort of automated software program that we might come across ... but where is it and would it actually work? ANY insight is appreciated. Thanks, Gary Brown ------------------------------ From: jmayson@p100dl.ess.harris.com (John Mayson) Subject: Long Distance Wholesale Club Date: Wed, 27 Mar 96 14:14:28 EST Every two or three months I receive an envelope in the mail, both at home and at my post office box, which reads: "Special notice to Florida Telephone Customers ... New dialing instruction stickers ... Enclosed." I get stickers telling me always to dial 10297 before the number and a flyer claiming an 83% savings (savings from *what*, they don't say). I know 10297 is just a long distance access code, but the "typical" consumer around here (okay, I'm stereotyping) probably thinks this was sent by the phone company and these are mandatory instructions. Does any other part of the country get these? I've always had a laissez-faire attitude towards business and believed consumers who get ripped-off or conned probably did something stupid that no law or regulatory agency could stop. But I'm a little uncomfortable with these mass mailings telling me what my "new dialing instructions" are. John Mayson | Palm Bay, Florida | john.mayson@harris.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Interesting that you mention it. I get those a lot also, and in fact one came in the mail just today. This one is entitled 'Important Notice About Your Phone Service' on the front of the envelope which is addressed to: Local Telephone Customer (at my address) This one says that effective at this time we are to begin dialing 10811 before our long distance calls. This is the 'Dime Line' program and all calls henceforth will be ten cents per minute to anywhere in the USA at any time. This is a service of VarTec. Last week there was one for 9.9 cents per minute at anytime/anywhere. I forget the 10xxx code we were told to use with that one. They all send little stickers noted as 'dialing instructions' to be pasted on the front of the phone. You are correct; I am sure the average telephone user is quite confused by it all, and that is the name of the game. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Mar 96 14:46:13 -0400 From: Tara D. Mahon Subject: Telecom Services for The Health Care Industry Health Care Business Operations: A 70s Infrastructure in a 90s World, Says Insight Research LIVINGSTON, NJ. March 25, 1996: U.S. medical science research and development ranks among the finest in the world; but the industry's computer and telecom back-office operations remain outdated and costly, says a new report from Insight Research. Unlike many other industries, the health care industry has not been focused on using technology to control costs and increase efficiency until very recently. Consequently, information systems in the health care industry are typically mainframe-based and inflexible -- which provides a unique opportunity for telecom and equipment vendors who can offer integrated, interoperable business solutions. According to _Telecom Services for the Health Care Industry_, the health care industry is just beginning to focus on telecommunications technology as the way to cut the cost of health care while improving quality and ensuring access to care. Insight Research uncovers two of the biggest opportunities to stimulate usage of a new health information infrastructure: health information networks (HINs) and telemedicine. HINs are the computer and telecom facilities that allow providers, payors, employers, pharmacies, labs, and other health care organizations to share patient, financial, and clinical data. Telemedicine is the delivery of health care services to a remote locations via telecommunications facilities. The study predicts both technologies will generate nearly $2 billion in telecom service revenue by 2001 -- a conservative estimate. "The $2 billion is for pure telecom transport, so it's just the beginning," explains Insight's president Robert Rosenberg. "We can expect other revenue to come from equipment costs, systems integration fees, network management fees, and transactional fees. This market is in its infancy and we see tremendous opportunity for those involved early on." _Telecom Services for the Health Care Industry_ predicts that telecom revenue from HINs will grow dramatically -- 72.8 percent compounded annually over the next five years. The study also uncovers revenue opportunities in teleradiology, interactive video, home health care, remote consultations, and international telemedicine. The report warns, however, that the biggest obstacle to the deployment of these technologies is the lack of telemedicine standards and protocols. For example, state licensure issues have yet to be resolved. Because a telemedicine call can cross state lines, a physician may be practicing medicine in a state where he is not licensed. Extensive projections and analyses are published in _Telecom Services for the Health Care Industry_, now available from Insight Research for $3,495. Insight Research, based in Livingston, NJ, is a leading provider of telecom market research and analysis. Visit Insight on the World Wide Web at htttp://www.wcom.com/Insight/insight.html. For more information on this study, please contact: Tara D. Mahon, The Insight Research Corporation, 354 Eisenhower Parkway, Livingston, N.J. 07039-1023, 201-605-1400 tel, 1440 fax, tara@insight-corp.com ------------------------------ From: callbrand@aol.com (CallBrand) Subject: Seeking Carrier to Route 800 by Zip Code or County Date: 27 Mar 1996 16:17:56 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: callbrand@aol.com (CallBrand) We've got a client who needs a carrier to route 800 shared use service by area code, and zip code or county; that uses outside agents/distrib- utors, and can bill each end user individually. A plus: if they'll hold the end user ultimately responsible for their usage versus the subscriber. Contact me by email or call 212 684-7210. Thanks. Judith Oppenheimer, President, Interactive CallBrand A leading source of information on 800 issues. CallBrand@aol.com, 1 800 The Expert, (ph) 212 684-7210, (fx) 212 684-2714 http://www.users.nyc.pipeline.com:80/~producer/ ------------------------------ From: aspurloc@ares.csd.net (Aaron Spurlock) Subject: CTI/ASAI Presence on Usenet From Lucent Technologies/AT&T Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 02:11:12 GMT Organization: Lucent Technologies Professional Services Reply-To: aspurloc@ares.csd.net My name is Aaron Spurlock, and I am employed by Lucent Technologies Professional Services (formerly AT&T's Systems and Technology company) as a Computer-Telephone Integration Consultant. I am announcing my presence here on Usenet in order to see what sorts of services, support, or consulting I, or others in my group, can provide to users of the internet community. Please be aware that this announcement is my personal doing, but with the knowledge and support of Lucent Technologies. Professional Services is not yet prepared to provide Usenet support to our customers, but are interested in seeing if this is a desired medium for that support. Also, we provide consulting services -- not maintenance. If you do have maintenance questions you would like addressed, though, I can forward them to our maintenance technicians. I would be interested in an informal "survey" so I can find out: 1) who is using the Definity G3 Adjunct/Switch Application Interface protocol, 2) what questions you might have, 3) and how we can best help you. Please respond to me via email; or, if you think other readers will benefit from your questions, post to this newsgroup. I will do my best to respond quickly, but please remember that this is not my primary responsibility -- I am just looking for new ways to serve our customers better. Aaron Spurlock aspurloc@ares.csd.net ------------------------------ From: mark@enterprise.ifp.uiuc.edu (Mark Inaba) Subject: Having File Transfer Problems Across Modem/Termserv/Telnet Date: 27 Mar 96 17:53:18 GMT Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Help! I'm having problems doing the following: Transfering a file using xmodem/ymodem/zmodem/kermit in the following manner: PC-modem---modem--terminal.server--telnet--unixbox--BBSprogram--xyzmodem (the termserver executes a telnet: telnet 4446) (the port service is a program called by Don Libes' expect sample program for getting through the oddities of telnet protocol). I am writing a BBS program in C that does a bunch of text menus primitive, but it just needs to get the job done. Everything seems to work fine as far as menus and commands, but when I tested various flavors of xyzmodem for file transfers, I get only errors (nothing gets transfered at all, usually. Once half a file got transfered and stopped. I'm not a wiz at telecom stuff and need some guidance or suggestions as to what might be wrong (and hopefully suggested fixes. I think that the text appears fine is a big clue somehow. I'm not sure what more rigorous demands binary xfers put on my links though. 1) Do I need to look into specifying telnet 8bit? when I do it on the command line it only seems to screw up a login ... but I've tried setting my pc modem to 7bit and nothing was different. What is this 8 bit telnet and why does it exist? I think it maybe that my cisco term serv might not do 8bit telnet ... it doesn't take: telnet -8L at anyrate ... (cisco ASM). If my paths are going from 7 to 8 and back again, wouldn't ALL my data get screwed up, including character? 2) Could my sample program from exploring expect be bad for binary file transfers? I'm told that it doesn't account for 8bit transfers ... but if the default in everything else in unixland is 7bit then that shouldn't be a problem ... should it? I'm stumped; I can't think of where else to look. Thanks for any help! Please email me directly any advice! mark@ifp.uiuc.edu ------------------------------ From: v73c@ionet.net (Ken Wells) Subject: Need Pre-Paid Calling Cards Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 19:23:23 GMT Organization: TCCG Greetings, I am looking for a firm that sells pre-paid calling cards. I have a small market that this will fill. Unfortunately, almost every place I have visited on the Web has been MLM related. I do not want "free long distance for life." I do not need to get seven million downline agents and numerous business centers. I simply want to discuss a small order of retail or promotion pre-paid calling cards with a company in that field. If there is anyone with information, please let me know. Sincerely, Ken Wells 1142 Auahi Street, Suite 2014 Honolulu, HI 96814 HI Voice 808-593-3623 CA Fax 805-238-7994 Ask Operator for Ext 5050 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 19:00:31 +0100 From: Alex van Es Subject: Digicall/Digivox Information Wanted! Hi there, Is anybody outthere familiar with software called Digicall or Digivox? The software runs on a regular PC and it can then register calls being made on a PABX (time, length, number etc). Anybody knows where to get more info regarding this software and it's possibilities? Alex@Worldaccess.NL, Apeldoorn, The Netherlands Phone:+31-55-5421184 GSM:+31-6-53398711 Try to page me using my homepage at: http://www.worldaccess.nl/~alex/sms/beep.htm ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #141 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Mar 28 11:22:39 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id LAA09044; Thu, 28 Mar 1996 11:22:39 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 11:22:39 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199603281622.LAA09044@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #142 TELECOM Digest Thu, 28 Mar 96 11:22:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 142 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson The Sprint Free Fridays Saga Continues (Steven R. Kleinedler) Sprint and Fridays (Sid Arora) Sprint Fridays Are Free Minimum (Keith Jarett) Re: Sprint Sense Free Fridays - More Good News (Ken Leonard) Re: Sprint Wants Asian American Customers (Michi Kaifu) Re: Telephony Toolkits (Bruce A. Pennypacker) Re: Telephony Toolkits (Mick O'Halloran) FTP Sites With ITU Standards - Answers Needed on Documents (Amish Chana) Question About Protocol Overhead in an E3 Line (Rogelio Montanana) NobleNet "Component API" Announcement (David Burns) Party-Lines and "Pillow Talk" (Mark J. Cuccia) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: srkleine@midway.uchicago.edu (steven r kleinedler) Subject: The Sprint Free Fridays Saga Continues Organization: The University of Chicago Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 02:24:05 GMT Dear Pat and all: Today I got a Western Union mailgram from Sprint, which read, in part: "We have tried without success to reach you to discuss your participation in our Fridays Free promotion. As described in our tariffs, the Fridays Free promotion is designed for commercial use only, and we are not able to offer this promotion to non-business customers. We are therefore writing to obtain verification of your business status. The acecptable forms of documented verfication include:" [deletia] "If we do not receive one of the above acceptable forms of verification by noon CST, on Thursday March 28, 1996, we will need to convert your account to Sprint Sense..." Well, well, well. When I enrolled, and when the SprintDude asked for my name of business, I said, "I'm a residence, not a business." And he said, "Well, what name do you want on the bill?" Seems like Sprint is reneging. Anyhow, I switched back to my former long distance carrier, who gave me a nice bundle of goodies for switching back. It was nice while it lasted. This message has been brought to you by Steve Kleinedler. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: How many Free Fridays did you get before Sprint told you they were not going to honor their agreement any longer? Are you planning any legal action against them? A formal complaint with the FCC might be in order, and I assume any amounts they claim are due for the period you were on the program will be withheld in dispute pending settlement. If you do any followup on this at all, please let us know. PAT] ------------------------------ From: arora@risky.ecs.umass.edu (S. Arora) Subject: Sprint and Fridays Date: 27 Mar 1996 23:18:03 GMT Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst Pat, I just thought I would let you know I received a Western Union Mailgram in the mail today. This is what it stated: March 26, 1996 Dear Customer, We have tried without success to reach you to discuss your participation in our Fridays Free promotion. As described in our tariffs, the Fridays Free promotion is designed for commercial use only, and we are not able to offer this promotion to non-business customers. We are therefore writing to obtain verification of your business status. The acceptable forms of documented verification include: * An official document containing both the Tax ID number and the Company Name (Examples include: Tax Returns, Notice of Tax ID) * Articles of incorporation * Annual Reports If we do not received one of the above acceptable forms of verification by noon CTST, on Thursdays, March 28, 1996, we will need to convert your account to Sprint Sense, our primary service for non-business customers. This will be your only notification of this request. Please fax your verification correspondence to 1-800-297-5762. All verification must be recived by noon CST, Thursday, March 28, 1996. If you have been previously contacted and have already furnished the required information, please disregard this notice. We value your business and apologize for any inconvenience. Thank you for your cooperation! Sincerely, Robin Lloyd Business Marketing --- End of Document ----- As you can see they have changed their policy. I in fact called up Sprint Business and was told that yes indeed what I was told in early February that as a non-business customer I could use Sprint as long as I paid the higher rates, but that since then the higher authorities at Sprint have changed their minds and that more importantly if Sprint does not enforce their new policy of offering this service to businesses only they will be in serious trouble with the FCC. Makes me wonder *who* is making the mistakes here: me or Sprint? I was offered one thing, and now they turn their backs and say something else. Sid [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well the answer very simply is that Sprint has made the mistakes. They made a big one and now they are compounding it with lots of little ones. The truth is the FCC does not care who enrolls for what program. Sprint is saying that to pass the buck and try to get out of the mess they created by their own marketing decisions and lack of coordination with their customer service representatives. Try this when the bill arrives for whatever service you have used to date: refuse payment and tell them 'higher authorities' at your organization have instructed that payment is to be withheld pending resolution of the dispute. It would appear to me they knew all along they did not intend to honor their contract with you; it was a way to get you to sign up and spend a few dollars. I would have to say to everyone who has signed up for Free Fridays with Sprint that you be **very cautious** at this point about sending them any money at all until they confirm *in writing* to you that you are correctly enrolled in the program. If they ask why, tell them you are now seeing instances of people who signed up for the program, and started using it only to have Sprint renege on the deal and simply try to walk out of the contract. Tell them you will consider accepting as liquidated damages what they claim you owe them for calls made on other days of the week as part of the Business Sense program. PAT] ------------------------------ From: keith@tcs.com Date: Wed, 27 Mar 96 21:18:36 -0800 Subject: Sprint Fridays Are Free Minimum Got my first full month's bill via Pacific Bell. Only $42 including over $5 tax. So the $50 minimum is not in effect. $384 of free usage. Yippee!! Has *anyone* on Sprint's Fridays Are Free plan gotten a full month's bill for $50 with less than $50 of non-Friday usage? Mine was $42, and others have apparently had similar experiences. If nobody is being billed the minimum, I can't understand how an error of this magnitude could be allowed to persist this long. Keith Jarett [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It has been 'allowed to persist this long' because Sprint does not know what they are doing most of the time. Their marketing people, customer service people and computer programming people all go around in their own orbits; like Haley's Comet maybe once every 79 years or so they come within close proximity of each other and see/hear/understand/grasp what the others are doing. Based on the other reports in this issue, I would caution against paying that $42 invoice until you find out for sure if Sprint is going to honor their contract with you or try to get out of it as they are doing with others. Big companies withhold payments all the time based on contract disputes; you can do the same. By the way, notice how Sprint is giving everyone only 24 hours or less to respond to their demand for documentation as a 'business'? Maybe you should give them only 24 hours to reply to your demands. PAT] ------------------------------ From: ken@kaiwan009.kaiwan.com (Ken Leonard) Subject: Re: Sprint Sense Free Fridays - More Good News Date: 26 Mar 1996 16:20:18 -0800 Organization: KAIWAN Internet (310-527-4279,818-756-0180,909-785-9712) Joel M. Hoffman (joel@exc.com) wrote: > According to a representative I just spoke with, there is indeed a > $50/mo. usage requirement for Sprint's "free Friday" program, but > _calls made on Friday count toward that $50_ even though you don't pay > for them. So you can make $50 worth of calls every Friday, nothing > else during the week, and pay only tax. (How much is tax, by the way? > On $1,000 it could add up!) > The representative specifically told me that 10333 access is insuff- > icient for the plan, contra what some other folks here have reported. According to Van Hefner's Discount Long Distance Digest (Issue 66-1) Sprint has just upped it's daytime residential rates from 22 cpm to 25 cpm. Also, there is a 40 cent surcharge for PIC'ing Sprint and may soon be upped to 80 Cents to match AT&T's PIC access charge. Ken ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 10:20:56 -0500 From: michi@ntta.com (Michi Kaifu) Subject: Re: Sprint Wants Asian American Customers My Japanese collegue received this offer in direct mail about two weeks ago, and here's what happened to her: She almost threw away the mail without opening it, but the envelope said "important immigration information inside", so she opened the mail. It said that she would be "automatically" enrolled in the membership, "unless she calls 1-800-531-2974 to cancel it". The membership included Sprint service and other discount offers, as well as their "service" to help immigration procedures. A very good sales person in a phone company, she immediately sensed that it is a new way of "slamming". Sprint brochure said 46 cents per minute to Japan, which is a pretty good rate, but it also said "call us now 1-800-800-8888 to sign up". A different rate may be applied if you are simply a "member" of this association and do not call Sprint. She called 1-800 number the next day. A guy with a heavy accent told her bluntly that he is not in charge of cancellation, but would take a message, and to call them back the next day. She called again the next day. A different guy answered and asked her the number indicated in the mail, again bluntly, and took a cancellation order. Again, as a good sales person in this industry, she asked to give her some confirmation, cancellation number, or something. He said he could give her nothing because somebody else is in charge, and hang up. In the meantime, my husband, also a Japanese, received the same mail. (Somehow, I did not receive it.) I told him that he should call to cancel the membership, if he does not want to switch to Sprint. He did, but nobody answered the phone, so he did not bother to try again. My friend went out of town on vacation for a week after that, and when she came back, found in her NYNEX bill that her AT&T charges were not included. Her line was switched to Sprint. She called AT&T to switch it back. Just because she happened to open the mail, and because she is familiar with this battlefield of long distance business, she could deal with it, but I assume many people would not even notice that they were enrolled in the "membership" and their lines were switched to Sprint. So when I got home the same day, I checked my husband's line with 1-700-555-1414, and it still was AT&T. I hope this fact indicates that Sprint realized the nature of this conduct and stopped dealing with them. Michi Kaifu NTT America, Inc. michi@ntta.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think what this indicates is not any remorse or change of behavior by Sprint. I think what happened was when your friend called to cancel her 'membership' the person she spoke with just went ahead and willfully slammed her anyway. By the way, 'negative option contracts' are illegal in the USA unless you have already established a relationship with a company. A 'negative option' contract is one where the indicated action takes place unless you specifically forbid it to occur. Example: Book club writes to you as a *prospective customer* and says, 'unless you tell us not to in writing, we are going to send you these books and this is how much you will owe.' That is illegal. If book club writes to you as an *existing customer* and says, 'we will send you the selection for this month unless you return the notice and tell us not to send it and this is how much you will owe us', that *is* legal. But even then, the seller must agree to take back the merchandise and cancel the bill if you are not satisfied. Negative option contracts have to allow a minimum period of time for response; at least ten or fifteen days must be given for mail to be delivered and returned, etc. If Sprint has no prior business relationship with the people getting those letters, then it is clearly illegal for them to use 'negative option' in converting their telephone long distance service. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Bruce A. Pennypacker Subject: Re: Telephony Toolkits Date: 27 Mar 1996 22:10:32 GMT Organization: CompuServe Incorporated In article telecom16.136.9@massis.lcs.mit.edu, gborges@geoware.com (George Borges) said: > I've been charged with the task of implementing a four-line IVR > system. It'll be developed under VB. > My question is: > Has anyone had any experience with the various CTI toolkits for VB? > I'm currently leaning towards Visual Voice Pro by Stylus but would > love to hear from anyone with experiences with this or any other > toolkit. Take a look at the Stylus Web site (http://www.stylus.com). One of the things listed there is a number of magazine articles on computer telephony from magazines like Byte, PC World, Visual Basic Programmers Journal, etc. Track down some of those articles and you can read comparisons of various products. Another thing to check would be back issues of {Computer Telephony} magazine. It's a great source for information on telephony toolkits like Visual Voice and others. Bruce ------------------------------ From: Mick O'Halloran Subject: Re: Telephony Toolkits Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 16:43:04 -0800 Organization: Best Internet Communications George Borges wrote: > Has anyone had any experience with the various CTI toolkits for VB? > I'm currently leaning towards Visual Voice Pro by Stylus but would > love to hear from anyone with experiences with this or any other > toolkit. See page 108 of the March 1996 issue of {Computer Telephony} magazine for a comparison of the Visual Voice and VOS telephony toolkits. Mick O'Halloran Mick@lillypad.com ------------------------------ From: Amish Chana Subject: FTP Sites With ITU Standards - Answers Needed on Documents Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 10:50:31 +0200 Organization: UND I carried out a search on a number of Archie servers, for ITU recommendations (the SS7 & ISDN recommendations in particular). The search for q700 came up with the following : Host ftp://gatekeeper.dec.com (16.1.0.2) Last updated 16:37 8 Sep 1994 Location: /.2/bruno.cs.colorado.edu/pub/standards/ccitt/1992/q FILE -r--r--r-- 81341 bytes 01:00 16 Nov 1991 q700.asc FILE -r--r--r-- 74179 bytes 01:00 16 Nov 1991 q700.doc FILE -r--r--r-- 107008 bytes 01:00 16 Nov 1991 q700.rtf FILE -r--r--r-- 109889 bytes 01:00 16 Nov 1991 q700.wp5 Host scitsc.wlv.ac.uk (134.220.4.1) Last updated 17:04 1 Mar 1996 Location: /pub/infomagic/standards/ccitt/1992/q FILE -r-xr-xr-x 81341 bytes 05:00 31 Dec 1991 q700.asc FILE -r-xr-xr-x 74185 bytes 05:00 11 Dec 1991 q700.doc FILE -r-xr-xr-x 368907 bytes 05:00 25 May 1994 q700.ps Host ftp.iij.ad.jp (192.244.176.50) Last updated 02:40 20 Jan 1996 Location: /pub/standards/ccitt/1992/q FILE -rwxr-xr-x 287942 bytes 15:00 26 Aug 1993 q700.eps FILE -rwxr-xr-x 287942 bytes 19:00 25 Aug 1993 q700.eps FILE -rwxr-xr-x 81341 bytes 19:00 30 Dec 1991 q700.asc FILE -rwxr-xr-x 74185 bytes 19:00 10 Dec 1991 q700.doc There were a number of other FTP servers but the above turned up in almost every search. All the documents listed above are called "Fascicle". What does that mean? (I haven't come across this in the ISDN documents from the ITU). At the beginning of each Fascicle there is also a statement saying that all drawings have been done in Autocad, but all these documents have rectangles where the drawings should be. Are the drawings available in another file? Who creates these Fascicles? Thank you, Amish Chana mailto: chana@elaine.ee.und.ac.za ------------------------------ Organization: Valencia University (Universitat de Valencia) SPAIN Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 13:48:29 GMT From: Rogelio Montanana Subject: Question About Protocol Overhead in an E3 Line I would like to know what is the protocol overhead related to an E3 line. In particular I want to use it for IP over ATM traffic. Presumably this will depend on the type of framing used, G.751-PLCP or G.832-ADM. I know that for a DS-3 circuit (nominal bandwidth 44.736 Mbps) using PLCP framing the bandwith available to ATM is 40.704 Mbps, to AAL5 is 36.864 Mbps and to IP 36.841 Mbps. Regards, Rogelio Montanana, System Analyst Valencia University Computer Center Tel: +34-6-3864310 Dr. Moliner, 50 Fax: +34-6-3864200 46100 Burjassot (Valencia) e-mail: montanan@vm.ci.uv.es Spain ------------------------------ From: noblenet@world.std.com (NobleNet Inc.) Subject: NobleNet "Component API" Announcement Reply-To: noblenet@world.std.com Organization: NobleNet, Inc. Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 23:43:22 GMT For Further Information, Please Contact: David Burns Joel Weinstein Vice President of Marketing Douglas McCartney NobleNet, Inc. Pelorus Marketing Group Voice: (508) 460-8222 Voice: (508) 620-5387 FAX: (508) 460-3456 FAX: (508) 620-4783 e-mail: david.burns@noblenet.com e-mail: joelw@pelorus.com NobleNet Announces "Component API" Technology EZ-APIs simplify multiple API integration, allow developer enhancements. Boston, March 27, 1996 -- NobleNet, Inc. announces its EZ-API product family, the first example of commercial "Component APIs." Using NobleNet's innovative "OneDriver" architecture, EZ-APIs simplify the integration of industry-standard and custom APIs and enable developers to enhance API functions. Because OneDriver tightly bundles a standard network transport with each API, multiple APIs can share client, server and network resources. Component API technology automatically multiplexes API calls over a single network connection between client and server, and presents them to the server as a single user process. By tightly integrating multiple APIs on the server, application efficiency is increased, and servers can take on multiple API "personalities." In addition, EZ-APIs encapsulate each API function call in a modifiable source code wrapper on both the client and server, allowing developers to add enhancements to standard APIs such as security, auditing, compression, naming and caching. This is achieved without modifying API behavior. NobleNet's EZ-API family reflects an industry shift away from custom communications interfaces and towards standard C-based procedural APIs such as Microsoft's Open Database Connectivity API (ODBC) and Novell's Telephony Services API (TSAPI). Although this leaves developers with the need to find a framework to efficiently integrate multiple APIs and optimize their performance, there are solutions available. In the procedural world, NobleNet's EZ-APIs, provide this framework. Visual Basic provides the framework in the GUI environment while OLE and CORBA2 provide solutions in the object world. The first member of the EZ-API family, the OneDriver ODBC SDK, relocates the ODBC API from the Windows client to NT or to a wide variety of powerful UNIX platforms. The SDK includes all necessary communications software to connect Microsoft Windows 3.1, Win95, and NT clients to any standard TCP/IP server platform. OneDriver ODBC works with any ODBC-compliant database or front-end development tool including Visual Basic, PowerBuilder, Delphi and Microsoft Access. As with all EZ-APIs, it easily integrates with other "Component APIs" and offers enhancement capability to developers. "Five customers distributed the ODBC API on their own using our EZ-RPC compilers," said Steve Lemmo, founder and CEO of NobleNet. "Now, we'll do it for them. We're building a family of off-the-shelf industry-standard 'Component APIs' designed to integrate with each other and with custom APIs, and to be enhanced by developers." One customer that distributed the ODBC API using EZ-RPC is Aran Limited, of York, England. Aran manufactures the "SeaChange" Rapid Application Development (RAD) Environment that runs on top of a number of commercial databases. Aran needed to make data from any SeaChange database transparently available to any ODBC client. According to Adrian Hornby, Aran's Development Manager, "We used EZ-RPC to develop an ODBC driver that transfers data transparently between ODBC clients and UNIX servers in a SeaChange environment. EZ-RPC allowed us to avoid coding any of the complex network communications software ourselves. Now with the OneDriver ODBC SDK, NobleNet has done most of the work that we had to do ourselves to distribute the ODBC driver. If we had known about the OneDriver ODBC SDK product, we definitely would have used it. From our perspective, the attraction of the OneDriver architecture is that it moves all of the ODBC API from the client to the server. Since NobleNet has already solved all of the networking issues involved with distributing a complex API like ODBC, using the OneDriver ODBC SDK would have made our lives much simpler and reduced our time-to- market." "NobleNet EZ-APIs bring critical productivity improvements to distributed applications," said Dr. George Schussel, CEO and Founder of Digital Consulting, Inc. "Application developers can now deal with familiar API interfaces and not worry about how they will be distributed. EZ-APIs handle the distribution function in a completely transparent fashion. This provides a unique and valuable contribution to client/server computing." In a related matter, NobleNet successfully demonstrated its OneDriver TSAPI SDK technology at Novell's Brainshare '96 Developers Conference. The demonstration will continue at the Client/Server and Database World Exposition in Boston. OneDriver TSAPI SDK is targeted at TSAPI systems integrators and PBX vendors building TSAPI- compliant drivers and applications and computer vendors that need TSAPI client and/or server capabilities. Pricing and Availability: The NobleNet OneDriver ODBC SDK is available immediately and is priced at $2,500 per server for an unlimited number of users. Supported client platforms include Windows 3.1, Win95, and NT. Supported server platforms include NT, Sun Solaris, HP/UX, and IBM AIX. Ports to SCO and SGI will be available in 90 days. Independent Software Vendors (ISVs) can take advantage of NobleNet's reseller program which offers substantial discounts. About NobleNet: NobleNet offers tools for distributed client/server development for procedural and object paradigms. Incorporated in 1991, NobleNet is a world leader in Remote Procedure Call (RPC) technology and has won numerous awards for its EZ-RPC product family. NobleNet also distributes IONA Technologies' industry-leading "Orbix" CORBA- compliant Object Request Broker. The company is headquartered in Southboro, MA, and can be reached at (508) 460-8222 or at http://www.noblenet.com. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 08:46:15 CST From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: Party-Lines and "Pillow Talk" Recently on Cable-TV, AMC (American Movie Classics) and CBN (Family Channel) have both aired the late 1950's movie "Pillow Talk" which starred Doris Day and Rock Hudson. In "Pillow Talk", Doris Day and Rock Hudson shared a party-line. The movie took place in New York City. Rock Hudson was always tying up the line talking to numerous girlfriends from his "little black book", much to the dismay of Doris Day who couldn't use her phone to place or receive calls. Many times, Doris would pick up the phone constantly hearing Rock Hudson tying up the line and then the two of them would get into an argument. Both of them had complained to the "telephone company" about the problem, and there was even a revertive calling "ringback" code mentioned. The code was a three-digit code of the form "NNX". The only inaccuracy was that when Doris called Rock Hudson using the code, she picked up her phone, dialed the three digit code and then Rock Hudson's phone rang. This was also shown in the other direction too. When revertive codes are used for calling other parties on a party line, or ringing your own telephone, you must *hang up* after dialing the proper code and hearing some form of tone or busy signal. Then, your phone and the party you are trying to call will ring. Sometimes, *all* phones on a party line would ring in a particular ringing pattern when revertive dialing is used. But that aside, I did enjoy the movie, as it was quite nostalgic, and I enjoy telephone, radio, TV and motion picture nostalgia! MARK J. CUCCIA PHONE/WRITE/WIRE: HOME: (USA) Tel: CHestnut 1-2497 WORK: mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu |4710 Wright Road| (+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity 5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New Orleans 28 |fwds on no-answr to Fax:UNiversity 5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Another good movie from that era which was based on a play by the same name was 'Dial M For Murder'. Remember how the phone wires got crossed and a woman hears two men talking about committing a murder only to later find out they were talking about murdering *her*? It was a great film. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #142 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Mar 28 13:25:15 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id NAA21493; Thu, 28 Mar 1996 13:25:15 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 13:25:15 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199603281825.NAA21493@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #143 TELECOM Digest Thu, 28 Mar 96 13:25:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 143 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN (Christopher L. Davis) Cellular One "Authentication" (Michael Schuster) Re: Visual Call Waiting? (Michael Stanford) Re: Visual Call Waiting? (Brent Ellacott) Re: Visual Call Waiting? (Dan Rudiak) Re: Can PacBell Stop Caller ID on My Phone in Maryland? (C. Wheeler) Re: Can PacBell Stop Caller ID on My Phone in Maryland? (Derek Balling) Re: Sudden Change in Telecom Archives (Roy Mccrory) Re: Rhetorex --> Dialogic File Conversion (Melvyn G. Fishel) Re: Long Distance Wholesale Club (Jim Langridge) Re: Long Distance Wholesale Club (Joseph Singer) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 10:42:59 CST From: Christopher L. Davis Subject: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN My cellular phone company is touting a PIN number as the answer to some types of fraud. Not only touting it, but forcing me to use it. As of this morning, I cannot use my phone any more. To break my contract, they want to charge me $300. I must believe that a PIN number is incredibly easy to overcome. Is there any proof that these annoyning PIN numbers are any deterence to cellular fraud? If people are cloning the code from phones, it must be simple in comparisson to intercept a PIN transmission. If there is some written work supporting whatever is known about their effectiveness, that would be great. Christopher L. Davis Systems and Network Administrator The Principia PHONE: (314)-434-2100 13201 Clayton Road FAX: (314)-275-3538 St. Louis, MO 63131 INTERNET: cld@prin.edu [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I used to think PINs would not be much good, but I have changed my thinking somewhat. The reason is that the ESN is transmitted on a control channel and your PIN is transmitted on a different channel a few seconds later. Someone can be out there 'sniffing' for ESNs and grab yours but then they have to able to find you a couple seconds later on whatever channel you were assigned for your actual call. Now this can be done, but it imposes a bit more of a hardship on the cellular thieves. At one point I thought it all went out together, i.e. ESN, number being called and PIN meaning whoever was sitting there spying on you would simply get the entire string of digits. Ameritech was quick to inform me this is not the case at all. The ESN goes out one direction (a 'control channel') and the rest of it goes elsewhere. Good luck in finding it all in a timely way. Also, your ESN is transmitted when you first turn the phone on even though you may not make a call right away, but when you do your PIN gets sent. Not entirely perfect, but it has slowed down fraud quite a bit. The other technique many cellular carriers are using is to limit roaming ability to one or two prefixes only. Most customers do not ever roam it appears, and do not need to have the exposure which comes from their number being thus equipped. Ameritech in Chicago (which I believe is 'Cellular One' in St. Louis on the 'A' side while your 'B' carrier Southwestern Bell Mobility is the 'Cellular One' 'A' operator up here) recently eliminated virtually all roaming ability, period. If you need to roam, you must get a phone number on the 630-319, 630-399 or 847-727 prefixes. There are a couple of prefixes in 312 also available. Otherwise when roaming, you do not get intercompany billing courtesies; instead you deal with those old bandits 'Roamer Plus' who are happy to take a telephone calling card or major credit card *they can verify* and charge you $1.95 per minute plus $1.95 surcharge per call. I am told by an insider at Ameritech that around the first of this year, Ameritech got an invoice from Nynex for about five million dollars in roaming charges for Ameritech 'customers' on the east coast. Of that five million, four point eight of it was fraud. :) Ameritech's response was just go in and kill thousands of cellular numbers which had been roaming. Roaming, as we know it, ended that day with new controls tightly in place regards allowable prefixes, etc. I still don't have to use a PIN here, although Ameritech has been talking about making everyone do it for a long time, and my reseller Frontier is pretty much stuck with it. I expect it to happen someday soon. Now if you really are opposed to using a PIN and your phone will not work without one, then yes, you can cancel your service and no, they *cannot* charge you a cancellation fee simply because they have broken the contract with you by changing the terms of the service agreement. You cannot change the terms of a contract in the middle of it. Or perhaps you can, but the other party to the contract has the right to opt out of it if desired at that point. I suppose your continued use of your phone with a PIN would indicate your acceptance of the new contract terms. If you do not accept the contract changes, you are legally free to leave. If the carrier is charging your credit card each month, it would be a very good idea to notify your credit card company *immediatly* that no further charges from the carrier are to be accepted for any reason. This will prevent the carrier from sneaking in and debiting your account for their (in this instance) improper termination fee. If you got the phone 'for free' or at some reduced price as an inducement to get you on the contract which the carrier has now violated, they may want you to return the phone, however my belief is you could keep the phone, and refuse to pay any final billings or termination fee as liquidated damages; that is, to remedy the harm they caused you by disconnecting your service in violation of the contract. I doubt however you will find any new carrier willing to accept you at this point without the use of a PIN. Just as fraud is the big thing in telephony these days, the use of a PIN has become almost an industry standard. ------------------------------ From: schuster@panix.com (Michael Schuster) Subject: Cellular One "Authentication" Date: 27 Mar 1996 18:53:59 -0500 Organization: panix This month's bill from AT&T Wireless (NY) includes an insert thanking everyone for using their fraud protection feature (geez ... as though we actually had a choice) and giving a teaser for a new feature which will make it unnecessary in some areas ... "authentication". Most digital phones, and some analog phones will support it, and they mention that a future mailing will tell me whether **MY** phone supports it. 1. What is "authentication" - I am familiar only with PIN codes and RF fingerprinting. 2. How do they know what model **I** use? Mike Schuster | schuster@panix.com | 70346.1745@CompuServe.COM ------------------- | schuster@shell.portal.com | schuster@mem.po.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If you got your phone at a reduced price in some promotion to induce you to sign a contract then they know what sort of phone you have, since after all, they were the ones who wound up paying for it. Even if you paid full price for a phone from a third party, you still had to submit the ESN to your carrier and the first three digits of the ESN typically identify the manufacturer and model. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Michael Stanford Subject: Re: Visual Call Waiting? Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 09:26:56 -0800 > The latest (March 25, 1996) TELECOM UPDATE from Angus TeleManagement > mentioned a new service from Bell Canada called Visual Call Waiting. > Unfortunately, the brief note did not describe the feature itself. > Can anyone shed some light on Visual Call Waiting? This is SCWID or CIDCW. It is an ADSI related service that the LEC's, particularly US West, are agressively rolling out over the next few months (years?) After the regular call waiting tone, the CO sends a CAS (CPE Alerting Signal) to indicate that caller ID information is available. The CPE immediately checks that no other phones are off-hook on this line, then responds with a DTMF ACK indicating that it is capable of receiving the information, and mutes the handset so that the customer doesn't hear the modem shriek. The CO then sends the information in the standard multi-message caller ID (1200bps FSK) format. In the "with disposal" flavor (aka Call Waiting Deluxe, which requires more ADSI support from the CPE), the CPE presents the user with up to six options on call waiting: 1. Answer the call and put the existing call on hold; 2. Answer the call and drop the existing call; 3. Forward the call (eg to voicemail); 4. Connect the call to an announcement; 5. Put the call on hold; 6. Conference the call with the existing call. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 16:25:11 +0000 From: Brent_Ellacott@nt.com Subject: Re: Visual Call Waiting? Organization: Sales Witold Dziewaltowski-Gintowt wrote: > The latest (March 25, 1996) TELECOM UPDATE from Angus TeleManagement > mentioned a new service from Bell Canada called Visual Call Waiting. > Unfortunately, the brief note did not describe the feature itself. > Can anyone shed some light on Visual Call Waiting? Visual Call Waiting combines Call Display and Call Waiting, into a feature that enhances the value of both. The feature works like this: If you are on a call, and another party calls you, you will hear the normal BEEP, and on your disply, the Name and Number of the party calling you is displyed. Now you can make a more informed decision to take the other call or let it go to voice mail. You do require a new telephone that has this new capability. Bell Canada will be offering the Vista 350 for this service. I suggest you call them regarding the availability and cost of the set and service. I think this is the service for which you are refering. This service, and similar services were talked about on this newsgroup last fall, as it was introduced in some of the RBOC's. The product would be refered to as Call Waiting Deluxe, or Advanced Call Waiting. The telephone offered in those markets is the PowerTouch 350 (similar set). Comments seemed to be quite favourable. Brent Ellacott Nortel ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 09:47:13 -0600 From: Dan_Rudiak@nt.com Subject: Re: Visual Call Waiting? Organization: Northern Telecom IBCS Calgary ITAS Witold Dziewaltowski-Gintowt wrote: > The latest (March 25, 1996) TELECOM UPDATE from Angus TeleManagement > mentioned a new service from Bell Canada called Visual Call Waiting. > Unfortunately, the brief note did not describe the feature itself. > Can anyone shed some light on Visual Call Waiting? Some phones from Northern Telecom (Vista 300 series I believe) will respond to a CLID message sent from the Central Office in the midst of a telephone call. While I've not actually experienced it, I believe you continue to get the tone, plus the CLID information of the caller just calling in. Dan J. Rudiak System Specialist ITAS Technical Services Northern Telecom IBCS ------------------------------ From: C. Wheeler Subject: Re: Can PacBell stop caller ID on my phone in Maryland? Date: 28 Mar 1996 17:17:10 GMT Organization: CCnet Communications - Walnut Creek, CA Paul Robinson wrote: > I called the number, and a live operator spoke to me, asking if I was > calling about this feature. When I said yes, she asked me for the > billing number to be changed. I sort of played dumb, and she repeated > the request, this time saying "the telephone number" I wanted to have > this done for. > However, Pacific Bell serves California. > I called from a phone in Silver Spring, Maryland! (Two miles from > Washington, DC). > I hung up, resisting the temptation to be silly, give her my actual > number and complain, "Well, why are you taking calls from here if you > only operate in California?" > If Pacific Bell can't even set up an 800 number that only operates in > their service area, I shudder to think what kind of other mistakes > they are likely to make. I mean, if they use one of their own numbers > ("own" meaning one issued by them for intra-state calling), it's > internal and there's no cost to them, whereas if they are using a > nationwide 800 number, they'll have to be "paying" the carrier > something, even if it's a set-off of charges owed. It's still revenue > loss. So what! If I happened to be in Maryland and needed to conduct business with Pac Bell, I would be glad that they had a nationwide 800 number. In fact I have had to talk to Pac Bell about my residential service while I was traveling outside their service area. The number is set up so Pac Bell can provide a service to their customers -- not so you can play games from Washington, D.C. (well, maybe that explains it). ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Mar 96 11:09:52 -0500 From: Derek Balling Subject: Re: Can PacBell block Caller ID on my Maryland Phone? And now, a reading from the Holy Gospel, according to Derek ... In TELECOM Digest, Paul Robinson wrote: >> PacBell will allow you to do `complete blocking' of caller ID for >> *free* -- but you have to call 1 (800) 298-5000 and specifically >> request this. You also have to listen to this 2-3 minute canned >> speech extolling the virtues of caller ID before they'll let you >> get complete blocking. > I called the number, and a live operator spoke to me, asking if I was > calling about this feature. When I said yes, she asked me for the > billing number to be changed. I sort of played dumb, and she > repeated the request, this time saying "the telephone number" I > wanted to have this done for. > However, Pacific Bell serves California. > I called from a phone in Silver Spring, Maryland! (Two miles from > Washington, DC). > I hung up, resisting the temptation to be silly, give her my actual > number and complain, "Well, why are you taking calls from here if you > only operate in California?" The SERVICE may be in California, but if you were privy to telephone company records, you would be amazed to find out that, gosh darn, there are a lot of major corporations who do business and need telephones in California, but pay their bills out of another state. Those states need to be able to call and ask questions about their telephone bill, just as much as John Smith living in Mission Viejo, CA. > If Pacific Bell can't even set up an 800 number that only operates in > their service area, I shudder to think what kind of other mistakes > they are likely to make. Good customer service is a mistake? > I mean, if they use one of their own numbers > ("own" meaning one issued by them for intra-state calling), it's > internal and there's no cost to them, whereas if they are using a > nationwide 800 number, they'll have to be "paying" the carrier > something, even if it's a set-off of charges owed. It's still revenue > loss. Some companies, like PacBell, GTE, etc., feel that providing good customer service to ALL our customers, not just the ones whose accounts payable offices are local to us, is a FAR more profitable motivation than the small revenue we spend on inter-state 800 #'s. You might also remember that California consists of a NUMBER of LATA's, and if you have a centralized call center, you WILL cross the LATA boundry somewhere, requiring the services of an Interexchange Carrier anyway. So that point doesn't even play into it. Derek Balling GTE Business Sales Representative ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 08:16:10 -0700 From: Roy Mccrory Subject: Re: Sudden Change in Telecom Archives Does your email address remain ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu? Also I have my telecom web page back up at http://www.thuntek.net/~mccrory/telecom.html.gz If you or your experts have any suggestions for improvement or corrections please let me know, assuming you have time to worry about such things! Regards, Roy McCrory mccrory@thuntek.net [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes, my address remains the same. What happened was this: The archives and myself sit on a machine known as 'massis.lcs.mit.edu'. The name 'ftp.lcs.mit.edu' was *aliased* to massis. You could reach me or the archives using either one. The admin at MIT suggested using 'ftp.lcs.mit.edu' as the official name for the archives side of things since (as he put it) 'that way if the machine changes, we can alias the ftp name to the new machine and no one will be incovenienced.' Well what they actually did a few days ago was divert the alias 'ftp' to a workstation called 'armenia'. They left me and the Telecom Archives here on massis which now also has the alias name 'mirror.lcs.mit.edu'. I thought originally they were going to let *me* have the name 'ftp'. The Digest and archives all sit in the same place; always have since I moved here to MIT last fall. You can write me using ptownson and at either @massis.lcs.mit.edu @mirror.lcs.mit.edu. You do an anonymous FTP to either of the above for the archives or if using the email server you write to 'tel-archives@one of the above. I guess 'mirror' is the official name for that side of it now. Sorry for any confusion. At least they did as an afterthought put up some aliases for me on the 'armenia' machine pointing to massis, and I think the other machine here I use sometimes called mintaka also has aliases in place. Who knows ... even @lcs.mit.edu might work. PAT] ------------------------------ From: 100276.344@compuserve.com (Melvyn G. Fishel) Subject: Re: Rhetorex --> Dialogic File Conversion Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 09:14:27 GMT Organization: Xentec On 15 Mar 1996 08:19:01 -0700, nils mccarthy wrote: > Paul Crick wrote: >> Is there a tool available free or relatively cheaply that will allow >> me to convert voice files created with a Rhetorex board to be >> converted to Dialogic format? Or is there a Dialogic<-->.WAV converter >> around? > I've had really bad luck trying to convert to and from Dialogic's > ADPCM format. There are tools they supply on their BBS calld FROMWAV > and TOWAV, but they are either provided as DOS executables, or as DOS > C source (which assumes integers are only 16-bits). Even after I > tried to convert all references to "int" to "short int" so it would > work on my unix box, it still produced really strange output. Maybe > I'll try to borrow someone's DOS machine sometime and see if they > actually work on there. > A friend of mine has a package for MS-Windows called "Sound Forge", > and he's apparently had good luck using that to do the conversion. I > would assume that some other commercial sound processing packages > would have this functionality too. > I don't know if this is dependent on being a newer revision, but the > Dialogic boards I have have an option to play and record using 8-bit > U-law instead of 4-bit ADPCM. That's what I'm using to ensure that I > can convert to and from other standard formats without too much > trouble. For wav <-> Dialogic try downloading from ftp.coast.net in directory /SimTel/win3/multimed get file vsdmo105.zip Melvyn G. Fishel 100276.344@compuserve.com ------------------------------ From: Jim Langridge Organization: NSWCDD E82/NCI Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 09:04:12 +0000 Subject: Re: Long Distance Wholesale Club Reply-To: jlangri@relay.nswc.navy.mil In TELECOM Digest V16 #141 John Mayson writes: > Every two or three months I receive an envelope in the mail, both at > home and at my post office box, which reads: "Special notice to > Florida Telephone Customers ... New dialing instruction stickers ... > Enclosed." I get stickers telling me always to dial 10297 before the > number and a flyer claiming an 83% savings (savings from *what*, they > don't say). > Does any other part of the country get these? I've always had a > laissez-faire attitude towards business and believed consumers who get Yes, they hit Virginia too. As with a lot of junk mail I suppose if they con just a couple of elderly folks out of every hundred or so addresses they mail to they're probably doing quite well :( Jim Langridge | jlangri@relay.nswc.navy.mil (At Work) NCI/Code e82 | jlangri@interserf.net (At Home) NSWCDD | jlangri@lake.fishing (At Play) 540-653-7015 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 07:35:07 -0800 From: jsinger@scn.org (Joseph Singer) Subject: Re: Long Distance Wholesale Club Reply-To: jsinger@scn.org jmayson@p100dl.ess.harris.com (John Mayson) wrote: > Every two or three months I receive an envelope in the mail, both at > home and at my post office box, which reads: "Special notice to > Florida Telephone Customers ... New dialing instruction stickers ... > Enclosed." I get stickers telling me always to dial 10297 before the > number and a flyer claiming an 83% savings (savings from *what*, they > don't say). To which Pat responds: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: ... > This one says that effective at this time we are to begin dialing > 10811 before our long distance calls. This is the 'Dime Line' > program and all calls henceforth will be ten cents per minute to > anywhere in the USA at any time. This is a service of VarTec. I have used this service and you need to also be made aware that they don't charge like everybody else in that all calls no matter how short are charged a minimum of three minutes so you'll never have any one minute calls on your bill. I'd recommend against _not_ using them unless you plan on making a call that will be longer than a minute. Supposedly they also charge a $5 fee per month for use of the service, but so far I haven't seen this charge on my US West bill. JOSEPH SINGER SEATTLE, WASHINGTON USA jsinger@scn.org [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That is correct, a five dollar service fee which is not applied to the calls you made. So plan on amortizing that into your monthly bill, and you'll see you need several dollars in actual calling charges before you come close to realizing the ten cents per minute rate. And also, as you note there is a three minute minimum per call. This has to be factored in as well. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #143 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Fri Mar 29 11:43:41 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id LAA04895; Fri, 29 Mar 1996 11:43:41 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 11:43:41 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199603291643.LAA04895@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #144 TELECOM Digest Fri, 29 Mar 96 11:43:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 144 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Singapore Telecom Nervous About India (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh) Sprint Goes Postal (Keith Jarett) Sprint? More Like "Walk Slowly" (David Gershwin) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: rishab@nntp1.best.com (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh) Subject: Singapore Telecom Nervous About India Date: 28 Mar 1996 23:09:35 GMT Organization: Best Internet Communications The Indian Techonomist: weekly summary, March 25, 1996 Copyright (C) 1996 Rishab Aiyer Ghosh. All rights reserved 25 MARCH 1996: INDIA'S BOLD TELECOM SECRETARY REPLACED SINGAPORE TELECOM NERVOUS ABOUT INDIA PEROT SYSTEMS TIES UP WITH INDIA'S HCL India's bold Telecom Secretary replaced March 18: R K Takkar, the soft-spoken Secretary of India's Department of Telecommunications (DoT) and Chairman, Telecom Commission largely responsible for the implementation of the country's mammoth telecom reform programme, retired today. He was replaced, somewhat unexpectedly, by M P Modi - Secretary of Coal. In India as elsewhere, large bureaucracies with significant centralised control over funds, operations and policy end up depending to a fair extent on the people in charge, so this change in the top non-political post in the telecom sector is significant. The Telecom Secretary, a bureaucrat and lifetime government employee, is subordinated to the Communications Minister, who has to be a member of Parliament - but the bureaucracy does all the work and its head is the de facto originator of most decisions. Mr Takkar, who had no previous telecom experience, was open-minded enough to seek the views of others, especially the telecom industry. He was able to start the complex tendering process for basic and cellular services, which is still going on; he managed to issue several licences for basic, cellular and paging services across India. He was firmly behind separating the operations of the DoT - which will continue to provide basic telephony in competition with private firms - from its policy-making and regulatory role, and had spoken in favour of a truly independent Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI). Mr Takkar was due to retire last October, at a time when the tendering process was in a mess due to the sudden announcement of "caps" (limits on the number of licences per operator) by the Communications Minister, in August - who proceeded on a lengthy vacation abroad, apparently for reasons of health. The whole telecom privatisation programme was also facing a suit in the Supreme Court, brought by various left-wing groups. Mr Takkar was ordered to keep his job until further notice. The Supreme Court gave the go ahead to telecom reforms last month. Most cellular licences have already been granted (the exceptions are rearranging their equity and funds, to meet an April 15 deadline). Letters of intent have been issued to the winners of the first two rounds of bids for basic telephony (including one to the Hughes-Ispat on Thursday, for Maharashtra including state capital Bombay), and only eight out of 20 telecom circles (regions) are left. A third tender was announced on March 15, bids to be opened on April 15. Although TRAI, the telecom regulator has not been set up yet - Parliament was too busy with political maneuvering for the general elections in May to pass any legislation - an ordinance (executive order) has been issued for its constitution. There was nothing left, really, for Mr Takkar to baby-sit (except for the minor matter of Internet regulation). Mr Modi, the new Secretary, will not have much to do as far as the telecom licences go, except perhaps to decide what to do if, due to the elections, there are not enough bidders for the leftover circles in the third round. He will probably have to leave those circles alone till after the elections, when he could be replaced anyway by the new government - probably a coalition of several parties. Mr Modi could find the judge, engineer and banker required to create the TRAI. They will be on five- year secured tenure to minimise government interference, but their selection could compromise the regulator's independence. Luckily, although little is known about Mr Modi in telecom circles - which rarely mix with coal mines - he was selected to head another independent regulatory body, the Insurance Regulatory Authority. That regulator, and hence Mr Modi's prospective job, was postponed by the Finance Ministry's decision to leave liberalisation of the currently public-sector insurance to the next government. However, Mr Modi's selection by the pro-liberalisation Finance Ministry could suggest a generally progressive attitude. Returning to the matter of Internet regulation: Mr Takkar was close to dismantling India's ridiculous restrictions on datacom. He was strongly in favour of low entry barriers on Internet services, and rejected the need for legislation to curb free expression on this new medium. There was some understandable reluctance to this from lower-level DoT personnel, whose raison d'tre is to restrict. Mr Takkar, though, had no serious objection to any of the suggestions made in The Indian Techonomist's policy proposal for freeing the Internet, once the technology was explained to him. Mr Modi, of course, has no telecom experience, but nor did he require financial experience to be selected to head the insurance regulator-ignorance appears to be the government's way of ensuring impartiality. He is unlikely to do anything about the Internet before the elections, without knowing all about it. Thankfully, his source of information will not be the DoT's datacom licensing wing - Mr Takkar assured The Techonomist, the day after his retirement, that Internet policy will be discussed in his brief to his successor. For information on: Telecom bids - http://dxm.org/techonomist/news/bids.html Cellular services - http://dxm.org/techonomist/news/cellular.html Telecom regulator - http://dxm.org/techonomist/regu.html#TRAI Internet policy - http://dxm.org/techonomist/news/ndp1.html Singapore Telecom nervous about India March 23: Singapore Telecom, which won a licence to operate cellular services in the south Indian state of Tamil Nadu along with its partners HCL and the Hindujas, is uncomfortable with the large licence fee. The consortium had originally bid $172 million for a 10-year licence; in order to receive the second of two licences available it will now have to match the $266 million bid of BPL-US West. The other partners - HCL is India's largest info-tech group, the Hindujas are UK-based billionaires - are bullish and want to pay the increased licence fee. Singapore Telecom, though, is expected to reduce its equity. Meanwhile in Singapore the company signed an agreement with India's Srishti Videocorp to broadcast the first digital satellite channels over the South Asian region. Srishti, which controls a number of transponders on the Intelsat 704 satellite, broadcasts its own mediocre channel (called YES, for Youth Entertainment Services) and leases space to other broadcasters, including the Discovery Channel. Reception quality is far from excellent, and Srishti hopes that digital transmission will significantly improve this, and also provide (with MPEG-2 compression) room for yet more TV programming. This is debatable, for most of India's estimated 150 million satellite TV viewers go through cable networks, who do not have digital decoding equipment. Viewers are reluctant to pay for additional channels when services are of dubious quality; in any case, broadcasting in India makes money based on its sheer volume - paying little more than $5 per month, viewers' subscription fees alone add up to $600 million, growing at 30% per annum. This would explain Intelsat's increased activity in the region. It held its board meeting in Mumbai (once known as Bombay) last week, and announced the opening of its first regional office (outside the US) in India. To know why an Indian broadcaster has to uplink its signal from Singapore, not India, see http://dxm.org/techonomist/regu.html#IBA Perot Systems ties up with India's HCL March 24: The $400 million HCL Group, India's largest information technology conglomerate is starting a joint venture with Perot Systems Corporation, which belongs to the American former computer-salesman and billionaire politician Ross Perot. The joint venture aims at capturing a major share of the market for outsourcing services in the Asia-Pacific Region. Perot Systems meets the outsourcing needs of clients around the world in areas such as financial services, healthcare and manufacturing. HCL, which does many things including computer manufacturing (it is Hewlett-Packard's Indian partner) and training, has a presence in most south-east Asian and west Asian countries. With cheap, well-trained Indian labour to rely upon, it is in a good position to work with Perot Systems. The group expects this joint venture to exceed $100 million in first-year revenues, by concentrating on large-scale projects. See also http://dxm.org/techonomist/news/11feb96.html March 25: At a press conference today it was announced that Perot Systems and HCL shall hold equity in their joint venture at an equal ratio (50:50). This is not necessary, as India's government even allows 100% foreign equity in the field of computers; obviously HCL did not want a minority stake, and Perot Systems wanted as much as it could get. A similar approach was followed by IBM and Tata some years ago, when they formed Tata Information Systems Ltd. The Indian Techonomist: weekly summary. http://dxm.org/techonomist/ Copyright (C) 1996 Rishab Aiyer Ghosh (rishab@techonomist.dxm.org) Tel +91 11 6853410; Fax 6856992; H-34-C Saket New Delhi 110017 INDIA May be distributed electronically provided that this notice is attached ------------------------------ From: keith@tcs.com Subject: Sprint Goes Postal Date: 28 Mar 1996 20:59:38 GMT Organization: TCSI I think the question of whether Sprint has lost their minds can now be definitively answered. They have. The premise of the Fridays Are Free offer was that Sprint was willing to lose some money for a year in order to pick up new business customers. Sprint would then show these new customers a terrific Grade Of Service, and back it with top-notch customer service. The result would be long-term retention of customers who had, over a year's time, become accustomed to making lots of calls. Here is the litany of their marketing mistakes, as I see them. This will make an excellent business school case study: Mistake 1: Inclusion of international calls in the promotion Sprint's international service was sized for the demand as it existed before the promotion. There was and is insufficient capacity to many parts of the world to accomodate the demand for free calls. Can you say "price elasticity"? I knew you could. The executive who thought this up can't. The predictable, in fact inevitable, result: Customers who were attracted by the promotion experience an abysmal Grade Of Service (GOS) on the very calls that matter most to them. Adding insult to injury, existing customers, many of whom are not benefitting from the promotion, are now also experiencing lousy GOS on Fridays. Mistake 2: Not controlling sign-up Sprint's sales people are trained to sell. They want to sell. They naturally would interpret any gray area of eligibility in favor of selling service to the customer. So when folks called and asked questions like "do high-volume residential users qualify?" the answer was almost invariably "yes". Sprint gradually turned this around, which helped a bit but left a residue of confusion. The policy should have been thought out, documented, and enforced consistently from the beginning. Of course, if there had been some thought of how to separate the desired business customers from the undesired residential customers, the impossibility of doing so would have become apparent and this whole promotion might never have gotten off the ground. Clever customers could have easily circumvented any policy not based on actual calling patterns. Mistake 3: Extending the signup deadline The one-month extension violated a cardinal rule: when you're deep in a hole, stop digging! Enough said. Still, I wonder if they'll extend it through April? Mistake 4: Alienating your customers The other mistakes absolutely pale beside this whopper. It is so colossal that I can hardly believe that this decision was made by a for-profit organization. Obviously panicked by the revenue losses resulting from Mistakes 1, 2, and 3, some bonehead executive at Sprint has sent letters to customers demanding proof of their business status. Now it might be possible to do this diplomatically, but these letters demand a response within 24 hours, after which the Fridays Are Free promotion will be terminated. I have attached a copy of their letter and my response. Just for fun, I called up the Business Sales folks and asked politely for clarification. The two folks I talked to agreed with me that this was about the most stupid thing they had ever seen. They were more than willing to give me a name to attach to their promise that my service would continue uninterrupted. It should be obvious to anyone, *especially* Sprint, that treating your customers this way practically guarantees that they will not become long-term customers, totally wasting the Free Friday loss leader. Mistake 5: Not firing the responsible executive(s) Sprint may avoid this mistake, but I have included it as a prediction which is totally consistent with their other mistakes. Here's Sprint's letter to me: March 26, 1996 Dear Customer, We have tried without success to reach you to discuss your participation in our Fridays Free promotion. As described in our tariffs, the Fridays Free promotion is designed for commercial use only, and we are not able to offer this promotion to non-business customers. We are therefore writing to obtain verification of your business status. The acceptable forms of documented verification include: An official document containing both the Tax ID number and the Company Name (Examples include: Tax Returns, Notice of Tax ID) Articles of Incorporation Annual Reports If we do not receive one of the above acceptable forms of verification by noon CST, on Thursday, March 28, 1996, we will need to convert your account to Sprint Sense, our primary service for non-business customers. This will be your only notification of this request. Please fax your verification correspondence to 1-800-297-5762. All verifications must be received by noon CST, Thursday, March 28, 1996. If you have been previously contacted and have already furnished the required information, please disregard this notice. We value your business and apologize for the inconvenience. Thank you for your cooperation! Sincerely, Robin Lloyd Buiness Marketing MGMCOMP 22:05 EST --------------------- From the above, I deduced that this Mailgram was composed late Tuesday night, and probably delivered Wednesday afternoon. Thus the total time from receipt at my office to the deadline was less than 24 hours! Now, my response: March 28, 1996 [faxed 11:26 AM Pacific time] Robin Lloyd Sprint 5420 LBJ Freeway Dallas, TX 75240 Dear Friends: I was disturbed to receive your letter today threatening to cut off our company's Fridays Are Free promotion. Even if I had not been out of the office at a trade show since Sunday, your letter would have given me less than 24 hours' notice to respond or face a unilateral change in our billing agreement. This is simply unacceptable as a customer service practice. You say that you have tried without success to reach me, but I have received NO voicemails and NO faxes and I have been in the office most days this month. Other people can reach me; why can't you? Anyone at the company would have been able to tell you that we are real. I thought the whole idea of this promotion was to give customers a reason to switch to Sprint and then to demonstrate how terrific your customer service was so that the customers would remain with Sprint. You are doing Sprint a disservice by alienating the very customers that the marketing department is paying to win over! I have responded to your letter within one hour of my arrival at the office and I am faxing the requested documentation. If, despite this, you cut off our promotion tomorrow you will have a very unhappy customer on your hands, and you will almost certainly have to credit the calls back anyway after I finish escalating the problem. I have stuck my neck out for Sprint here at work, and if you folks swing that axe you will have invested in our business for nothing. Please expedite this response so that my service can continue uninterrupted. Sincerely, Keith Jarett ------------------------------ Sprint has sold so much Business Sense that they forgot to save some for themselves. :) ------------------------------ (This is being added to my original article, and being sent to the Digest on Friday morning.) This time they have really gone too far. Scenario: the letter arrives in the mailbox at 3 PM Pacific time. Contents state that proof of business must be received by 10 AM Pacific that day (that's right 5 hours BEFORE receipt of the note, and that's with speedy post office delivery!) or service will be switched to Sprint Sense. Service is TOTALLY TERMINATED at about 8 PM. A call to customer service lingers on hold for over 1.5 hours. The pre-recorded "we apologize for the delay" begins to send less cheerful and sincere after the 100th or more time. They must have terminated thousands of customers! Then the realization begins to dawn: if Sprint can harrass its unprofitable customers enough by cutting off service without warning, MAYBE it can get rid of them. Their customer service person earlier today so much as told me that these letters were sent to those whose Friday calls were not balanced by calls on other days of the week. So mistreating THESE customers may not be just a stupid move. Instead it may be a calculated and bold plan to break its contracts with customers who have taken the Fridays Are Free ads to heart and actually adjusted their calling the way the ads suggest they do. It's analogous to a car rental company giving you unlimited miles and then intentionally disabling the car when you drive too far, leaving you stranded without a ride. A deal is a deal, right? And unilateral failure to perform as promised is a breach of the contract, isn't it? Are there any lawyers out there who could post an appropriate letter warning of specific actions that can be taken to address this sort of breach of the service contract? Few businesses can withstand a cutoff of long distance service. And what of the residential customers who were told that they qualified for this plan and gave up special promotional discounts with other carriers to switch to Sprint? It seems to me that Sprint owes all its Business Sense customers the benefit of their bargain. If Sprint failed to limit its plan through proper training of its signup staff, and if the signup staff knowingly accepted a residental customer, then Sprint alone should bear the consequences, right? If Sprint can limit its offering to business customers, who decides what is a business and what isn't? It can't be Sprint, and I don't think they really want thousands of cases in small claims court or maybe even a class action to settle the dispute. One thing's for sure: Sprint is not only blowing any chance to impress and retain the new customers it captured with Fridays Are Free; it will lose almost all of them and more at the end of the year if this fiasco continues. Folks like me who recommended Sprint to clients and colleagues who are now being treated so shabbily will not easily forgive and forget. Sprint goofed again by not realizing that some of these unprofitable customers have close ties to some of the very profitable customers, who will not be Sprint's for long. I'm changing my previous prediction. This time, heads really WILL roll ... Keith Jarett ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 15:30:49 PST From: David Gershwin Subject: Sprint? More like "Walk Slowly" I signed up for the Fridays Free promotion, explaining that I was a sole proprietor running a consulting business out of my home, and gave my SSN as my Tax ID. Also, in order to maintain my AT&T 500 number, I wanted to maintain AT&T as my long distance carrier, and agreed to make $50 a month in calling card and 10333 access code calls from my home phone. They initially botched this simple request, but it was quickly resolved and my service was switched back to AT&T after being switched (against my instructions) to Sprint. All was well, until the first bill came -- the Friday calls were billed erroneously. When I called to resolve this, they explained that the calling card calls were in fact not eligible towards the $50 minumum (most of my Sprint calls were calling card calls) but that they would credit my account accordingly for the Friday calls. Even more amazing was that Sprint bills appeared on both my Pacific Bell bill and as a separate Sprint long distance bill. There was no overlap, and I called to receive credit for all Friday calls and for the switching fee, which should never have been charged due to the fact that I never wanted my phone lines switched to Sprint. Fine. A couple of days ago, I noticed by dialing the 1-700 verification number that my default carrier was once again Sprint. Huh? I had *specifically* cancelled my Sprint Business Sense participation after it was disclosed to me that my calling card calls would not be eligible for Fridays Free. But to switch carriers without my permission? I called Sprint on this one, and they could not explain how this happened, and told me to contact my local carrier. I called PacBell to resolve this and return me back to AT&T, which they did with only a minor screw-up -- due to order "problems" the switching was made to MCI...PacBell, unlike Sprint, at least acknowledged their mild screw-up and even went so far as to call back and apologize for the switching error. I'm about ready to ditch them all entirely for Working Assets as my LD carrier ... David Gershwin gershwin@cinenet.net [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well surprise! Working Assets will get you Sprint in disguise. WA is a big reseller of Sprint. It sounds like Sprint may have really bungled up the Free Friday promotion. This may even be more of a scandal for them than the 'free fax modem' promotion a couple years ago. Long time readers will recall that one stunk up the place pretty bad also. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #144 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Fri Mar 29 12:33:18 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id MAA10027; Fri, 29 Mar 1996 12:33:18 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 12:33:18 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199603291733.MAA10027@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #145 TELECOM Digest Fri, 29 Mar 96 12:33:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 145 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Sprint Sense Free Fridays - More Good News (William Randolph) Re: Sprint Sense Free Fridays - More Good News (Van Hefner) Re: The Sprint Free Fridays Saga Continues (Joko Suharyono) Re: The Sprint Free Fridays Saga Continues (Steven R. Kleinedler) Re: Sprint and Fridays (srb@transposon.lanl.gov) Re: Sprint Sense Free Fridays - More Good News (Barry Mishkind) Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN (Steve Bagdon) Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN (Robert McMillin) Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN (Joel M. Hoffman) Re: Cellular Rates, NY and Elsewhere (Jim Anderson) Re: Need Pre-Paid Calling Cards (William Randolph) Re: Need Pre-Paid Calling Cards (Lynne Gregg) Re: Long Distance Wholesale Club (Tom Watson) Re: Long Distance Wholesale Club (Andrew C. Green) Re: Cellular Rates, NY and Elsewhere (David Fernald, 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 public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: randolph@coax.net (William Randolph) Subject: Re: Sprint Sense Free Fridays - More Good News Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 10:43:30 -0500 > Joel M. Hoffman (joel@exc.com) wrote: >> According to a representative I just spoke with, there is indeed a >> $50/mo. usage requirement for Sprint's "free Friday" program, but >> _calls made on Friday count toward that $50_ even though you don't pay >> for them. So you can make $50 worth of calls every Friday, nothing >> else during the week, and pay only tax. (How much is tax, by the way? >> On $1,000 it could add up!) >> The representative specifically told me that 10333 access is insuff- >> icient for the plan, contra what some other folks here have reported. > According to Van Hefner's Discount Long Distance Digest (Issue 66-1) > Sprint has just upped it's daytime residential rates from 22 cpm to 25 > cpm. Also, there is a 40 cent surcharge for PIC'ing Sprint and may > soon be upped to 80 Cents to match AT&T's PIC access charge. I was not aware that there was ever a Pic'ing charge. Are you saying that if I am Pic'd to AT&T and I manually Pic to Sprint 10333 that there is a 40 cent charge? The 80 cent AT&T access charge you're speaking of is calling card access isn't it? Bill ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 03:47:39 -0800 From: vantek@northcoast.com (VANTEK COMMUNICATIONS) Subject: Re: Sprint Sense Free Fridays - More Good News Ken Leonard recently wrote: > According to Van Hefner's Discount Long Distance Digest (Issue 66-1) > Sprint has just upped it's daytime residential rates from 22 cpm to 25 > cpm. Also, there is a 40 cent surcharge for PIC'ing Sprint and may > soon be upped to 80 Cents to match AT&T's PIC access charge. Actually, that is not entirely accurate. It is MCI who has the $.40 per-call surcharge. AT&T's is $.80. I am unaware of Sprint having a surcharge for using casual 10333 access. They have definately upped their daytime rate on Sprint Sense though, and (coinscidently?) have removed all disclaimers at the bottom of the screen on TV commercials mentioning their daytime rate. One of their TV commercials, which shows a man making a phone call during what is obviously sometime in the afternoon (from a phone booth), has a sticker on the phone booth door saying something like "Sprint Sense - Just $.10 a minute". Unless this man is making his phone call from someplace where is is very sunny outside after 7 p.m., he will obviously NOT be charged $.10 a minute (of course he'll also pay an $.80 surcharge for using his Sprint Calling Card!). The entire commercial is shot in daylight, but they keep shoving this $.10 rate in your face. If the commercial was running during the summer, that would be one thing, but by 7 p.m. it is plenty dark here in California as of March. Maybe these people are all in Alaska (Land of the midnight sun)?!!? I am constantly amazed at the tactics long distance companies use to con people into signing up. Why it is that these deceptive marketing methods have never came back to haunt the BIG 3 carriers is beyond me. You would think that someone in the media would pick-up on this stuff. I guess that very few people bother to actually check their phone bills. Van Hefner - Editor Discount Long Distance Digest On The Web: http://www.webcom.com/longdist/ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That is *exactly* what they are counting on; that very few people bother reading their phone bills and even few actually understand them. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 02:18:23 CST From: Joko Suharyono Subject: Re: The Sprint Free Fridays Saga Continues Dear all, > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: How many Free Fridays did you get > before Sprint told you they were not going to honor their agreement > any longer? Are you planning any legal action against them? A > formal complaint with the FCC might be in order, and I assume any > amounts they claim are due for the period you were on the program > will be withheld in dispute pending settlement. If you do any > followup on this at all, please let us know. PAT] This Free Fridays program is really interesting to me at first, until they change their mind after I got seven Fridays free. The first bill was alright, I just paid $37.50. I have not received the second bill (period Feb 24 - March 23). I'm really disappointed that I don't have free Friday anymore because my phone is residential. Because of that, I switched back to my old carrier (of course, for a better rate internationally). I wonder who can act to punish this unhonorable contract and *force* Sprint to notify each customer (who, like me, may have switched to other carrier) that they will honor the contract until each customer gets 52 Fridays (a year, as promised). Not just the period between signing up and March 28. I hope FCC can do this. In the two previous letters from Sprint, they welcome me to their Fridays Free promotion for one year period without mentioning business phone requirement. Oh, well ... I guess I'm not that lucky as I thought to have Free Fridays for one year. joko. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I would suggest starting with an informal complaint to the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communications Commission. That would be good for starters. Most likely both agencies will require Sprint to answer in writing. Now I want to point out that I am not an attorney, and I do not give legal representation to anyone here. I think I should add this disclaimer before what I say next which is that people who have been getting stiffed on this program would be wise to withhold any and all payments Sprint claims is due until the matter has been resolved. It is far better to put the onus on Sprint to correct the problem that it is to have the burden on yourself to try and collect on the Free Fridays. Consult your own attorney for advice however. PAT] ------------------------------ From: srkleine@midway.uchicago.edu (steven r kleinedler) Subject: Re: The Sprint Free Fridays Saga Continues Organization: The University of Chicago Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 18:25:45 GMT In article , steven r kleinedler wrote: [My saga, snipped.] > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: How many Free Fridays did you get > before Sprint told you they were not going to honor their agreement > any longer? Are you planning any legal action against them? A > formal complaint with the FCC might be in order, and I assume any > amounts they claim are due for the period you were on the program > will be withheld in dispute pending settlement. If you do any > followup on this at all, please let us know. PAT] By my count, I got seven free Fridays. I thought about legal action, but I don't have the time or the energy. However, if they try to hit me for any calls made on Fridays, I will definitely be here in a second for advice. I may call the FCC and complain, anyway. I was going to fax Sprint a letter today, but in an unrelated incident, my Ameritech voice mail has gone hay-wire and boop-boop-boops whenever I pick up the phone, so I can't use my fax modem until that's corrrected. *sigh*. This message has been brought to you by Steve Kleinedler. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Do you have an estimate of the total dollar amount of your Friday calls over the past seven weeks? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 09:38:03 -0700 From: srb@transposon.LANL.GOV (srb) Subject: Re: Sprint and Fridays Pat, I have never dealt with FCC so far. Can you describe how can one make FCC complaint regarding Sprint's not honoring their agreement? What documents would be needed (Sprint's) for making the complaint? Thanks in advance. Sam [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Both the FCC and the FTC provide information to the public on how to file informal complaints with their agencies. *Formal* complaints are rather involved, time- consuming and expensive. Informal complaints can be written out on paper and mailed in to them. They'll explain how to do it if you ask them. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Barry Mishkind Subject: Re: Sprint and Fridays Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 11:34:01 -0700 Organization: The Eclectic Engineer > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It has been 'allowed to persist this > long' because Sprint does not know what they are doing most of the > By the way, notice how Sprint is giving everyone only 24 hours or > less to respond to their demand for documentation as a 'business'? I got 26 minutes notice, and that was only because I was home when the mail arrived. Not good. BTW ... what about those folk who come home and get the form letter next week, or later? They might be using their phone cards in the meantime ... OR ... I wonder what the definition of "We have tried to reach you..." is, since no one from Sprint has called me, left a message on my answering machine, etc.? On the face of it, this would make me feel uneasy about my future relations with the company. Barry Mishkind Tucson, AZ http://www.broadcast.net/~barry [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yeah, that would be sort of nasty. People making calls *today, Friday* who have not yet seen the 26 minute notice of cancellation sent out to them. So next month they get this huge bill for calls and when they complain, Sprint says 'tough luck, sucker! Your weekday calls were not balancing out with your Friday calls so we reneged on our contract. We gave you 26 minutes notice to get the required documentation to our office. Now you can sue us if you like but we know you won't since it is a long involved procedure you cannot afford. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 08:23:18 -0500 From: bagdon@rust.net (S and K Bagdon) Subject: Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN First Christopher L. Davis said: > intercept a PIN transmission. If there is some written work > supporting whatever is known about their effectiveness, that would be > great. Newer Motorola phones are now 'PIN compatible' - press memory address or dial number, press 'send', listen for double tone, press 'send'. The phone knows that after every call you have to enter a pin, so I guess it now has a memory address in NAM for the PIN. So heaven forbid you leave you phone un-supervised for a while - min, esn *and* pin can be read from the phone handset. Then ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) said > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: ... > of digits. Ameritech was quick to inform me this is not the case at > all. The ESN goes out one direction (a 'control channel') and the > rest of it goes elsewhere. Good luck in finding it all in a timely It would NOT be a technical challenge, for someone with the understanding of AMPS standards, AND access to the correct scanning equipment. If I remember correctly from memory, the call request goes out on the RECC of the control channel. That's you esn/min. The call gets placed to a voice channel on the FOCC of the same control channel. That's your channel assignment. Hop over to the voice channel *real* fast, record the dtmfs being punched in, and there's the pin. A RECC reader, a FOCC reader, and a recorder (for playback through a pager, to decode the dtms), will break this process rather easily. > ability, period. If you need to roam, you must get a phone number > on the 630-319, 630-399 or 847-727 prefixes. There are a couple of In Detroit, one prefix option is 810-665. The rep was *very* pushy (which is rare for Ameritech!) about *not* giving me the number. He inquisitioned me for about 3 minutes, putting me through a lot of roaming questions, and would not give me the number until I flatly stated I wanted to be on that prefix. I *don't* know if the PIN is required to roam - a thief in Detroit snarfings esn/min pairs and an accomplis in South Bend (roaming doesn't need PIN?) will still make off with a good amount of air time - but at least it's now limited to certain phone numbers, rather then *all* of the prefix. > I still don't have to use a PIN here, although Ameritech has been > talking about making everyone do it for a long time, and my Ameritech does not require a PIN for me yet, even though I *did* get the roaming prefix, and they could have snuck it in real easy. Steve B. bagdon@rust.net Katharine and Steve Bagdon [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think the theory is a PIN won't stop them all, but it will discourage quite a few of the ones who are less technically competent. PAT] ------------------------------ From: rlm@netcom.com (Robert McMillin) Subject: Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN Organization: Charlie Don't CERF Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 14:59:45 GMT On 28 Mar 1996 09:42:59 PDT, PAT gave an extensive discussion as to why the system of PINs has slowed down cellular fraud. My question: will the new digital services (PCA phones?) fix this problem? Robert L. McMillin | rlm@helen.surfcty.com | Netcom: rlm@netcom.com WWW: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/rl/rlm/home.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Mar 96 10:28 EST From: joel@exc.com (Joel M. Hoffman) Subject: Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN > My cellular phone company is touting a PIN number as the answer to > some types of fraud. Not only touting it, but forcing me to use it. > As of this morning, I cannot use my phone any more. To break my > contract, they want to charge me $300. I must believe that a PIN > number is incredibly easy to overcome. Is there any proof that these > annoyning PIN numbers are any deterence to cellular fraud? If people > are cloning the code from phones, it must be simple in comparisson to > intercept a PIN transmission. If there is some written work > supporting whatever is known about their effectiveness, that would be > great. I, too, despise the use of a PIN, particularly because I have to dial it after every number, which makes re-dial useless. Not only that, but if the phone is stolen, all the theif has to do is press "re-dial," and up pops my pin! Joel (joel@exc.com) ------------------------------ From: Jim Anderson Subject: Re: Cellular Rates, NY and Elsewhere Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 15:25:18 -0800 Organization: GTE/TSI Joel M. Hoffman wrote: > Here in the New York area, cellular rates run roughly $0.65/min., not > counting the "free minutes" included with the common plans. I was > astonished to learn that in TX, $0.20/min. is closer to average. > What's going on? We have three cellular carriers in NY (Nynex, AT&T > and "Cellular One"), but the rates are all higher than elsewhere in > the country, even though here the population density ought to make > lower rates possible. > Further, Nynex charges "roaming" rates inside it's own network. I > don't know if the other carriers do, too. > Is this a matter of price-colusion, or is cellular service really that > much more expensvie to operate in NY? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I was rather surprised to find out how > expensive cellular service was in New York also. Ameritech in their > five-state region here in the midwest charges 35/18 per minute and > has a fairly low monthly service charge as well. The prices for cell > phones are *really* outrageous in Los Angeles, Atlanta and Miami. PAT] One reason for the increased prices in these areas is the high "fraud" rates. The cellular companies have to charge increased rates to cover their huge losses due to fraud. Jim Anderson ------------------------------ From: randolph@coax.net (William Randolph) Subject: Re: Need Pre-Paid Calling Cards Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 15:52:35 -0500 Ken Wells wrote: > I am looking for a firm that sells pre-paid calling cards. I have a > small market that this will fill. Unfortunately, almost every place I > have visited on the Web has been MLM related. I do not want "free long > distance for life." I do not need to get seven million downline agents > and numerous business centers. I simply want to discuss a small order > of retail or promotion pre-paid calling cards with a company in that > field. If there is anyone with information, please let me know. BN1 Telecommunications, Inc. @ 1 Cascade Plaza Akron, Oh. 45308-1111 has reasonable Pre-Paids. Call Chris Nichols @ 800-860-1261 or 1-216-762-4900 and he can fill you in on details. I share your feelings about MLM. Good luck. Bill Randolph 895 Clifton Road Xenia, Oh 45385 513-767-1522 Fax 513-767-9971 ------------------------------ From: Lynne Gregg Subject: RE: Need Pre-Paid Calling Cards Date: Thu, 28 Mar 96 09:44:00 PST From: v73c@ionet.net (Ken Wells) > I am looking for a firm that sells pre-paid calling cards. > I simply want to discuss a small order of retail or promotion pre-paid > calling cards with a company in that field. If there is anyone with > information, please let me know. AT&T offers pre-paid calling cards. You can speak directly that division at AT&T by calling 800/462-1818. Or you can purchase the cards through any of the following retail outlets: Service Merchandise Best Buy Office Max Office Depot Regards, Lynne ------------------------------ From: tsw@3do.com (Tom Watson) Subject: Re: Long Distance Wholesale Club Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 11:23:46 -0800 Organization: The 3DO Corporation > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Interesting that you mention it. I > get those a lot also, and in fact one came in the mail just today. > This one is entitled 'Important Notice About Your Phone Service' > on the front of the envelope which is addressed to: > Local Telephone Customer > (at my address) > This one says that effective at this time we are to begin dialing > 10811 before our long distance calls. This is the 'Dime Line' > program and all calls henceforth will be ten cents per minute to > anywhere in the USA at any time. This is a service of VarTec. Last > week there was one for 9.9 cents per minute at anytime/anywhere. I > forget the 10xxx code we were told to use with that one. They all > send little stickers noted as 'dialing instructions' to be pasted > on the front of the phone. You are correct; I am sure the average > telephone user is quite confused by it all, and that is the name > of the game. PAT] You didn't read the VERY fine print about the "Dime Line". There are a couple of things: 1) The billing is a three minute minimum. Yes THREE minutes (go back to the 60's for this one). 2) There is a $5.00 fee every month that you use the service. Yup, you heard right, if you make ONE call on the "Dime Line" you get nicked for $5.00 that month. After you read the fine print, and take into account all the charges, it isn't any good deal at all!! Me, I'll stick to my current (and past 20+ year provider who has done me quite well, considering that I don't make too many long distance calls. Yes, confusion is THE name of the game. Fine print abounds!! What do I do: Tear it to shreads and put it in the "round file" where it belongs!! Tom Watson tsw@3do.com (Home: tsw@johana.com) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 16:07:57 -0600 From: Andrew C. Green Subject: Re: Long Distance Wholesale Club Our Moderator writes: > This one says that effective at this time we are to begin dialing > 10811 before our long distance calls. This is the 'Dime Line' > program and all calls henceforth will be ten cents per minute to > anywhere in the USA at any time. [...] You are correct; I am sure > the average telephone user is quite confused by it all, and that > is the name of the game. PAT] Let me point out that the catch to look for with this mailing, and any similar mailings, was buried in the fine print, of course: There would be a $5 fee each month, and each call was billed at a three minute minimum. Now, Dime Line is welcome to correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that a single less-than-one-minute call via this outfit would cost me _not_ ten cents on my phone bill, but $5.30. At that rate (pun intended), I think it would take a lot of calls before savings over more, shall we say, mainstream long-distance companies would be seen. Andrew C. Green (312) 266-4431 Datalogics, Inc. 441 W. Huron Internet: acg@frame.com Chicago, IL 60610-3498 FAX: (312) 266-4473 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Actually, I think I did clarify this in a note yesterday, saying that one needed to make a lot of calls in order to amortize that five dollars, or bring it down to where it did not matter or merely added something like a penny or so to the total cost of each call. Remember when MCI played those same tricks back in the 1970's, telling you how inexpensive they were and then not mentioning the additional costs for local calling charges to reach their switch? And back in the 1970's, people were even less sophisticated about these long distance carriers than they are now. PAT] ------------------------------ From: David Fernald, Jr. <76346.2624@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Cellular Rates, NY and Elsewhere Organization: U.S. Army Armament Research Dev. & Eng. Ctr, Dover NJ Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 18:59:47 GMT Joel, I was down in Dallas for Wireless 96, ya hoo!, and one of the speakers (I don't remember which one) had a graph showing the obvious, that lower penetration correlated with higher prices. What you have to think about in analyzing the various pricing plans is various models to maximize corporate income. In the NYC area the cellular providers apparently believe they can maximize income by charging fewer customers more money, while in Chicago the providers apparently believe that they can maximize their income by charging many customers less money. One reason I've heard suggested for the pricing in NYC and subsequently the surrounding areas is that Manhattan is capacity constrained during the prime business hours. That might explain why the local carriers have several plans with lots of free evening minutes. df ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #145 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Fri Mar 29 13:11:21 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id NAA13977; Fri, 29 Mar 1996 13:11:21 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 13:11:21 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199603291811.NAA13977@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #146 TELECOM Digest Fri, 29 Mar 96 13:11:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 146 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson NPA 412 Plans Submitted (John Cropper) Pacific Bell Urges PUC To Reject Anti-Consumer Campaign (Mike King) Re: Inter-Tel "Axxess" Phone System (Mike Fletcher) Re: Inter-Tel "Axxess" Phone System (scottp@mindspring.com) Re: How to Conference Two POTS Lines? (Robert Holloman) Re: How to Conference Two POTS Lines? (jlbene@aol.com) Re: How to Conference Two POTS Lines? (Joel M. Hoffman) Re: How to Conference Two POTS Lines? (turner@pacsibm.org) Re: How to Conference Two POTS Lines? (Lars Poulsen) Sprint: Bait and Switch (Steve Kleinedler) Re: Sprint Fridays are Free (John Perkins) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: psyber@usa.pipeline.com (John Cropper) Subject: NPA 412 Plans Submitted Date: 29 Mar 1996 01:02:15 GMT Organization: Pipeline USA Forwarded FYI to the Digest: TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY PANEL ADDRESSES AREA'S DWINDLING PHONE NUMBER SUPPLY Telecommunications representatives from across the industry recently concluded a round of meetings in Pittsburgh aimed at finding a solution to the diminishing supply of new phone numbers in the 412 area code. The region faces the prospect that phone number reserves in the 412 area code will be exhausted during 1997. At the last meeting, held Feb. 12, three alternative proposals were considered. Two proposals would divide the 412 area, with a new area code assigned to the split-off section. The third proposal, known as an overlay, would create a new area code that would be superimposed over the existing 412 area. In this case, the current boundaries would remain the same but the area would contain two area codes instead of one. On Mar. 8, the industry group submitted the proposals to the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, which will make the final decision. The number for the new area code will be assigned by Bell Communications Research, Inc., the administrator of the nation's area codes. The growing demand for phone numbers is sparked by the emergence of fax machines, cellular phones, pagers, modems and other communications devices. In addition, the 412 area is opening its local exchanges to new telecommunications providers. These new entrants are expected to require a large supply of telephone numbers to serve their customers -- a prospect underscored with President Clinton's recent signing of the new telecommunications reform act. ### for more information, contact: Shirley Risoldi, 412-633-5574 ------------------------------------ Basically, the split is inner/outer metro Pittsburgh with a new NPA for outer in one plan, and inner in the other. Details as they become available. John Cropper, President NiS Telecom Division POB 277, Pennington, NJ USA 08534-0277 voice/fax: 1-800-247-8675 psyber@usa.pipeline.com ------------------------------ From: mk@TFS.COM (Mike King) Subject: Pacific Bell Urges PUC To Reject Anti-Consumer Campaign Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 09:52:08 PST Forwarded FYI to the Digest: Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 09:42:00 -0800 Reply-To: news-list@list.pactel.com From: Marcia.Flint@pactel.com (TELESIS.EA_SF_PO:Marcia Flint) Subject: NEWS: Pacific Bell Urges PUC To Reject Anti-Consumer Campai <<<>>> Pacific Bell Urges PUC To Reject Anti-Consumer Campaign For Release March 28, 1996 Contact: Dave Miller, (916) 972-2811 SAN FRANCISCO -- Californians would be denied a voice in helping select new area code boundaries under a plan being touted by long-distance companies, urging state regulators to circumvent existing law. The proposal was submitted to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) by long-distance giants AT&T, MCI and others. Pacific Bell, responding to the filings, believes it would undermine the area code planning process and deny consumers their legal right to consider and comment on the issue. The long-distance led coalition has launched a "blatantly anti-consumer" campaign in California to stifle public awareness and involvement in the introduction of 13 new area codes in the state over the next five years, Pacific Bell charged in a petition filed this week with the CPUC. "These companies are trying to thwart our efforts to educate consumers about all viable area code relief options. They're deliberately attempting to mislead regulators and manipulate the process by twisting and distorting our position to focus attention away from their own anti-competitive and blatantly anti-consumer lobbying tactics," said John Gueldner, regulatory vice president for Pacific Bell. Gueldner's comments came after the coalition, which also includes the California Cable Television Association and the consumer group TURN, asked the CPUC to prohibit Pacific Bell and other companies from proposing area code overlays as an alternative to geographic splits at industry meetings or legally mandated public meetings to obtain customer comments and reaction. AT&T, MCI and the others assert that only one area code relief option should be selected by the industry and made public under state law and industry guidelines. But Pacific Bell and the author of the legislation disagree, believing that the public should have the right to learn about more than one possible area code solution. "The law exists to ensure that Californians participate in the process and provide meaningful input on alternatives, not just one pre-ordained plan," said Gwen Moore, author of the legislation and former chairwoman of the California State Assembly Utilities and Commerce Committee, which oversees all telecommunications policy issues in the Legislature. Gueldner said the competitors' request to prohibit Pacific Bell from discussing overlays is an effort "to muzzle us into silence about this issue to achieve their own narrow, self-serving marketing goals. They don't want consumers to know about this option. But that violates the spirit and the letter of the state law, which encourages public comment and involvement on area code relief options. They're deliberately trying to stifle public involvement and participation." The coalition filed its complaint after Pacific Bell held statewide briefings to educate the press and public on the shortage of telephone numbers and various ways to ease the number problem by adding new area codes. Today, for example, California has 13 area codes, more than any other state. That number will need to double over the next five years to keep up with the record growth being spurred by the high-technology explosion and local telephone competition. "We explained the options available for area code relief, including geographic splits, overlays and boundary realignments. In each case, we objectively described and discussed both advantages and disadvantages of the various alternatives," Gueldner said. "This is the first time a major effort has been made to educate the public." In a geographic split, the old area code is carved roughly in half, with half of the customers getting a new area code and the others retaining the old one. In an overlay, a new area code is placed over an existing area code. The resultant new and old area codes occupy the same geographic boundaries. The new area code is given to people requesting new phone numbers, while existing customers keep the ir old area code. The CPUC earlier rejected an overlay in the 310 area code, but Pacific Bell believes the concept should be studied in other areas, where appropriate. The coalition believes overlays should not be considered anywhere. "The commission ruling applies only to the 310 area code case and does not require geographic splits or preclude overlays for area code relief in other parts of the state," Gueldner said. "In fact, commissioners are intrigued by overlays and want to get public opinion on, among other things, customer interest and possible acceptance of this new approach and other options through a statewide survey." The CPUC is expected to conduct hearings on this and other numbering-related issues as part of a broader local competition case, a move that Pacific Bell supports. In the meantime, the industry should hold public meetings and present both split and overlay options for public comment, the company said. Pacific Bell is a subsidiary of Pacific Telesis Group, a San Francisco-based diversified telecommunications corporation. --------------------- Mike King * mk@tfs.com * Oakland, CA, USA * +1 510.645.3152 ------------------------------ From: fletcher@gate.net (mike fletcher) Subject: Re: Inter-Tel "Axxess" Phone System Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 03:09:41 GMT Organization: CyberGate, Inc. On Sun, 25 Mar 96 17:31:47 PST, Alan Frisbie wrote: > One of my customers is trying to select a new telephone system for his > company. As their primary computer consultant, I was asked for my > comments. Since I am not a telecom expert, I am turning to this group > for help. > A telecom salesman is trying to sell them a system, "Axxess", from > Inter-Tel in Chandler, Arizona. Can anyone tell me anything (good or > bad) about this company and/or their products? > Their glossy brochures are full of glittering generalities (as is the > salesman), but short on real technical specifications. For instance, > the salesman says that the system is "fully LAN and WAN capable". > These are nice buzzwords, but don't really tell me how it relates to a > telephone system. As a telecom novice, I am unsure what questions I > should be asking. Could someone give me a few pointers? > The company needs about 20 extensions for sales and customer service, > with about 30-40 additional extensions. Customer service is *very* > important, so they want to use ANI/CNID to best advantage. What does > this phone system offer in this regard? > Also, since one person may be performing multiple job functions, we > want to be able to direct multiple extension numbers to the same > physical phone, with the extension number display on the phone. This > would allow the employee to answer the phone with the appropriate > greeting: "Widget Sales", "Product Support", etc. Can this system do > that? > Is it normal practice to loan a copy of the system documentation to > potential customers? I would like to ask for this, but am unsure what > kind of reaction I would get. Alan, The most important factor IMHO is to select a product that is supported (sold and serviced) by more than one vendor in your area. I have several customers who have had systems installed by a large vendor. When they discovered that the support offered by that vendor was very poor, they looked for an alternate service company. To their surprise they found that their original vendor was the ONLY dealer of that hardware in their area. They were stuck with a dealer who services his accounts when he felt like it. Most of these have since changed hardware to brands available to most legitimate interconnect vendors in the area. Now they have several alternatives for service therefore, their service is excellent. Best of luck to you. Mike Fletcher AD4HV 813-622-9102 President,Tampa Bay Amateur Radio Society 95-96 Florida Certified Fire Alarm Contractor # EF-0000028 E-Mail to fletcher@gate.net Homepage **coming soon** ------------------------------ From: Scottp@mindspring.com (Posi The Phoneman) Subject: Re: Inter-Tel "Axxess" Phone System Date: 29 Mar 1996 01:08:13 GMT Organization: ABSI Reply-To: scottp@mindspring.com > A telecom salesman is trying to sell them a system, "Axxess", from > Inter-Tel in Chandler, Arizona. Can anyone tell me anything (good or > bad) about this company and/or their products? > Their glossy brochures are full of glittering generalities (as is the > salesman), but short on real technical specifications. For instance, > the salesman says that the system is "fully LAN and WAN capable". > These are nice buzzwords, but don't really tell me how it relates to a > telephone system. As a telecom novice, I am unsure what questions I > should be asking. Could someone give me a few pointers? NO NO NO I have worked on many telephone system over the 20 years I've been in this telephone business. The Intertel company have pulled out from selling to normal channnels. They are selling direct to there dealers. This could lock you in to using only one company. Many customer like to be able to change dealers if something happens. Do you want to lock youself down to one or two dealers? Comdial Digital, Vodavi Digital, Norstar Meridian, AT&T all have screen pops and all the bells, and you can find more people to work on them. Look to see the current resale price of the Intertel stuff is. No one will buy it after you buy a phone system that works. If you email mail me with what you want I can sent you a quote from many venders. POSI The Phoneman Atlanta GA scottp@mindspring.com ------------------------------ From: Holloman@cris.com (Robert Holloman) Subject: Re: How to Conference Two POTS Lines? Date: 29 Mar 1996 17:33:49 GMT Organization: Concentric Internet Services Gary Novosielski (gpn@village.ios.com) wrote: > So, can someone tell me what's needed, electrically, to conference two > POTS lines together? Is it enough to just bridge them tip-to-tip, > ring-to-ring, or is additional isolation needed? If so, what would > the circuit for such a device look like? I've got access to a decent > junk box of parts, including a network from an old 2500 phone if that > would help. Bridging them should work fine. The parties that you conference together may have a little difficulty hearing each other, but every two-line conference phone I've ever used also has that problem. I use one of those modular two-line splitter thingys to conference my two lines, in addtion to allowing me to use either line with a single-line phone. It looks like a modular Y splitter, except it has three jacks marked L1, L2, and L1+L2. I have it plugged into an in-line coupler which is connected to the wall jack via a four-wire phone cord (or course the jack is wired for two lines). My phone is connected to the device using a short 6-inch cord. To make a conference call I make sure the phone is connected to L1 or L1+L2, and then place the first call. Next I cross the two lines together by connecting a short cord to L2 and to the remaining jack, and dial the second party. This may not be the best-looking way to conference, but it gets the job done for about $7. Radio Shack carries the two-line splitters. It's also good for when dialing busy number such as radio contest lines. Just cross the two lines and now every phone in the house will dial out on both lines simultaneously, doubling your chances of getting through. One time the phone company reversed polarity of one of my lines, which of course resulted in my trick shorting line one's ring to line two's tip, etc. However conferencing still worked using my cordless phone! All other phones would act as though the lines were dead, due to the large current flow accross the bridge dropping the voltage to near zero across the phones, I believe. ------------------------------ From: JLBENE@aol.com Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 15:30:12 -0500 Subject: Re: How to Conference Two POTS Lines? > So, can someone tell me what's needed, electrically, to conference two > POTS lines together? Is it enough to just bridge them tip-to-tip, > ring-to-ring, or is additional isolation needed? If so, what would > the circuit for such a device look like? I've got access to a decent > junk box of parts, including a network from an old 2500 phone if that > would help. There are many ways to accomplish this, the easiest might be to buy a cheap phone. I've seen some for less than $50 that will work, and has FCC approval, but you've already decided against that. You also should not simply bridge the two lines together -- I don't think the CO would be happy with the DC on each line crossing. One way would be to get a couple of 600 ohm transformers, connecting one to each telephone line, and then connect the two back to back. This will allow audio to pass from one line to another without passing DC current. You must use a switch to disconnect the transformers from the telco lines when not in use, because they will probably hold the line off hook. Radio shack sells audio transformers that are roughly 600 to 900 ohms which should work fine. Alternatively, you could connect a small capacitor, say 0.1uF from tip to tip and ring to ring which should accomplish the same thing: pass AC(audio) but not DC. I'm not sure about the values, but that should be a good starting point. The other option is to let the telco do it for you, with a three-way call. But this usually entails an additional cost from the telco. ------------------------------ From: excalibur!joel@uunet.uu.net (Joel M. Hoffman) Subject: Re: How to Conference Two POTS Lines? Date: 28 Mar 1996 21:30:35 GMT Organization: Excelsior Computer Services In article Gary Novosielski writes: > together. I think it had a hold button too, but the conference > feature is what interests me. > I know some two-line phones have this feature, while others don't, but > I really don't need yet another phone, just the ability to (very > occasionally) conference two POTS lines together. I have two such phones, and neither works very well. I can hear both people, but the two people I've called have to shout to be heard by each other. I suspect that gadget from Radio Shack will fare similarly. Joel (joel@exc.com) ------------------------------ From: turner7@pacsibm.org (TUrner-7) Subject: re: How to Conference Two POTS Lines? Date: 29 Mar 1996 03:42:19 GMT Organization: PACS IBM SIG BBS I've never tried this, but I suspect the following will work. Admittedly this is a crude method, but easy and cheap to do. Connect a plain 500 or 2500 set to each line. Take about the transmitter section on each handset. The mic capsule comes out, and underneath the cup comes out. The base of the cup has screw terminals. I think all you have to do is connect the two pairs of transmitter terminals together to bridge the talking path of the two lines. I believe this won't pass through voltage surges since you're on the handset side of the network. Naturally, you can make the connection where the handsets connect to the network -- just use the transmitter wires. I suggest plain 500/2500 sets because they have large screw terminals with clearly marked color coded wires. Good luck! ------------------------------ From: lars@spectrum.RNS.COM (Lars Poulsen) Subject: Re: How to Conference Two POTS Lines? Date: 28 Mar 1996 10:16:18 -0800 Organization: RNS / "Meret Optical's Network Appliances" In article Gary Novosielski writes: > can someone tell me what's needed, electrically, to conference two > POTS lines together? Is it enough to just bridge them tip-to-tip, > ring-to-ring, or is additional isolation needed? How good does it have to be? How much do you want to spend? Do you need a device that could be certified for part 68 approval, or just something that generally works? If you don't mind a kluge, you can probably get away with just bridging tip-to-tip and ring-to-ring after the calls are set up. You can do this with two Y-splitters and a short patch cord. The disadvantage of this simple circuit, is that the signal level will be poor, and you will be bridging background noise, breathing noises of non-speakers, etc. At the other end of the spectrum is a real conference bridge, with digital signal processing to remove echoes, blank out all parties except the currently speaking party etc. This is what you can dial in to at the service centers of the major carriers. In between these extremes, the tradeoffs between cost and performance can be resolved at every imaginable level, and can be implemented in telephone instruments, PBX's or central offices. The three-way calling feature available in most PBX's or as a central office feature on residential lines is a good compromise for most people. The conference feature that used to be prevalent in two-line phones, seems to be disappearing; I suspect this is because it works for MOST people, but fails in some unusual circumstances. Lars Poulsen Internet E-mail: lars@RNS.COM RNS / Meret Optical Comm:s Phone: +1-805-562-3158 7402 Hollister Avenue Telefax: +1-805-968-8256 Santa Barbara, CA 93117 Internets designed and built while you wait ------------------------------ From: srkleine@midway.uchicago.edu (steven r kleinedler) Subject: Sprint: Bait and Switch? Organization: The University of Chicago Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 17:50:05 GMT An issue that might be relevant: given that those Mailgrams some of us have been getting inform us that our Sprint accounts will be converted to Sprint Sense, couldn't some argument be made that this is a bait and switch tactic? BTW, since you asked, Pat, my first bill showed that the first four Fridays had roughly $320 in calls. I expect the next one, of the last three Fridays, to be around $240. This message has been brought to you by Steve Kleinedler. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yeah, that might be a good name for their activity. So ... sue them! ... PAT] ------------------------------ From: johnper@bigbird.frco.com (John Perkins) Subject: Re: Sprint Fridays Are Free Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 11:57:08 CST Pat, > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It has been 'allowed to persist this > long' because Sprint does not know what they are doing most of the > time. Their marketing people, customer service people and computer > programming people all go around in their own orbits; like Haley's > Comet maybe once every 79 years or so they come within close proximity > of each other and see/hear/understand/grasp what the others are > doing. It's Halley, not Haley. I think that the usual American pronuciation might lead to the misspelling. Actually, I heard that Halley himself may have pronounced it to rhyme with "hall" (rather than with rally). John Perkins (johnper@bigbird.frco.com). (trivia buff) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You mean as in Haw-lee's Comet. Maybe it could be renamed Sprint's Comet. Sometime in the next seventy-nine years they will learn proper marketing techniques. Oh well, it was fun while it lasted. I understand there are still some on the program whose 'other activity' does not balance with Friday Free, and they have not been contacted. Maybe the computer has not yet caught up with them. Or maybe Sprint is still 'trying to contact them without success ...' in order to give them their 26 minute notice. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #146 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Sat Mar 30 03:28:20 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id DAA26354; Sat, 30 Mar 1996 03:28:20 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 1996 03:28:20 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199603300828.DAA26354@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #147 TELECOM Digest Sat, 30 Mar 96 03:28:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 147 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Youngster Kidnapped by Internet Chat Companion (Rob Hoffmann) Re: Youngster Kidnapped by Internet Chat Companion (David Devereaux-Weber) Re: Youngster Kidnapped by Internet Chat Companion (Kevin B. Kenny) Re: How Some Netizens Abuse the First Amendment (John Steele) Re: How Some Netizens Abuse the First Amendment (Robert McMillin) Re: How Some Netizens Abuse the First Amendment (Charles Bruen) Re: How Some Netizens Abuse the First Amendment (Alan Dahl) Re: How Some Netizens Abuse the First Amendment (Steve Travis) Re: How Some Netizens Abuse the First Amendment (Paul Thompson) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: robster2@cris.com (Rob Hoffmann) Subject: Re: Youngster Kidnapped by Internet Chat Companion Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 23:03:02 GMT On 21 Mar 96 12:42:24 GMT, you wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Please everyone, feel free to copy this > message and distribute it to other newsgroups where you feel it might > be appropriate. And to the author, thank you very much for sending in > this very important message. Now watch the nasty messages and howls > start coming in from 'certain places' on the net where they are very > critical of any attempt to 'censor' what the children get to see and > read. I've seen the viciousness elsewhere, so I fully expect to have > a mailbox full of it here Monday. PAT] Talk about axes to grind ... Pat, you miss a point regarding the howls over the Telecom Decency Act. That was a badly written document, which puts many legitimate uses of the Internet at risk of self-appointed government censors. Lawrence Magid's document is about parental guidance. The only howls you get will be from people who profit from the lack of parental guidance ... and should not be confused with concerns over government bungling. Bottom line? Government censorship == BAD. Parental "censorship" (in other words, "parenting") == GOOD. Sorry to keep harping on that, but it honestly pisses me off to be lumped in with the pedophiles simply because I oppose government censorship. Rob [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Briefly to follow up on the case in question, Richard Romero was indicted by a grand jury on Thursday, March 28. He remains in custody until his trial, at which point he faces as a maximum penalty life in prison. In this issue of the Digest, I will present the remaining messages/replies in the two controversial discussion threads of the past two weeks; i.e. the 'internet kidnapping case' and my own comments a week ago on the abuse and misuse of the First Amendment. Most of the messages in this issue are approximatly a week old, however they have been re-dated as necessary to prevent Usenet from stale-dating them and rejecting them for posting at many sites. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 30 Mar 1996 01:55:28 -0600 From: David Devereaux-Weber Subject: Re: Youngster Kidnapped by Internet Chat Companion Pat, I am one who opposes the CDA. I don't like pronography, I don't favor my two kids being exposed to pornography, and I also fear the harm that is described in the kidnapping story. When my kids go online, I supervise. My heart goes out to those affected by such acts as the kidnapping. I have tried to stay away from the intense debate over the CDA, but it may be beneficial to explain a technical side to the issue. It is IMPOSSIBLE for our organization to implement the CDA on our networks. Yes, our institution could demand identification for all our users (>40,000 students and >10,000 faculty and staff) before giving them accounts. As a matter of fact, we do that already. But we can't control the friends, brothers and sisters, relatives of our faculty, staff and students who may be given access by those authorized users. We also can't control access to the hundreds of other networks or thousands of other computers that connect to those other networks. We also can't prevent any of those users from posting obscene or indecent material that might be seen by millions of other users (possibly children) of the Internet. We also can't prevent others from forging return addresses in our domain to post such material. There is no practical way to filter or scan content. In a university research environment, sociologists, psychologists or medical doctors or students in those fields often use words or phrases which would trip "obcenity detectors". In some fields of study (sociology, psychology, law or criminology come to mind), it may be appropriate or legitimate to refer to pornography as part of the research. For example, there are several court cases about indecency or pornography for which records are available on the Internet. We already have an "acceptable use policy" for our own networks. If we discover inappropriate use, or if inappropriate use is brought to our attention, we swiftly investigate and take action, which may include closing accounts, student suspension or expulsion, or work with law enforcement officials. I fully support efforts like the message posted by Cole Cooper/srci/Stentor. It is fantastic. I will be distributing it in Internet training I do. That is the kind of effort that is so necessary now. We need to educate parents and guardians of children, as well as places where Internet access is made available away from home. We need to educate parents and children on how to use the Internet. This is similar to other media. How many parents teach their children how to watch television, listen to radio, or read newspapers and magazines? We need to develop a healthy skepticism of all messages that come in to our environment, and develop a solid relationship of trust, so that our children will be able to use us as resources to help work out the many problems that they will encounter in the process of growing up. The filtering and discarding ("sifting and winnowing"*, as we say here on the UW campus) needs to be in our hearts and minds, and we need to show our children how to do it and why. *These famous words are taken from a report of the university's Board of Regents in 1894: "Whatever may be the limitation which trammel inquiry elsewhere, we believe that the great state University of Wisconsin should ever encourage that continual and fearless sifting and winnowing by which alone the truth can be found." This statement was made in the wake of an investigation of charges that the liberal UW-Madison economist Richard Ely openly advocated social revolution and was fomenting strikes in Madison. An investigating committee exonerated Ely. The words were written by Charles Kendall Adams, seventh president of the university and are set on a bronze plaque affixed to the front of Bascom Hall, a gift of the class of 1910. The 100th anniversary was celebrated in 1994 and the plaque was re- dedicated. David Devereaux-Weber, P. E. (608)262-3584 djdevere@facstaff.wisc.edu (608)265-5838 (FAX) Web: http://clover.macc.wisc.edu/ The University of Wisconsin - Madison Network Engineering ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 10:28:42 -0500 From: Kevin B. Kenny KE9TV Organization: GE Corporate R&D Subject: Re: Youngster Kidnapped by Internet Chat Companion > Now watch the nasty messages and howls > start coming in from 'certain places' on the net where they are very > critical of any attempt to 'censor' what the children get to see and > read. I've seen the viciousness elsewhere, so I fully expect to have > a mailbox full of it here Monday. Not from me. The "My Rules for On-line Safety" places control right where it belongs -- squarely in the hands of parents. It doesn't impose government censorship on the wires, and doesn't impose an impossible liability standard on service providers. Put me down as a concerned father who's strongly against the CDA, less strongly against a mandatory rating system (a long step down a slippery slope) and all for ``My Rules for On-line Safety''. Thanks for doing a public service passing the article on. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 19:16:12 -0500 From: John Steele Subject: Re: How Some Netizens Abuse the First Amendment Pat, Whether you publish this reply or not, thanks for saying it. In the last few days I have been amazed by the particpation in the so called "Free speech Online" movement(?) including seeing the "emblem" on Microsoft's site and innumerable others. I am disturbed and dismayed by this blind, unqualified, support for the unrestrained purveying of anything that anyone wants to say, without regard to what is healthy or unhealthy for the society. Curiously, the recent efforts by some "white supremacists" to get on Usenet in the rec.music area was met by a crescendo of objection. I vigorously denounce everything these clowns stand for, but how is that they can't have their say if we are all firmly committed to "free speech" -- apparently "one brand of free speech is OK, but someone else's is not." I am opposed to government censorship because I think it ultimately is bad for a free society. But, at the same time, the society as a whole has a right and responsibility to protect itself. So, if individuals will not exercise some responsiblity in the exercise of their liberties, then they should not be surprised when society, through the arm of their government, attempts to exercise controls on them. This is especially true in this society, assuming of course that you believe as I do, that we are the government. Thanks for the editorial. information systems technology, inc. marcus centre - ph 20 / 9990 sw 77 ave / miami, fl 33156 tel 305.595.4845 / fax 305.595.4845 insyte@insyte.com http://www.insyte.com/ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And thank you for your kind note of support. Like yourself, I've been rather amazed to see, for example, those 'blue ribbons' popping up everywhere in what seems to me to be just a 'follow the leader' sort of mentality with no real thought being given to what is really meant. Obviously so few people have any real understanding of *who* is and is not governed by the First Amendment. As Newton Minnow phrased it, 'so many Americans at so many levels try to excuse their own excesses and greed and vulgarity using the First Amendment.' PAT] ------------------------------ From: rlm@netcom.com (Robert McMillin) Subject: Re: How Some Netizens Abuse the First Amendment Organization: Charlie Don't CERF Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 15:38:42 GMT On 26 Mar 1996 18:13:50 PDT, I wrote: > Your arguments, from what I can tell, are that the Internet is full of > trash and therefore should be censored. The problem with this is that > we can apply the same logic to the printed word. I'm sure you'll > dismiss that as employing a hopelessly "slippery-slope" argument, but > the history of governments indicates they all want to grab more power, > not cede it. Despite your ill-informed comments to the contrary, the > Founders were well aware of what they were doing when they nailed the > Amendments onto the Constitution, namely, preventing just the sort of > thing you're advocating for the Net. It's what the First Amendment is > about, not the "free speech for me but not for thee" attitude I see so > prevalently displayed by this group's moderator. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If my attitude were what you say it > is, then what is your message doing here? And I do not claim any > special rights for myself. There is no 'for me but not for thee'. Remember, you're defending government censorship of the Net. One cannot simultaneously be for a thing and against it. We are not talking about position papers about the CDA, but the things the CDA is intended to stop, things which if posted to this forum would be (correctly) deleted by you, the moderator, as inappropriate. This is therefore a specious point. > Are you suggesting that if some system admin somewhere decided not > to accept or distribute this Digest that I would have some legal > right to force him to accept it? No, but nobody's ever suggested this. A sysadmin is a king on his own host, just as a newspaper publisher doesn't have to open his Heidelbergs to the Marxist who demands it in the name of the proletariat: ownership counts. Your complaints all revolve around the things people voluntarily make available on Usenet and the Web, and how improved the world would be if the CDA's legal blackjack could be used to shut these people up. Nobody's forcing anything on anybody in the current scheme; you propose to use force, government force, for the end of "cleaning up" the Internet. That's a cure worse than the "disease". It comes down to this: don't like alt.sex.amputee? Don't read it. Don't want your kids to read it? Buy a copy of SurfWatch. But don't tell me what I can and cannot discuss in a public forum on the Net. That's prior restraint, and exactly what I mean by "free speech for me but not for thee". Robert L. McMillin | rlm@helen.surfcty.com | Netcom: rlm@netcom.com WWW: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/rl/rlm/home.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 10:44:09 MST From: Charles Bruen Subject: Re: How Some Netizens Abuse the First Amendment Pat - I just wanted to drop you a quick note and let you know how much I appreciated your article. It was well reasoned and persuasive. I agree whole heartedly and I wished more of us would speak out against the sludge. Thanks. Charles Bruen Department 9234, MS 0439 Sandia National Laboratories cabruen@sandia.gov, (505) 844-1085 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thank you for your kind note of support. I appreciate you taking the time to write. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Alan Dahl Date: Fri, 29 Mar 96 15:57:47 -0800 Subject: Re: How Some Netizens Abuse the First Amendment ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) writes: >>> Contrary to what you say about system admins having no control over >>> what appears in newsgroups, quite the opposite is true. They have >>> *complete* control over the matter. See my comments about about >>> editors and active files. A system admin who does not want a partic- >>> ular group can have it gone in a few minutes or less. I am not saying >> Umm, so what do you do when, because so many sys admins have banned >> alt.sex.fetish.whatever.disgusting.thing, folks from over there decide >> that they'd rather start posting their filthy photos to rec.sports. >> baseball, comp.ibm.pc or, even worse, one of the K12 groups? At least >> the way things are group names pretty much describe the contents of >> the messages in that group. Once you start massively banning groups I >> see that structure breaking down. IMHO giving the users a way to >> control their own access is better than the sys admin censoring based >> on group name. >> If you have any suggestions on how to ban access to the "bad" groups >> without resulting in "bad" messages posted to "good" groups I'd be >> interested but I suspect that there is no easy way to do so. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That is like saying that there is no > real way to deal with spammers, that some one or more persons will > always slip something in an inappropriate newsgroup. At the point > what you say begins to occur, and I don't think it will, then you > are dealing with a single individual breaking the rules, and it would > behoove the system administrator at the originating site, upon being > notified -- as he surely would be in thousands of email letters -- of > his user's transgressions to deal with that user as appropriate. I'm not talking about a single user abusing a group; as you stated that is easy enough to handle. I'm talking about the Net "civilization" breaking down to the point that a large number of people stop obeying the Net convention of posting messages relevent to each newsgroup's charter. Spammers, as you have noted, can be dealt with on a one to one basis currently but 100,000 (or a million or ten million) "spammers" would be a whole 'nother matter. > You seem to be saying that people have to 'get this out of their > system' one way or another; that if they do not have a specific > newsgroup to post their grafitti or sexual fantasies they will just > go rip off someone else's newsgroup to do it. I do not think so for > the simple reason I have never advocated not allowing people to post > what they want in 'appropriate' (to that context) forums; I've just > suggested a lot of admins might want to take a higher road and not > carry it. There will always be sites that do carry it of course. PAT] That _is_ more or less what I am saying. The point I wanted to make is that while banning certain newsgroups on a site by site basis is ok (after all each sys admin should be able to decide what information is displayed on his site) any wholesale effort to ban such groups Net-wide, either by the Government or by a group dedicated to that cause, is doomed to failure. IMHO sys admins _should_ be able to decide whether their sites are "open" or "closed" based on their personal feelings, but those folks who prefer "closed" sites should _not_ try to force sys admins who do not want to to close their sites to do so because if such an effort is successful on a large-scale basis anarchy may result. Alan Dahl | alan.dahl@attws.com Analysts International Co. | (NeXTMail OK) -or- 10655 N.E. 4th St. Suite 804 | adahl@eskimo.com Bellevue, WA 98004 | PH: (206) 702-5231 http://www.eskimo.com/~adahl | FAX: (206) 702-5452 [TELECOM Dgiest Editor's Note: Contrary to what some people seem to think, I do not in general like government intervention in anything, and that includes this net. But realistically, I can see how CDA came to be law. I know human nature well enough -- as should you -- to know it had to happen sometime sooner or later. That's one reason I wish the opponents of CDA would quit playing games and mincing words over terms like 'indecency' and 'obscenity'. Of course I know the difference, so do most people. Is CDA a bad law? Well, it is not the best written thing I have ever seen, and I can see how, in extreme examples, some of the opponents predictions *could* come to pass. But I don't think for one minute that congress, despite the way the law reads has any intention of worrying about whether someone goes into a library, logs in and uses a search engine to locate (Little) and (Women) happens to turn up a few possibly raunchy references in the meantime. I think their intention was to deal with hard core pornog- raphy and the like. The best thing that could happen at this point would be for them to take the law back and re-write it so that in every instance of the word 'indecent' and 'indecency' they replaced those words with the words 'obscene' and 'obscenity'. *Those* terms have been defined and the things they represent are afforded no First Amendment protection. I wonder what the ACLU would find to complain about then? Context is so all important, and you would think that the opponents of CDA would realize that. The Chicago Public Library at one point was opposed to a ban on child pornography because 'we have books in the medical reference area which contain pictures of children without clothes on; we would be found guilty.' Now really, have none of these people any concept of what *context* is all about, or are they assuming they are the only ones who know what it means? Then to add to the confusion, there are those sick individuals who do want to see such images and they toss a few red herrings into the arena to stir up a bit more anxiety about the loss of the First Amendment. The law was not passed so that users could take Louisa May Alcott out of context or for that matter the Bible (some would say it is one of the filthiest books around; there are parts in the Old Testament which are quite lurid at a minimum) or medical commentaries on children's bodies and then wind up in prison for doing so. It was passed because frankly, large segments of Usenet were starting to get pretty outrageous, and little or no effort was being made to protect the sensibilities of a large segment of our citizens who found and continue to find it distasteful. I have to ask the opponents of CDA (and do not misunderstand, I am not exactly a *proponent* of it), **what did you expect would eventually happen?**. **What did you think would be the logical conclusion to your years and years of extremely liberal philosophy regarding the management of Usenet?** Hey, we went for years around here with sysadmins falling all over themselves to show how terribly, terribly liberal they were about any garbage which came along. Let some crackpot suggest a group on Usenet (or more correctly altnet) and they would all rush to their computer to be first to 'newgroup' it on their spools. Mustn't have anyone think we are bigots or narrow minded about topic X or topic Y. Cardinal sins in the Usenet world you know, bigotry and narrow- mindedness. The trouble is, many were so open-minded that their brains fell out. May I repeat: ideas have consequences. You are now experiencing the logical conclusion to years and years and years of liberal tolerance for anything-goes, come one, come all for Sunday afternoon in the park as Gene Spafford once described this zoo. You say if the 'bad' newsgroups are banned then the 'bad' people will all start misusing the 'good' groups and this will start happening in such large quantity -- i.e. anarchy was your term -- that the net will soon collapse totally where the 'good' people are concerned. Better we should have groups clearly delineated as 'bad' or 'red light' districts just as in real communities in the hopes all the 'bad' people will stay there. Well excuse me, but wasn't the flag of anarchy the one we so proudly waved around here all these years anyway? The only problem was, the pitiful excuse for anarchists we had on the net for all these years knew so little on the topic they would not know a *real* anarchist if one came up and set a bomb off under the swivel chair they sit in at their office all day reading Usenet when they should be working. Now that *real* anarchy has come to the net, the government got a belly-full and decided to clean things up. Is that so hard to understand or difficult to believe? And please, none of your First Amendment rot. You get more First Amendment around here in five minutes on this net than people in some parts of the world get in their lifetime. PAT] ------------------------------ From: stravis@glass.toledolink.com (Steve Brack Stravis Shawn Travis) Subject: Re: How Some Netizens Abuse the First Amendment Date: 28 Mar 1996 03:22:49 GMT Organization: Toledo Internet Access, Inc. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This next letter is quite long and I will respond to his points as he raises them rather than try to summarize them all at the end. PAT] Anita M. Wilcox (uplink@uplinktech.com) wrote: [I've expunged Ms. Wilcox's comments in order to concentrate on PAT's] > ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) wrote: >> That has long been the pattern on Usenet and the Internet as well, >> hasn't it? System admins, news admins, webmasters and others who >> exercise considerable control over the downright junk and garbage >> which appears in newsgroups and web pages -- if for no other reason >> than they refuse to take a stand against passing it all over the net -- But how is asking UUNET to stop passing articles that meet some subjective standard of "filth" any different from asking AT&T not to allow phone connections contaning "filth?" [TELECOM Digest Editor's Reply: It depends on if you define the one as a common carrier and the other as a publisher or distributor. In any event AT&T is forbidden to listen to telephone conversations and thus cannot discern what is in them. No law prevents UUNET from reading the stuff it handles and knowing full well what it contains. PAT] > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Anita, if you are going to sit there > and tell me about all the 'technical difficulties' there are in > calling up your editor, inserting the 'active' file and deleting the > lines which contain the names of 'news'groups which are just plain > filthy, then you have no business in the job you are holding. I've read this Digest since 1990, and I've always been impressed by your well-reasoned arguments and insightful opinions, PAT. It saddens me to see such sanctimony as "then you have no business in the job you are holding" come from the same source. To think that the self-regulating aspects of Usenet should be cast aside in favor of your (or another's) subjective decision as to what is "just plain filthy." Even in altnet, a modicum of consensus is required before a newgroup is honored. For news, the sum effect of what you're proposing is the supposition of a benevolent dictatorship for a direct democracy. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Reply: Excuse me, but I cannot see what is so technically difficult about using an online editor and editing the 'active' file. If she cannot do that without a big struggle then what exactly is she doing there? I cannot see what is so hard about reading a list of newsgroup names in the 'active' file and being able to exercise reasonable judgment about the content of the group and its general worth to the client or customer base I serve. Far from suggesting that the 'self-regulating aspects of Usenet be cast aside, I am encouraging the net to regulate itself using the most convenient way of doing so, i.e. syadmins who manage the daily input and output. Had the net been 'self-regulating itself' all these years do you think the government would have stepped in? PAT] > Anyone who has read my messages over any period of time here knows I > have never said a sys admin has to sit and read through millions of > words in thousands of messages each day. If it is such a hard job for > you then hire me to come there for a half-day. In one quick motion I > could easily do what Compuserve did: go through and eliminate *from > that site only* several dozen 'news'groups which no longer would be > carried there. That would mean that arriving messages for those groups > would be rejected in the stream as unwanted. It means your users on > attempting to post to those groups or read those groups would be told > they did not exist. It means when you pass news to other sites you > don't pass those groups any longer because they are no longer on your > spool. You've made my point rather eloquently, PAT. Not only would such a removal deny your users the choice of whether or not to read the so-called "offensive" newsgroups, it also denies downstream sysadmins the ability to make the very choice you're advocating. All this on top of turning the established customs of Usenet news on their collective ear and ignoring the years of stepwise refinement to the process as organized by Gene Spafford and many others. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Reply: Does NBC or CBS or the {New York Times} give its readers any choice in what they read from one day to the next other than occaasional cutesy polls asking if they want to have the Mary Worth comic strip or Ann Slanders? I guess by your line of reasoning NBC should ask its viewers if they would prefer to see a newscast or they would rather have a re-run of "I Love Lucy" or "The Three Stooges" and then be bound accordingly. To not do so would be to 'deny' the readers/viewers, right? To be sure, newspapers and television/radio stations attempt to discern what sort of audience they have and what will sell in their market. Why are ISPs any different? I am not saying they must cut out porn; I am saying the ones who feel they can do better than that and who want to see changes on the net should feel free to set standards for their sites. Big deal, huh? You *obviously* have no knowledge of how news is propogated or you would not have come up with that thing about what I do at one site somehow affecting 'downstream'. Messages getting from machine A to machine B are not affected by what UUNET chooses to do about it. News 'routes around' machines which are not available for whatever reason. I think you knew that. Maybe because of its good connectivity it gets from A to B faster if UUNET is in the middle, but it still gets there. Are you saying that if the CBS affiliate in Chicago decides not to have 'I Love Lucy' for the umpteenth time that the CBS affiliate in Peoria can't have it either? Are you saying that without UUNET in the middle that my computer cannot call your computer and exchange messages -- any messages, content irrelevant -- with your computer that we choose to exchange? You are smarter than that. I know you know how news gets around. The 'established customs' of Usenet for as long as I can remember have been that anything goes. The 'established customs' of Usenet have always been that the sysadmin is to complain about nothing and take what is fed. And by the way, the Moderators are supposed to shut up and take the junk they get also; what nerve they have to 'censor' anything. You talk about 'Usenet customs'; let's get them correct. PAT] > Contrary to what you say about system admins having no control over > what appears in newsgroups, quite the opposite is true. They have > *complete* control over the matter. See my comments about about > editors and active files. A system admin who does not want a partic- > ular group can have it gone in a few minutes or less. I am not saying > the admin needs to sit daily and read it all and pick through it > message by message; neither an I saying the admin should just broadly > go through and delete newsgroups wholesale -- and the admin should > **never** make decisions like that based on his personal attitudes > or sexual orientation or whatever. What you do is sit down and > over a period of two or three days scan through a newsgroup and get > a reasonable overview of the whole thing. If in your sampling it is > consistently a waste of spool space and in bad taste, then you kill > the group. What exactly is "bad taste" judged by, but the "personal attitudes" of the sysadmin. What if a sysadmin believes alt.homosexual is "filthy" and "in bad taste?" Whatever the admin's orientation, your position seems to be that if s/he judges a group to be unworthy, s/he can drop it, regardless of what anyone else thinks or feels. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Reply: That's right. That is how all the newspapers and radio/television stations do it. They carry what they want to carry and ignore the rest. When was the last time CBS asked you your opinion on some show they ran? When was the last time the newspaper asked your opinion? For that matter, when was the last time *anyone* asked your opinion on how they should use their own property, and why should they bother asking you except as they may wish to appease you and gain your reader/viewership or patronage? PAT] > Maybe you set up a schedule where every two or three months > you go back and give a 'second look' to some of the groups you had > earlier removed. Maybe you change your mind then, or maybe you don't, > but it is this thoughtless attitude 'I can't do anything about it so > I have to go along with all of it' that I find distressing. The way the law is shaping up, either you're a common carrier and not making content-based decisions, or you're deciding what to allow based on content and taking on the legal mantle of a publisher. I wouldn't tolerate any common carrier, whether IXC or ISP, deciding what I should be allowed to see, hear, or read. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Reply: I would not tolerate any *common carrier* doing that either. But I am suggesting that ISPs and sys admins should regard themselves as more akin to publishers or publishers' representatives/distributors. Does that entail a bit more work? Sure it does. Not all would want that role, and not all would be competent. But then I would not be a very competent Unix system admin either, but I don't ask for such a job and then whine because I cannot handle it and ask to have it 'dumbed down' to what I do know about Unix. I don't then complain that my network is always crashing because I cannot possibly spend the time to learn it and do it right. For those admins and ISPs who *can* take the time and *do* know how I am only suggesting let's work to make the net a bit more 'family-friendly'. Not once am I saying delete alt.homosexual or anything else. I am saying you run your net to your standards and may I suggest you raise your standards ... PAT] > Can system administrators change the face and complexion of Usenet > overnight if they want? You bet they can. Of course. It's all a matter of how much "protection" the rest of us are willing to tolerate from our self-appointed protectors. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Reply: Again, take your complaint to the newspapers or the television stations. If you don't like the papers and books I distribute at my bookstore you go to another one you do like. I can recommend a couple of adult bookstores if you want to go to them. You don't want to watch the same station as me on televison because the programs there all bore you? Fine, watch another network. But if a television network said, 'gee there are so many shows out there and each show contains so many scripts there are just too many for us to make any intelligent decisions about the ones we want so we have to run them all. We have no control; we just have to take everything which comes along' would *you* buy that nonesense? If a bookstore said, 'there are thousands of titles published every year on every topic under the sun and all I have here is one poor clerk at the cash register so I cannot begin to take any sort of overview on what is out there and select the kinds of books I want and not only that if I don't take some books the authors will sue me and the customers will sue me and therefore I just have to take them all ....' would *you* buy that load also? Then why, pray tell, do you apply that reasoning to ISPs? Ah, because you say we on Usenet are so special, and so different. Bologna! PAT] > Finally Anita, you say it comes down to damned if you and damned if > you don't ... get sued by parents whose little precious children would > never have had those ideas on their own had they not seen them first > on a newgroup on your machine or conversely get sued by the Dirty > Old Man's Association For the Advancement of Pedophile Newsgroups for > causing them to have to go look elsewhere to get their kicks ... why > God forbid, even one of your competitors. Well since you have a choice > in the matter, why not take the high road? There is always room for > more quality on the net; God knows there is very little of it now. PAT] And in this para you make the leap that many who fear ideas do: You move from deriding the message to denegrating its sender. This discussion started out rather tenuously related to the topic of this newsgroup, and now it's moved into an ad hominem attack. It leads me to wonder how this thread found its way into comp.dcom.telecom, and to postulate that, had this discussion not provided you with such a wonderful opportunity to vent your spleen, it may well have never been published in your journal. IMO, this is definitely at the ragged edge of your editorial license. For six years, I've been able to count on the Digest as an unbiased, impartial source for information on the growing technical and policy issues in the telecom industry. Now, given a dozen articles on a topic that is highly political and barely telecom-related, can I be so certain? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Reply: Is that right? And you say *I* have problems and like to vent *my* spleen? 'Can you be so certain?' No, probably not. I don't want to waste any more of your time; why don't you start reading all six or seven divisions of alt.2600.etc each day instead. Now there is a great newsgroup you'll enjoy, all 250 (on average) 'me too' messages daily plus the occassional new item. And they never say anything controversial there. I know you'll like it. Wave bye-bye. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 19:11:23 CST From: Paul Thompson Subject: Re: How Some Netizens Abuse the First Amendment > It is sad to see editorials of that nature in TELECOM Digest. > I assume you will publish counter arguments in a lead position also. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But of course I will. Don't confuse > me with my competitor the {Washington Post} where if you say something > they find disagreeable you'll be lucky if they even allow you to > purchase a tiny classified advertisement in the future, let alone > say anything in their op-ed section. I'll use the rest of this issue > to print a sampling of today's mail on the topic in fact. > By the way Dave, why are you so sad? Is it because you'd prefer to > see this Digest just follow the party line and leave the thinking > up to the lawyers at the ACLU? Admittedly, it would make their jobs > a lot easier if they were not always having to fight two battles: one > against the government and the other an attempt to save the rest of > us from ourselves. Think back for a moment to what the late founder > of the ACLU, Roger Baldwin had to say in 1920: In his remarks at the > founding of the ACLU, Mr. Baldwin did not mince words; he said 'the > purpose of any civil liberties organization is to promote anarchy.' > Other than the fact that the ACLU is in large part funded by the > Roger Baldwin Foundation, we don't hear much about him these days. > Nor do we use the words 'anarchy' and 'anarchist' must these days > either. They are sort of old fashioned terms, but what they stand > for is still pretty much in vogue at the ACLU. Anyway, let's see > what some others have to say. PAT] It never ceases to amaze me that the conservative mantra "government regulation is bad" can coexist in the conservative mind with "if I don't like it the government had better regulate it." How many times have we heard about government regulation poisioning the schools, killing the market, and wreaking near inconceivable havok on the lives of ordinary citizens from the Moderator of TELECOM Digest only to have him call for government regulation to solve a problem government is ill suited to control? I am not comfortable with the concept of government regulating ideas; nor do I believe that mere exposure to an idea leads to irrecoverable damage. I don't care for the wealth of smut on the internet, but I have a great way avoiding it: I ignore it. Paul [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I ignore it also; why do so many people feel offended when I suggest that sysadmins who are so inclined should also ignore it in an official capacity? Let me summarize real quickly: I can and do ignore what I do not personally want to read. I do not advocate anyone being told what they can and cannot write or publish on their computer. I do think we have the right and social obligation to 'refuse passage' to those things we find offensive. I am not particularly in favor of CDA; I am in favor of self-regulation on the net; that is, the net doing its own thing, but I know this net well enough to know that unless the people who control the feed begin the 'self-regulation' process the government is going to do it for us. The CDA is the quite logical conclusion to years and years of 'anarchy' on the net combined with an unthinking liberal policy that anything goes, and usually does here. I would personally prefer to see ISPs and sysadmins in the role of publisher/distributor rather than as common carrier where news is concerned. Regards email, they should be common carriers. Nothing in the CDA gives the net 26 minutes notice to get its house in order. I'd like to see over the next several months to a year an *orderly* transition where children as users are iden- tified and required to use 'nanny' programs. I'd like to see sysadmins specifically identify themselves as 'family' or 'adult' services, and edit their spool accordingly. My belief is that a major reform of the net is long overdue and that the CDA has simply forced the issue to the front burner. We will either reform ourselves or the government will attend to it. By reform I do not mean that you may not post or circulate 'naughty messages' if that is your pleasure; God bless you however you feel. I mean that if you choose to do so and at the very same time play games with words and definitions in court and try to claim there is no way to get it under control and constantly invoke the First Amendment, *then the government will do it for you*, and they will get the net 'under control and cleaned up'. And we don't want the goverment doing it ... only a fool would suggest that we do. Anything Uncle Sam can do, **we** can do better. Now that all of America is getting involved in the net -- it is no longer just a handful of elite users as it was for years -- like it or not we must begin to accomodate the newcomers, people who think Senator Exon is the greatest man alive. There are lots of them out there. I will suggest it is not too late to limit the damage caused by the CDA if we act quickly. The purpose of laws are to protect the *weak* ... and truly the weak are coming among us in rapid numbers. Wouldn't it be great if a few years from now when people thought 'Internet/Usenet' instead of thinking about kiddie porn, phreaking and other malfeasance their first thought was of the thousands of *nice* things that happen around here each day? Make it happen. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #147 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Apr 1 17:44:17 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id RAA00940; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 17:44:17 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 17:44:17 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604012244.RAA00940@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #148 TELECOM Digest Mon, 1 Apr 96 17:44:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 148 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson The ACTA Petition At The FCC (Jeff Buckingham) Re: Formal FCC Action Filed to Stop I-Phone (John Higdon) Re: Formal FCC Action Filed to Stop I-Phone (Bill Haybyrne) Re: Formal FCC Action Filed to Stop I-Phone (Ivan Sindell) Re: Formal FCC Action Filed to Stop I-Phone (Chris Hiner) Re: How to Conference Two POTS Lines? (A. Okapuu-von Veh) Re: How to Conference Two POTS Lines? (Linc Madison) Re: How to Conference Two POTS Lines? (Ron Elkayam) Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN (Dave O'Shea) Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN (C. Wheeler) Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN (Dave Perrussel) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jbuckingham@wynd.net Date: Mon, 01 Apr 1996 10:27:32 -0800 Subject: The ACTA Petition At The FCC Reply-To: jbucking@callamerica.com Pat, I am writing as an ACTA member who is also an Internet provider and someone with a committment to the future of a free and open telecommunications infrastructure. I have a few comments for perspective regarding the ACTA filing that you posted yesterday. The issue of this filing is going to be discussed with the ACTA board and membership over the next few days at a conference in Phoenix. I think we should all keep our reactions to this filing to a minimum until this internal debate at ACTA has taken place. I have found that there are many ACTA members who do not support restrictions on the internet and therefore it is possible that ACTA may elect to clarify its position in the near future. The real problem here is not the software companies or the Internet by an antiquated access charge structure that has access charges set at five to seven times the level they should be. These access charges are applied to telephone calls on the public switched network but not to dial up internet calls placed over business lines. This is a problem that I am sure everyone can see needs to be resolved. One solution would be to try and apply an out dated access charge structure on Internet providers but this obviously will not work since it is about to collapse of its own weight anyway. The other more logical solution (in my opinion) is to use the Internet telephony issue as a demonstration of why access charge reform is needed very quickly. There is no reason that talking over the Internet should be any cheaper than talking on the phone. Once access charges are fixed the decision could be left up to the consumer to decide. I will send a posting out if ACTA decides to clarify its position on this issue. Jeff Buckingham Call America, San Luis Obispo, CA 805-545-5100 MyLine (voice and fax) jbucking@callamerica.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks for some additional background on this from someone 'on the inside'. I'll look forward to the notes you compile at your meeting in Phoenix. The word now is also that the FCC has put a halt -- or a least a slow-down -- on this by pushing back the time allowed for public comment until the middle of May, in order that members of the public -- i.e. internet service providers, their customers and other interested persons -- have time to reply. PAT] ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Mon, 01 Apr 1996 03:20:24 -0800 From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Formal FCC Complaint Filed Against I-Phone At 1:32 PM on 3/29/96, Patrick A. Townson wrote: > This is a special bulletin received Friday morning regards the > squabble between the telephone companies and the I-Phone people; > the ones who use the software which allows voice communication > via the Internet. The war has started! It appears the carriers are > serious about getting rid of this Internet feature. A formal > complaint has been filed with the Federal Communications Commission. And I must say, this is the most pathetic filing to come across my desk in many years. Out of the box, let me say that I feel that Internet voice communication is a substantial misuse of packet technology. And I agree that it is an inefficient use of network bandwidth. But when a trade organization is moved to eliminate -- not competition -- but an alternative to its members' product, it is apparent that many have lost track of what the free market is all about. Some of the more ridiculous parts of the filing: > ACTA submits that the providers of this software are tele- > communications carriers and, as such, should be subject to FCC > regulation like all telecommunications carriers. Followed by: > ACTA submits that it is not in the public interest to permit long > distance service to be given away, depriving those who must maintain > the telecommunications infrastructure of the revenue to do so, I was unaware that providing an alternative to "long distance" established an entity as a carrier. But beyond that, no one is giving anything away. The software company is charging for its software and the Internet connections are presumably being paid for and the equipment is presumed to have been duly purchased or leased. The ACTA is upset because no one is charging anyone PER MINUTE rates, and that strikes at the universal heart of the IXC gravy train. IXCs have been nervous about the Internet for decades. Imagine, data -- in any amount -- flowing at a fixed monthly cost. Up to now, it was just "data". But someone crossed the line and took a leak in the IXC's plush parlor. What ever happened to the concept of finding better ways to do things? The ACTA scarcely mentions any notion that voice communications over a packet network is a kludge. That is not what upsets the organization. This is: > nor is it in the public interest for these select telecommunications > carriers to operate outside the regulatory requirements applicable to > all other carriers. WHY is it not in the public interest? The Internet is no longer subsidized by the government, so that argument is out the window. If people are paying for a technology, who has the right to say that it cannot be used in any lawful way possible? > ACTA's carrier members must be certificated and tariffed before > the FCC and most state regulatory commissions in order to render their > telecommunications service to the public. So what? Why is this relevant? Internet voice communications do not (necessarily) even use the services of ANY of ACTA's carrier members. Who cares what that organization's members have to do? > In addition, ACTA carrier > members are subject to the requirements of the Communications Act of > 1934, as amended (the "Act"), and various state laws and regulations > which prohibit engaging in unreasonable practices and/or unduly > discriminatory conduct. And for good reason. Even with these regulations in place, IXCs are screwing the public at every perceived opportunity. It is not completely apparently why this statement was made, since it casts an appropriately unfavorable light on ACTA's membership. > Entities, like those which are described hereinafter, which do > not comply with or operate subject to the same statutory and > regulatory requirements as ACTA's carrier members, distort the > economic and public interest environment in which ACTA carrier members > and nonmembers must operate. Software companies are not subject to carrier statutory and regulatory requirements. Why? They are not carriers. How more obvious can it get? "Distort the economic and public interest environment" translated to English means "customers might just find alternatives to our over-priced services." Here is one of my favorite excerpts: > Absent action by the Commission, the new technology could be used to > circumvent restrictions traditionally found in tariffs con cerning > unlawful uses, such as gambling, obscenity, prostitution, drug > traffic, and other illegal acts. I see. Drug dealers are so illiterate that unable to use E-mail, they would instead use Internet voice communications, presumably depriving ACTA's members of even THAT revenue. Wheneven you run out of intelligent arguments, toss in "gambling, obscenity, prostitution, drug traffic" and all the other boogeymen. But the crux of the matter is that what they propose is impossible: > Permitting long distance service to be given away is not in the > public interest. Therefore, ACTA urges the Federal Communications > Commission ("the Commission") to exercise its jurisdiction in this > matter and: issue a declaratory ruling establishing its authority over > interstate and international telecommuni- cations services using the > Internet; grant special relief to maintain the status quo by > immediately stop the sale of this software; and institute rulemaking > proceedings defining permissible communications over the Internet. Nice try, but there is no "Internet". There is no main office; there are no branch offices. It is impossible to "monitor" the Internet. It would be impossible to define "permissible communications over the Internet" simply because 1) new types of services are coming forth daily; and 2) such regulations would be unenforcable. Since data can be scrambled and encrypted in an infinite number of ways, even packet sniffing on randomly selected routes would yield an empty hand. What do we have here? We have a software company distributing software that provides for utilization of a common technology: conversion of voice to data; data to voice. Nothing illegal about that. And then we have users installing that software on systems that have links to the Internet. There is nothing immoral or illegal about that. But ACTA thinks "there oughtta be a law ...". Let's see ... "Federal Law prohibits the installation of this software on any computer that has a connection to the Internet. Violation of the law may cause damage to ACTA-members' Cash Cow." I predict that our currect method for handling long distance (time and distance charging) will eventually go by the wayside. I also do not believe that "Internet Phone" is the vehicle that will cause that to come about. But it has served one purpose: we now know that ACTA is not interested in ANY technological advances that threaten its status quo. That is good information to have in the future. John Higdon | P.O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX: john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | +1 500 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407 | http://www.ati.com/ati | [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: John, that was a great rebuttal. As Jeff Buckingham has pointed out in the message just before yours, it is not at all certain that *all* or even the majority of ACTA members support the position the organization has taken. The meeting in Phoenix should clarify exactly where the members stand on this, and Jeff will be reporting it when he gets back. And I hope that when Jeff does attend the conference he will let it be known that this action by ACTA has not gone unnoticed by the Internet community. PAT ------------------------------ From: billh@churchmail.com Subject: Re: Formal FCC Action Filed to Stop I-Phone Date: 01 Apr 1996 10:55:41 GMT Organization: Capital Area Internet Service, Inc. Reply-To: billh@churchmail.com In <96.03.29.005tyh8@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, TELECOM Digest Editor writes: > This is a special bulletin received Friday morning regards the > squabble between the telephone companies and the I-Phone people; > the ones who use the software which allows voice communication > via the Internet. The war has started! It appears the carriers are > serious about getting rid of this Internet feature. A formal > complaint has been filed with the Federal Communications Commission. If you are interested in learning more about this, check out: http://www.von.org Bill Haybyrne ------------------------------ From: isindell@ix.netcom.com (Ivan Sindell) Subject: Re: Formal FCC Action Filed to Stop I-Phone Date: 1 Apr 1996 01:56:05 GMT Organization: Netcom There is a mailing list for this called Voice on the Net (VON list). Jeff Pulver is moderator. They have been covering this in detail. Their's is a major effort to oppose this action. Subscribe to the VON list. Ivan Sindell, President/ Global Communications Systems Research Member: Society of Telecommunications Consultants (STC) 3940 Highwood Ct. NW; Washington, DC 20007 202-342-1500v; 202-298-6240f [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks for the tip Ivan, but you did not say *how* -- where to write, etc -- to get on the VON list. PAT] ------------------------------ From: chiner@quark.gmi.edu (Chris Hiner) Subject: Re: Formal FCC Action Filed to Stop I-Phone Date: 01 Apr 1996 09:05:36 GMT Organization: GMI Engin. & Mgt. Institute, Flint, MI Just an interesting thing I noticed... > ACTA asks the Commission, as special relief. to order the > Respondents to immediately stop their unauthorized provisioning of > telecommunications services pending their compliance with 47 U.S.C. > Sections 203 and 214. and in order to give the Commission time for > appropriate rulemaking. > (51) Telecommunications Service. -- The term "telecommunications > service" means the offering of telecommunications for a fee directly > to the public, or to such classes of users as to be effectively > available directly to the public, regardless of the facilities used. Now, if the software is a one time cost ... and there's no usage charge ... does that make it a Telecommincations Service? (notice the definition says "for a fee") Personally, I'd be more in favor of these kinds of programs, only if there was a way to have their packets sent at a lower priority ... But then, that'd make it less useful ... I really shouldn't read long boring fcc documents at 4am ... :) Chris Hiner chiner@quark.gmi.edu ------------------------------ From: alex@Xenon.EE.McGill.CA (A. Okapuu-von Veh) Subject: Re: How to Conference Two POTS Lines? Date: 01 Apr 1996 14:48:15 GMT Organization: McGill University, Undergraduate EE Lab In article , Robert Holloman wrote: > Gary Novosielski (gpn@village.ios.com) wrote: >> So, can someone tell me what's needed, electrically, to conference two >> POTS lines together? How about a two-line phone? I've had a Panasonic KX-T3110 for about five years now (cost about $50-$60 then), and its "CONF" button works just fine. I use it quite often, and the sound quality is good on all three "ends". I've even used it on occasion to patch through a call from some payphone via my house to overseas in order to take advantage of my carrier's discount ... Alex Okapuu-von Veh - Dept. of Electrical Engineering - McGill University 3480 University St. - Montreal, QC, CANADA - H3A 2A7 Ph: (514) 398-5993 - Fax: 398-7348 Hydro Quebec: (514) 251-4263 ------------------------------ From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: How to Conference Two POTS Lines? Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 14:57:18 -0800 Organization: Best Internet Communications In article , lars@spectrum.RNS.COM (Lars Poulsen) wrote: > The three-way calling feature available in most PBX's or as a central office > feature on residential lines is a good compromise for most people. The > conference feature that used to be prevalent in two-line phones, seems > to be disappearing; I suspect this is because it works for MOST people, > but fails in some unusual circumstances. I have three two-line phones, one from AT&T, one from Sony, and a cordless (analog, not 900 MHz or anything fancy) phone from Southwestern Bell. All three have the conference feature, and it works quite well for everything I've ever tried it on. The other parties on the call have never complained of difficulty hearing each other, even with multiple handsets off hook on one end of the call. There is a small loss of signal, but if you get a pretty clear connection normally, the loss is quite bearable -- I can tell, but only if I consciously think about it. The least expensive of the three, the Sony, was under $50 retail. Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com ------------------------------ From: relkay01@fiu.edu (Ron(ell) Elkayam) Subject: Re: How to Conference Two POTS Lines? Date: 31 Mar 1996 20:50:13 GMT Organization: The People's Voice, 305-937-6468 On Tue, 26 Mar 1996 02:06:51 -0500, Gary Novosielski (email: gpn@village.ios.com) posted: > I know some two-line phones have this feature, while others don't, > but I really don't need yet another phone, just the ability to (very > occasionally) conference two POTS lines together. All you need is a duplex adapter (which you normally plug into the wall to convert single outlets to duplex). It has three "parts": two females and a male. Normally you plug the male into the wall and you plug two telephonic devices to the females. To use it as a poor man's conference bridge, you simply plug the two live phone-line cables into the two female jacks. You just leave the male part of the adapter hanging there in the air. When you've completed the conference call, don't forget to disconnect at least one of the live wires from the adapter. If you don't, any incoming caller to EITHER of the bridged lines will cause BOTH lines to ring (via any other telephonic devices hooked at other extentions). If a fax or an answering machine picks up either of the lines, both lines will automatically be bridged as soon as the telephonic device picks up. That means the caller will hear a fax machine tone and a dialtone, simultaneously. He could then use your line to make calls. So just be aware and beware ... W/love, | Owner & Programmer: The People's Voice BBS @ 305-937-6468 | No pregnant women or heart-conditioned senior citizens are Ron | allowed. Under 42 must get parents' permission to call. Miami, FL | "THIS IS WHAT YOUR MOTHER ALWAYS WARNED YOU ABOUT" ------------------------------ From: dos@panix.com (Dave O'Shea) Subject: Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN Date: 1 Apr 1996 00:53:07 -0500 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC Christopher L. Davis (cld@prin.edu) wrote: > My cellular phone company is touting a PIN number as the answer to > some types of fraud. Not only touting it, but forcing me to use it. > As of this morning, I cannot use my phone any more. To break my > contract, they want to charge me $300. I must believe that a PIN > number is incredibly easy to overcome. Is there any proof that these > annoyning PIN numbers are any deterence to cellular fraud? If people > are cloning the code from phones, it must be simple in comparisson to > intercept a PIN transmission. If there is some written work > supporting whatever is known about their effectiveness, that would be > great. The fact is that PIN's do seem to be cutting into fraud significantly. Luckily, the company I'm with doesn't require them, but the previous carrier (NYNEX, cursed be thy name) did. My big gripe about PIN's is safety. My little Motorola has one-touch dialing for nine numbers, which covers probably 80% or more of my calls (home, office, wife's car phone, etc.) Trying to drive a car with a six-speed transmission while dialing a phone, in heavy traffic, approaches my limit of multi-tasking. I'll be amused to see the first case where a carrier is named as co-defendant after a particularly horrid car accident attributed to someone being inattentive while dialing that second string of digits. A decent PI lawyer would *pay* for the opportunity to have some carrier type on the stand, asking him in an oh-so-sincere voice "So Mr. Jones, while you may have saved, oh, FOUR MILLION DOLLARS (wink, nod, towards jury) in fraud, did the safety implications of making drivers dial twice figure into that equation, and why did you make your customers responsible for covering up a design flaw in your security system?" ------------------------------ From: C. Wheeler Subject: Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN Date: 1 Apr 1996 16:54:29 GMT Organization: CCnet Communications - Walnut Creek, CA joel@exc.com (Joel M. Hoffman) wrote: >> My cellular phone company is touting a PIN number as the answer to >> some types of fraud. Not only touting it, but forcing me to use it. >> As of this morning, I cannot use my phone any more. To break my >> contract, they want to charge me $300. I must believe that a PIN >> number is incredibly easy to overcome. Is there any proof that these >> annoyning PIN numbers are any deterence to cellular fraud? [snip] > I, too, despise the use of a PIN, particularly because I have to dial > it after every number, which makes re-dial useless. Not only that, > but if the phone is stolen, all the theif has to do is press > "re-dial," and up pops my pin! I guess different carriers are using different methods of implementing PINs. Here (if you have a pin) you can enter your PINS when you first power up your phone. As long as the phone stays on, and in the system, you can place multiple calls with having to re-enter the PIN each time. You will have to re-enter if you turn the phone off and back on again or if you lose the system for more than a short time (or more accurately, if the system loses you due to lack of signal). While it maybe a slight pain in the ass, it does reduce the probability of fraud a great deal. Consider that -- a hacker would have to intercept your log in to get your PIN. Entirely possible, but he only gets the chance to do that once when you first turn on your phone. I personally don't use a PIN. My phone has never been cloned (to my knowledge). However I have helped co-workers and other company employees get their service straightened out after being cloned. I know several people that have been cloned more than once. Most of them are now using PINs and feel it is worth the rather minor hassle -- as opposed to the major pain of having fraud detection shut your phone down on a Friday night. If your carrier is requiring you to enter the PIN on every call it may be defeating the purpose. I wouldn't normally have the redial problem you claim to have -- I usually keep my phone turned off between calls unless I am expecting an incoming call. My phone doesn't remember the LND after cycling the power. ------------------------------ From: diamond@interserf.net (Dave Perrussel) Subject: Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN Date: Mon, 01 Apr 1996 14:44:33 GMT Organization: Diamond Mine BBS Christopher L. Davis wrote: > My cellular phone company is touting a PIN number as the answer to > some types of fraud. Not only touting it, but forcing me to use it. > As of this morning, I cannot use my phone any more. To break my > contract, they want to charge me $300. I must believe that a PIN > number is incredibly easy to overcome. Is there any proof that these > annoyning PIN numbers are any deterence to cellular fraud? If people > are cloning the code from phones, it must be simple in comparisson to > intercept a PIN transmission. If there is some written work > supporting whatever is known about their effectiveness, that would be > great. Both Bell Atlantic and Cellular One -- the carriers in the metro Washington DC area -- force you to use it. So, you're out of luck no matter what service you're on. Hopefully it will stop "cloning" of ESNs -- but I doubt it. :) David Perrussel E-mail: diamond@interserf.net [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have often wondered by the carriers do not use something like a voiceprint of their users. Voiceprints are supposed to be unique. This would solve a couple of problems. One is the accident rate supposedly attributed to dialing while driving. The voiceprint would also help out with the fraud problem since the switch would only recognize the phone owner's voice to go with the ESN. You would speak to the phone saying something like "Dial, five five five one two one two send." Your unique voiceprint would go to the tower and either it would be acceptable or it would not be. Using a combin- ation of voiceprint and what has been termed the 'RF print' unique to each phone -- in combination of course with the ESN -- should help cut down on fraud. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #148 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Apr 1 19:18:15 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id TAA10860; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 19:18:15 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 19:18:15 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604020018.TAA10860@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #149 TELECOM Digest Mon, 1 Apr 96 19:18:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 149 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Indian Parliament Wants Private Broadcasters (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh) Antigua and Barbuda Get New Area Code Today (Pierre Thomson) VON Coalition vs ACTA Re: FCC RM8775 (Sandy Combs) Proposed (but Scrapped) 1946/47 NPA Assignments (Mark J. Cuccia) Future Splits/Overlays (James E. Bellaire) The Cost of LD (Gabriel Hutson) Caller ID Comes to California (Leonid A. Broukhis) MCI 1-800-COLLECT Overcharges (Gary Novosielski) LD Carrier Bribes (Tim Tyler) Velocity of Propagation Values (Michael R. Neal) Still More, by George! (TELECOM Digest Editor) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 13:14:31 -0800 From: Rishab Aiyer Ghosh Subject: Indian Parliament Wants Private Broadcasters The Indian Techonomist: weekly summary, April 1, 1996 Copyright (C) 1996 Rishab Aiyer Ghosh. All rights reserved 1 APRIL 1996: INDIAN PARLIAMENT WANTS PRIVATE BROADCASTERS AT&T'S INDIAN CELLULAR VENTURE TO INVEST $150M INDIAN MAGAZINE GIVES AWAY 50,000 COPIES OF LINUX Indian Parliament wants private broadcasters March 29: A parliamentary sub-committee formed last year to frame a comprehensive national media policy recommended today that private broadcasters should be allowed to transmit from withing the country. It also cautioned against cross-media ownership and foreign ownership of the media. Although in the past few years India has been crowded with satellite TV channels, most of them (or at least those that are profitable) based on Indian programming, the only agency permitted to broadcast within India, as in previous decades, remains the state-owned Doordarshan. A little over a year ago this monopolisation of the electronic media was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, which directed that private broadcasters be allowed, and called for an independent regulatory authority. The government, which did not seem particularly unhappy, prepared legislation to implement the verdict; it was ready in July, since when the government has been sitting on it. Parliament was slower to start, but has finally come around with its recommendations favouring full implementation of the Court's verdict (it could not do otherwise). The sub-committee suggested that the broadcasting regulator function independent of the government, and that its members "represent all sections of society" - both important aspects of the legislation as described to The Indian Techonomist by Broadcasting Secretary Bhaskar Ghose last June. It has also suggested that Doordarshan and All India Radio be converted into autonomous (though government-owned) agencies, like the BBC; and that non-commercial broadcasting by local bodies should be encouraged, perhaps making better use of Doordarshan's vast nationwide transmission infrastructure. The sub-committee came out against cross-media ownership, which is silly in a country where every major newspaper and magazine produces TV programming. It said that foreign ownership of broadcasters, whether direct or indirect, should not be permitted. This is also silly, as it shows the members never read the licences for basic telephony (of which several have already been issued) which allow phone companies to set up cable TV networks. Telecom service providers can have foreign equity of up to 49%. The committee, which included left-wing members of Parliament, said that encrypted pay TV channels should not be allowed to charge whatever they wish, as "the common man" must have access. Yes, this is silly too, for thanks to the reluctance of that very "common man" to pay for individual channels, Indian pay TV rates are probably the lowest in the world. Star Movies, the first successful pay channel in India (and part of Rupert Murdoch's Asian Star TV network), barely charges a few hundred dollars per cable network - with no additional per-household rates. As it is, Indian homes pay just $4 per month for their cable TV; but this adds up to $600 million in subscriptions alone, growing at over 30% annually. The government has had its reasons for going slow - broadcasting is not a priority, and general elections were imminent. They are now to be held later this April, which means media policy will remain static till afterwards. The ruling Congress party may not win, and in any case the present Broadcasting Secretary is not as famous for progressive views as his predecessor who supervised the preparation of the legislation last June. But neither alternative winners are likely to unnecessarily delay the implementation of the Supreme Court verdict. The Bharatiya Janata Party, a right-wing organisation, will probably go ahead with broadcasting reform soon enough, if it wins. And it was a member of the National Front, a loose left-of-centre coalition, who headed the sub-committee that has recommended the entry private broadcasters. Till then, programmes for the highly successful music- based Channel V (also part of Star TV) - which has roundly defeated MTV with its self-mocking Indian attitude - will be produced in Bombay, shipped to Hong Kong, uplinked to Asiasat, and received in Indian homes - back in Bombay. For the original report on the Supreme Court verdict, with exclusive interviews with former Chief Justice of India P N Bhagwati and former Solicitor-General Soli Sorabjee, see http://dxm.org/techonomist/legal.html For more on the Indian Broadcasting Authority and the government's broadcasting reform legislation see http://dxm.org/techonomist/regu.html#IBA AT&T's Indian cellular venture to invest $150m Birla Communications, the joint venture between AT&T and India's Aditya Birla Group, plans to invest nearly $150 million over the next three years on building cellular networks in the states of Gujarat and Maharashtra in western India, for which it received licences earlier this year. Birla-AT&T plans to cover most major towns in each state within its first three years, by which time it hopes to have reached a subscriber base of over 60,000. Birla-AT&T will have to compete with the second licensee in each of the circles. In Maharashtra it is a partnership between US West and India's BPL, a consumer- electronics firm that also runs a cellular network in the state capital Bombay, for which separate licences had been issued (along with Delhi, Calcutta and Madras) and where service started last year. In Gujarat AT&T will face Fascel, a venture between Israel's Bezeq, Thailand's Shinawatra and India's HFCL (a small company that became famous for its high bids for basic telephony, where it won four licences). Birla-AT&T will, like its competitors, pay a licence fee of approximately $571 million in Gujarat and $528 million in Maharashtra, over the 10-year licence period. As cellular service in Maharashtra would revolve around Bombay (now renamed Mumbai), Birla-AT&T is expected to negotiate a roaming arrangement with BPL-US West's competitor in that city, Hutchison Max. The negotiations will be on matters financial, not technical - all cellular licences in India requre the usage of GSM, the European digital cellular standard with base-to-mobile encryption. Meanwhile, Modicom Network, a venture of the Indian B K Modi Group that has been having trouble trying to replace its original foreign partners (Vanguard Communications and Telecom International) with Motorola and Lazard Asia, has failed once again to pay for its cellular licences. The joint venture between India's computer giant HCL, the Hindujas and Singapore Telecom, which won a cellular licence for the south Indian state of Tamil Nadu, is also shaky. Singapore Telecom wants to reduce its equity, and the Indians are looking for another foreign partner. Interest is accumulating on the two licensees' unpaid fees, and the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) has set a deadline of April 15 for payment. For the previous report on Modicom-Motorola see the March 18 bulletin. On HCL-Hinduja-Singapore Telecom, see March 25. URL - http://dxm.org/techonomist/news/ Indian magazine gives away 50,000 copies of Linux India's leading computer magazine, PC Quest, gave away 50,000 free copies of Linux in the Spring 1996 CD-ROM accompanying its March issue. Of course, it cannot be predicted how many readers will grow to use Linux - a free implementation of the Unix operating system for the Intel x86 platform that is popular with the technically savvy around the world. However, this is likely to be at least as successful as PC Quest's last CD-ROM, for Winter 1995, which included free trial copies of IBM's OS/2 and PC DOS 7, particularly as it is a fully working version of Linux. India has a relatively high usage of Unix, partly because IBM's absence from the country in the 1980s made companies turn away from proprietary mainframes. Although leading implementations of Unix are from Sun and SCO, Linux has been growing popular within organisations who have in-house technical expertise. They reason that the high price of brand-label Unix versions do not come with sufficiently high levels of technical support, so Linux makes sense. One of the biggest Linux installations is at the Times of India, the country's largest newspaper group. Its nationwide internal network has, over the past few years, been converted almost entirely to the Internet's TCP/IP protocol, running on Linux and other GNU Public Licence (GPL) software. See also http://dxm.org/techonomist/news/os2pcq.html The Indian Techonomist: weekly summary. http://dxm.org/techonomist/ Copyright (C) 1996 Rishab Aiyer Ghosh (rishab@techonomist.dxm.org) Tel +91 11 6853410; Fax 6856992; H-34-C Saket New Delhi 110017 INDIA May be distributed electronically provided that this notice is attached ------------------------------ From: Pierre Thomson Subject: Antigua and Barbuda Get New Area Code Today Date: 1 Apr 1996 20:50:09 GMT Organization: MHVNet, the Mid Hudson Valley's Internet connection No, it's not an April Fool's joke. Today I got Bellcore Letter IL-96/03-005, stating that Antigua and Barbuda are activating their new area code 268 today, April 1, 1996. Talk about short notice ... All eight (count 'em) exchange codes on the two islands can be dialed with either the old 809 Caribbean NPA or the new 268 code until March 31, 1997. The exchange codes moving from 809 to 268 are: 404 409 460 461 462 463 464 480 Additional information can be found on the WWW at: http://www1.mhv.net/~mmommsen/npanxx.htm Pierre Thomson Telecom Manager Rifton Enterprises ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 16:15:58 EST From: sandy@von.org (Sandy Combs) Subject: VON Coalition vs ACTA Re: FCC RM8775 Hi Pat, I've been made aware of your interest in the ACTA Petition (FCC RM8775). If you'd like the complete story see our homepage. Feel free to disseminate our url. We've got nothing to hide! And NO self-serving interest. I'd like to be able to also refer you to ACTA's homepage but they don't have one. VON Coalition - http://www.von.org The VON (Voice On the Net) Coalition was created to inform netizen's of these revolutionary enabling technologies and vigorously oppose ACTA's FCC petition. By ACTA's petitioning the FCC to regulate CONTENT (telephony software) on the Internet; content and software would be banned, plus new ISP tax structures could be enacted. If ACTA succeeds, ACTA would literally encroach on every netizen's right to internet freedom of speech. Regards, Sandy Combs Director VON Coalition http://www.von.org sandy@von.org ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 01 Apr 1996 14:47:21 CST From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: Proposed (but Scrapped) 1946/47 NPA Assignments Not many are aware of it, but there was a proposed NPA assignment in 1946/47, but this one wasn't adopted, of course. (The original assignment of 86 NPA which has been the one that has actually been built upon was in October 1947). In the following proposed assignments, the N0X form was still assigned to states which needed only one NPA code, and the N1N form was assigned to states which needed several codes. Canada was treated as "single state" which needed several area codes and were assigned ones of the form N10. Any state which needed more-than-one code were assigned CONSECUTIVE codes as seen below! I've had a map of this proposed (but never adopted) assignment somewhere in my historical records (I think it was in an old issue of Bell Telephone Magazine or Bell Labs Record from the mid-to-late 1940's), and finally got around to typing it into a .txt file. PROPOSED (but SCRAPPED) NPA ASSIGNMENTS (1946/47) (86 CODES TOTAL) ================================================================== N1X Form (States with several code assigned) (51 codes assigned) except where noted, the codes increase in an east to west or north to south direction within a state; MI: 217 (later 313), 218 (later 517), 219 (later 616) WI: 416 (later 414), 417 (later 715) MN: 418 (later 612), 419 (later 218) 212 NY 312 IL 412 PA 512 CA (S.F.) 612 MO 712 TX (NE) 213 NY 313 IL 413 PA 513 CA (L.A.) 613 MO 713 TX (SE) 214 NY 314 IL 414 PA 514 CA (north)(614 --) 714 TX (south) 215 NY 315 IL 415 PA 515 MA 615 IN 715 TX (W,SW,NW) 216 NY 316 OH (NE) 416 WI 516 MA 616 IN 217 MI 317 OH (SE) 417 WI 517 IA 617 KS 218 MI 318 OH (SW) 418 MN 518 IA 618 KS 219 MI 319 OH (NW) 419 MN 519 IA (619 --) CANADA (91X range) 912 ON (later 416) 916 Maritime Provinces 913 ON (later 613) 917 MB 914 PQ (later 514) 918 SK 915 PQ (later 418) 919 AB 910 BC N0X Form (States with only ONE code assigned) (35 codes assigned) 201 NJ 301 WA 401 OK 501 GA 601 WV 701 NE 202 DC 302 OR 402 FL 502 TN 602 MT 702 ID 203 MD 303 CO 403 DE 503 AR 603 NH 703 ME 204 CT 304 KY 404 NC 504 RI 604 SC 205 VA 305 LA 405 MS 505 AZ 206 AL 306 SD 406 WY 207 NM 307 UT 208 VT 308 NV 209 ND MARK J. CUCCIA PHONE/WRITE/WIRE: HOME: (USA) Tel: CHestnut 1-2497 WORK: mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu |4710 Wright Road| (+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity 5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New Orleans 28 |fwds on no-answr to Fax:UNiversity 5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Mark also provided a master list of NPA codes in use as well as those not yet assigned but the plans for how they will be used. Due to technical difficulties earlier today this is still pending distribution to the mailing list and I hope by the time you receive this issue of the Digest you will have also received the special mailing prepared by Mark, or if it has not come to you that it will arrive in your mailbox by Tuesday morning. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 01 Apr 1996 12:16:37 -0500 From: James E. Bellaire Subject: Future Splits/Overlays I had the chance to look at the distribution of central office codes in the 317 (Central Indiana) area this past week. This area has no announced split yet, but should need it within the next couple of years. A logical way to split 317 would be to give everyone who cannot dial Indianapolis as a local call the new area code. This would leave 56% of the current codes in 317 and a reasonably small number (248 currently) in the outlying area. The new coded area would not need a split for a long time at this size. Eventually the new smaller 317 would need new codes. Hopefully by then the attitude against overlays will be changed. For more on this prediction, and a collection of links to Telecom pages mentioned in the Digest, see http://www.holli.com/~bellaire/telecom/ There is a map of central Indiana there with this plan illustrated. IMHO (I'm still humble), a split should be used in rural areas, with 33-50% of the old code going to the new one. Dividing lines should avoid splitting local dial areas if possible. An overlay should be used in areas where local dial areas cannot be easily split, such as metro areas that permit large 'local' dialing plans. I would like to see a non-geographic split when overlays are introduced, allowing future central office codes to be added in BOTH area codes. This would make users change their phone service to the new code (a bad thing) but would make neither code 'prefered' as far as historical use. The number of CO codes in all overlayed NPAs in an area per service would have to match, so a cellular carrier who wanted all of their old customers to remain in the old NPA would not get any new CO codes in the old NPA until they had used (actual assignment to customers) an equal number of CO codes in the new NPA. Similar constraints would be put on local dialtone companies. If you wanted new CO codes in the old NPA, you must have an equal number of CO codes in the new NPA. Eventually all the distinctions of old and new would be broken down and users would be used to constant 10-digit or 11-digit dialing. Just my two cents. James E. Bellaire (JEB6) bellaire@tk.com WebPage at http://www.holli.com/~bellaire/ ------------------------------ From: Gabriel Hutson Subject: The Cost of LD Date: Mon, 01 Apr 1996 00:21:29 -0500 Organization: University of Tennessee, Knoxville As many of you know, the Regional Bell Operating Companies charge the long distance carriers a large amount of money for allowing the carrier to connect a call into the Bell's network. Of the $.10-$15 you might pay for one minute of LD, 60+% of that money will go to paying the Bell companies. Here's a question I have. Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Bell companies will be allowed to offer long distance. However, they don't own the nationwide networks like AT&T. So, when a Bell does go into LD, and doesn't have its own LD network and has to pay a LD carrier for access to its network, do you people think that the LD carrier's will charge the same huge percentages that the Bell's have made them pay for access to the Bells' local networks ... if not, then how much? ------------------------------ From: leob@best.com (Leonid A. Broukhis) Subject: Caller ID Comes to California Date: 30 Mar 1996 01:03:02 -0800 Organization: Best Internet Communications As most Californians, I've received a note with my last PacBell bill. It explains everything in great detail, but is missing one thing -- the possibility of anonymous call blocking isn't even mentioned there! Moreover, when I called the PacBell 800 number to set my blocking mode to selective, I asked the guy how to turn the anonymous call blocking on. He didn't know and mumbled something about CPUC still deciding how to make it available. All the TV commercials "Your call, your privacy" don't mention it either. Little most people realize they will have to dial *82 every time to order a pizza ... Leo ------------------------------ Organization: GPN Consulting Date: Mon, 01 Apr 1996 11:24:03 -0500 From: Gary Novosielski Subject: MCI 1-800-COLLECT Overcharges TV news over the weekend carried a story of a reporter in Virginia discovering that MCI had, as far back as anyone could remember, been overcharging on 1-800-COLLECT calls by charging for an extra minute, compared with other carriers. He made dozens of comparison phone calls with a stop-watch, all from the same phone, and found that MCI was consistently charging four minutes on a three-minute call. According to the news report, MCI has "rectified" the "error" and would be sending out refund checks to anyone who's accepted a 1-800-COLLECT call over the past year or so. They blamed "the computer" for the screwup. In the background was a shot of a mail-processing machine stamping check after check after check, with the MCI return address on each envelope. Gary Novosielski mailto:gpn@village.ios.com PGPinfo: keyID A172089 GPN Consulting http://village.ios.com/~gpn 2C 5C 32 94 F4 FF 08 10 B6 E0 DE 4F A2 43 79 92 ------------------------------ From: tim@umcc.umcc.umich.edu (Tim Tyler) Subject: LD Carrier Bribes Date: 30 Mar 1996 14:38:29 -0500 Organization: University of Michigan Computing Club (UMCC) I recently received a check from AT&T for $100, but a condition of cashing the check is that by endorsing it, I'm giving AT&T permission to switch my long-distance phone service over to them. I'd like to beat Ma Bell at their own game, so I'm wondering if there is anything that would stop me from endorsing the check, getting the $100 and having my LD service switched to AT&T, and then within a week or two, switching it back to my current LD carrier? I realize I might have to pay to have the service switched back from AT&T, but I think the amount would be on the order of around $10, leaving me still with $90 from AT&T, and it is likely I could get the LD carrier to switch me over to them for free. I saw no fine-print on the AT&T propmotion that would prevent or deter me from cashing the check/switching to them for LD service, then switching back to my original LD provider within a matter of days. But I'm wondering if other people have tried this, and what the outcome was. Tim Tyler Internet: tim@umcc.umich.edu C$erve: 72571,1005 AOL: Hooligan P.O. Box 443 Amateur Radio: KA8VIR @WB8ZPN.#SEMI.MI.USA.NOAM Ypsilanti, MI 48197-0443 In cyberspace, no one can hear you scream. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: They won't sue you to get back the hundred dollars if that is what you mean. Like most people who perpetrate petty fraud through the mail -- send in book club and record/tape club coupons to get free merchandise when promising to buy more later on and then failing to do so, etc -- you'll simply get listed on the carrier's records as a petty chisler; someone not to be trusted in minor matters of honesty where mailorder is concerned. The essence of it will be you won't get any more promotions from them through the mail of any value. You may find your account flagged in such a way as is understood by insiders 'do not extend courtesies' meaning on future dealings where the service rep may have considerable latitude in whether or not to charge or writeoff an installation or service fee or make an adjustment on some minor matter they'll be less likely to try and appease you as they might do for other customers. In other words, it won't go unnoticed. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Michael R. Neal Subject: Velocity of Propagation Values Date: Mon, 01 Apr 1996 16:28:56 -0800 Organization: VL Laboraories, a division of Halcyon Communications, Inc. Does anyone know of a reference work that provides Velocity of Propagation (Vp) values for most of the widly used cable types and mfg brands used in telecommunications today. Thanks, Mike ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 17:55:59 EST From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Subject: Still More, by George! Another essay by George Gilder entitled 'Goliath at Bay' has been forwarded to the Telecom Archives and this essay will be sent out Monday evening to the list. Watch for it ... another in the very informative and interesting items George Gilder has been writing over the past few years. There has been some sluggishness in the mail here today and it may well be Tuesday by the time it reaches you. The backlog now in the outbound mailq is the highest I have seen it in awhile. PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #149 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue Apr 2 01:26:09 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id BAA16131; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 01:26:09 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 01:26:09 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604020626.BAA16131@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #150 TELECOM Digest Tue, 2 Apr 96 01:26:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 150 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Odd Cellular and LATA Phenomena (Stanley Cline) Nortel PBX and Digital Sets Question (Gerry Walsh) Pacific Telesis/SBC Merger (C. Wheeler) Lonely Hearts Scam (Tad Cook) Source of ITU Documentation (Ivan Sindell) Tired of Calls From LD Telemarketers (Tom Zinn) AT&T Wireless Services: Building a Factory? (eschrob@aol.com) Refranchising Cablecos Under the 1966 ACT (Calvin Branche) Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN (Clifford D. McGlamry) Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN (Tatyana Landis) Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN (Gerry Moersdorf) Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN (Babu Mengelepouti) Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN (Alan Barclay) Re: Bill Gates Gives Million Dollars to Our Library (Joel Upchurch) Re: Bill Gates Gives Million Dollars to Our Library (Ed Ellers) Re: Bill Gates Gives Million Dollars to Our Library (Seymour Dupa) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scline@usit.net (Stanley Cline) Subject: Odd Cellular and LATA Phenomena Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 02:36:32 GMT Organization: Catoosa Computing Services While preparing a report of cellular carriers serving various Southeastern states, I noticed some odd coverage areas -- carriers that serve only one or two counties, small areas that are mostly or totally surrounded by one other carrier, and later individual counties served by multiple cellular carriers and even LATAs. Most of these are in my areas of familiarity (that is, around Chattanooga, Tennessee and Atlanta.) Here are some examples: Hole Patching and Mini-Systems ============================== o The Asheville, NC A system is GTE/CellOne. The local system only covers a few counties. Everywhere surrounding Asheville is BANM (Hickory NC/Anderson SC switch.) o Also in Asheville, US Cellular's B system covers the same areas. Areas to the west (Waynesville, etc.) are served by Ramcell which uses GTE's A-side Asheville switch...dialing *18 in that area results in a message to dial *31 which also says "Cellular One." Areas one county to the east are served by 360 of Greensboro. o Flagler Beach, FL A side is US Cellular; St. Augustine and Daytona Beach (Daytona's only ~10-15 miles south) are both AT&T Wireless. o Fort Pierce, FL B is US Cellular (again!); areas to the north AND south AND west are BellSouth systems. The Ft. Pierce system only covers the immediate Ft. pierce and Stuart areas. Split in the Middle (Cellular) ============================== o Polk County, TN -- western half's B system is BellSouth of Chattanooga; eastern half is US Cellular of Knoxville (which is much further away.) BellSouth is particularly embarrassed by this because Olympic kayaking is being held in Polk County -- in the US CELLULAR half! Even ACOG has complained about this! (As you can guess, USCC and BSCC do NOT get along AT ALL in east Tennessee!) o Rhea County, TN -- Southern half (Dayton) is BellSouth; northern half is BellSouth or USCC (signal depends on area.) Area is technically considered Chattanooga BellSouth system, but Spring City behaves otherwise. o Jackson County, AL -- most of county is served by BellSouth of Huntsville; areas on Sand Mountain are served by a co-op which has a switch agreement with BellSouth in Birmingham. o Coweta County, GA -- Northern edge is BellSouth Atlanta; southern areas are InterCel of West Point, GA-AL. County is in 770 NPA and Atlanta landline calling area, but cellular calling area is split; in fact, The CITY of Newnan is SPLIT -- depending on which carrier (BellSouth or I'cel) one's using at the time. (To make matters worse, BellSouth customers pay $3/day and 95c/min to ROAM in InterCel's system -- in THEIR OWN LANDLINE LOCAL CALLING AREA -- and pay for INTRALATA LD for what would be LOCAL calls from a pay phone! What a ripoff!) o Pulaski/Lawrenceburg, TN: Towns only ~15 miles apart, that are closely tied economically (they are both served by the same ISP!), are split on the B system; US Cellular (yes, again!) in Pulaski and BellSouth (Nashville switch) in Lawrenceburg. "Drive-Through" NPAs and quick roaming handoffs =============================================== o Area codes 770/706: Drive from Jasper to Dahonlega, Georgia; you will start in 706 (Jasper), pass through 770 (Marble Hill) and land up back in 706 (Dawsonville and Dahlonega.) Driving the same route (only ~30 miles) results in getting THREE A-side cellular carriers (US Cellular of Jasper-Dalton, AirTouch of Atlanta near Dawsonville, and Cellular One of Gainesville, GA in Dahlonega.) Split in the Middle (LATAs) =========================== o Jackson County, Alabama again -- county is in THREE LATAs!!! Scottsboro (LEC GTE): Huntsville LATA Bridgeport (LEC BellSo): Chattanooga (TN) LATA Sand Mtn. (LEC Farmers Co-op): Birmingham LATA(?) County agencies have had to get 800 numbers! (Alabama has no county-wide "local" calling as far as I know.) o Marion County, TN: most of area is in Chattanooga LATA/BellSouth areas in northwest areas of county are in Nashville LATA (Ben Lomand co-op.) and in a different NPA (615 not 423.) More on Atlanta Local Calling Area and Cellular =============================================== The Atlanta [landline] local calling area (npa 404/770) is served by MULTIPLE cellular carriers: o on the A side: Airtouch, C1 Gainesville/Griffin (Griffin will soon be acquired by Palmer Wireless along with the miserable Dalton/Jasper US Cellular system which borders the northwest edge of the calling area -- the Marble Hill area mentioned above), and C1 of Carrollton/Newnan. In other words: five cellcos in the Atlanta landline local calling area. o on the B side: BellSouth in most areas, InterCel in Newnan (see above.) IOW, two carriers. The local calling area has spilled over, too much IMHO. ************** Are these sorts of anomalies common, or are they just quirks? (Given the fact that "US Cellular" and "GTE" were mentioned so much, I have to wonder...) How could such things happen, particularly with celllular areas which I thought were based on COUNTY LINES? BTW: US Cellular is selling GA RSA #1 to Palmer Wireless ... GA RSA #1 is Dalton, etc. YES YES YES YES! ROAMING RATES SHOULD GO DOWN ... for Chattanooga C1 customers anyway. Stanley Cline (Roamer1 on IRC) ** GO BRAVES! GO VOLS! Catoosa Computing Services, Chattanooga, Tenn. mailto:scline@usit.net ** http://chattanooga.net/~scline/ CompuServe 74212,44 ** MSN WSCline1 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well it all sounds pretty messy. Vistors roaming in some of those areas must get awfully confused about who they are doing business with as they drive down the interstate highway. I've run into that US Cellular before. I think they have a cell company in Missouri in the middle or southern part of the state. Someplace where Southwestern Bell Mobility quits, US Cellular begins. Maybe it is on the Kansas side of the state line around Fort Scott. I do not remember for sure. I also discovered something interesting when I visited in Independence, Kansas a few years ago. There is no cell service there at all (unless it has started in the past couple of years) and most of the time my phone indicated 'No Service'. But when I went to the top floor in the house where I was staying, which is sort of on a hill anyway, and I used my full size antenna the phone went into roaming mode. Curious, I dialed just the zero operator and when she answered I asked 'who are you' ... she said Tulsa, Oklahoma which is about seventy miles or so to the south! I do not know who the B carrier is in Tulsa, but I was amazed their signal was that good. No where else in town could I get any cell service. Now when I traveled to Coffeyville a few miles southeast mostly I had 'no service' but sometimes for no apparent reason the roaming indicator would light. The signal strength was always bad however; I never could make a satisfactory cell call from there. Coming back to Chicago up route 54 to where it meets that interstate going east and west between St. Louis and Kansas City the roaming indicator would come on for no apparent reason in the middle of an otherwise 'no service' area; and there are plenty of them in the rural areas of the Ozark Mountains. I could never raise anyone on the phone however, and finally concluded perhaps we had driven past some source of radiation which confused the phone into thinking there was a carrier nearby. Whenever a carrier was there, it seems to me it was always US Cellular. Any readers know of other peculiar cellular territories such as Stan Cline has described? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Gerry Walsh Subject: Nortel PBX and Digital Sets Question Date: Mon, 01 Apr 1996 23:29:50 -0330 Organization: Memorial University of Newfoundland Is there a limit to the total number of digits that can be dialed from an M2616 digital set? The specific problem is this ... A user wants to place a call charging it to his calling card. He dials the UNITEL service at 9'18009579000 and is asked to enter the number he wishes to call ie. XXX-XXX-XXXX. Once this is entered he has to enter his calling card number and P.I.N. (14 more digits). It seems that the digits for the calling card etc. are not being sent/received as he is asked again to enter it. Is it possible that his digital set is limited to the 22 digits he has entered? Could this be a programming problem? He has no problem dialing this from an analog set. Any help is appreciated. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 16:47:11 PST From: C Wheeler Subject: Pacific Telesis/SBC Merger Forwarded to the Digest FYI: SBC Communications Inc., Pacific Telesis Group Announce Merger Agreement Creates Nation's Second Largest Telecommunications Company SAN FRANCISCO, April 1, 1996 -- SBC Communications Inc. and Pacific Telesis Group today announced a definitive agreement to merge into a single company uniquely positioned to thrive in the new, dynamic telecommunications industry. The merger, the first of its kind between two former Bell System companies, combines two outstanding telecommunications companies into a single corporation serving the nation's two most populous states -- California and Texas, seven of the country's ten largest metropolitan areas and sixteen of the top fifty markets. The companies serve over 30 million access lines in high growth areas and have access to over 80 million potential wireless customers across the country. The company will be known as SBC Communications Inc. with Edward E. Whitacre Jr. serving as chairman of the board and chief executive officer. Phil Quigley will be vice-chairman of the board and second in command; he will continue to operate the successful exchange operations in California and Nevada. After the merger, members of the Pacific Telesis board will be asked to join the SBC board so that they will constitute one-third of the expanded board. The combined company will offer products and services under some of the strongest brands in the industry -- Southwestern Bell, Pacific Bell, Cellular One and Nevada Bell. Locations served span the nation and include attractive and growing markets such as Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Los Angeles, St. Louis, San Diego, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C. Upon completion of the transaction, SBC will have more than 100,000 employees, revenues of over $21 billion, operating cash flow of $9 billion, and income of almost $3 billion. The merger creates the nation's second largest telecommunications company in terms of market value. "This merger will combine two of the best telecommunications companies in the world into a strong company truly prepared to meet the challenges of the 21st century," said Whitacre, chairman and chief executive officer, SBC Communications Inc. "It is a dynamic combination that will benefit our customers, shareholders and employees." The merger is partially a product of the changes occurring in the telecommunications industry. The recent landmark federal legislation opens up tremendous new business opportunities for the combined companies and changes the core telephone industry into a much more competitive business. "In this new competitive environment, customer satisfaction, a strong market presence, efficient and lower-cost operations, a substantial financial base quality and new, innovative services will be crucial to success in the marketplace," said Quigley, chairman, president and chief executive officer, Pacific Telesis Group. "We believe this merger will enhance our ability to deliver what customers want." The merger involves an exchange of stock with current Pacific Telesis stockholders receiving SBC stock. Based on the average of SBC's closing stock prices last week, this implies a value of approximately $39 for each Pacific Telesis' share. The exchange ratio has Pacific Telesis shareowners receiving 0.733 shares of SBC common stock for each of their shares subject to certain adjustments. For example, a Pacific Telesis shareowner holding 1,000 shares of stock will receive 733 shares of SBC stock. After the tax-free exchange, 66 percent of the combined company's stock will be retained by SBC shareholders and 34 percent held by Pacific Telesis investors. Pacific Telesis will initially maintain its first quarter dividend of 54.5 cents per share, payable May 1 to shareowners of record on April 9. As part of the terms of the agreement, Pacific Telesis will reduce its second quarter dividend to 31.5 cents per share, which is expected to be paid August 1. Strategically, the merger is expected to create a telecommunications company with an unparalleled focus on the growing Latin American and Asian markets and enhance the combined company's ability to successfully compete in the $75 billion U.S. long-distance market. In addition to sharing strong inter-region traffic, both companies are connected to Mexico. More than 50 percent of all international traffic to Mexico, where SBC has a strategic business presence and partnership with Telmex, and 20 percent of all international traffic to Asia originates in locations where the companies have network facilities. SBC's relationship with Mexico and Latin America, and Pacific Telesis' Pacific Rim focus will allow strong marketing to diverse populations in the merged company's markets. The company plans to take advantage of SBC's proven strength in product development, marketing and sales and Pacific Telesis' network engineering skills, efficiency in process management and cost containment. Consumers will benefit from the merger through the integration of the two companies' resources and skills which will promote competition and enhance the development of new, competitively-priced telecommunications, entertainment, information and interactive products and services. While the corporate headquarters will be in San Antonio, Texas, the company will maintain headquarters of Pacific Bell and Nevada Bell in California and Nevada. In addition, a new company will be headquartered in California to provide integrated administrative and support services for the combined companies. California will be the headquarters location for the company's long distance company, Internet company and international operations. The combined company is committed to creating at least 1,000 jobs in California over what would otherwise have been the case if the merger had not occurred. The combined companies' wireless headquarters will be located in Dallas. "This historic merger is about growth -- growth in jobs, markets and services to our customers," Whitacre said. "It is not about downsizings or reduced employment opportunities. We see the future of this industry offering tremendous opportunities and this merger positions the company to realize these opportunities for our stakeholders." The parties hope to complete the transaction by the end of the year. It must be approved by the California Public Utilities Commission, the United States Department of Justice and the Federal Communications Commission. Given the pro-competition effects of the merger and the fact that the two companies are not competitors in the local exchange, long-distance or wireless markets, this merger is not expected to raise any antitrust or competitive issues. Pacific Telesis (NYSE:PAC) is a diversified telecommunications corporation based in San Francisco. Through its Pacific Bell and Nevada Bell subsidiaries, the corporation offers a wide array of telecommunications services throughout California and in Nevada, including directory advertising and publishing. The corporation serves nearly 15.8 million access lines, including 53,000 that deliver ISDN service. It currently offers Internet access service to business customers and will expand that to residential customers in the very near future. Another subsidiary, Pacific Bell Mobile Services, will offer personal communications services at the Republican National Convention in San Diego this year and will initiate commercial service by year end. SBC Communications Inc. is one of the world's leading diversified telecommunications companies and the second largest wireless communications company based in the United States. SBC provides innovative telecommunications products and services under the Southwestern Bell and Cellular One brands. Its businesses include wireless services and equipment in the United States and interests in wireless businesses in Europe, Latin America, South Africa and Asia; cable television in both domestic and international markets; and directory advertising and publishing. SBC (NYSE:SBC) reported 1995 revenues of $12.7 billion. # # # ===================== [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: SBC Communications is of course what we knew for years and years as Southwestern Bell. Indeed, this is a *massive* merger between the Missouri/Kansas/Oklahoma/Texas telco and the folks on the west coast. The reason they point out that it will involve Chicago is because Cellular One here in the Chicago area is owned by Southwestern Bell. They are the 'A' carrier here up against Ameritech while in St. Louis (as one example) the situation is just reversed: Southwestern Bell has the 'B' side and Ameritech has the 'A' side; but off hand I do not know what name Ameritech is using there; I do not think it is 'Cellular One'. Things are getting so wild and crazy these days. Can anyone keep up with all the players and the alliances, etc? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Tad Cook Subject: Lonely Hearts Scam Date: Mon, 01 Apr 1996 20:26:32 PST Pat has mentioned some scams similar to this. tad@ssc.com ------------------ Man Profits from Long Hours on Death Row MIAMI (AP) -- Manuel Pardo Jr., is profiting from the long, empty hours he's spending on death row. Pardo, 39, a former Sweetwater police officer awaiting execution for nine 1986 slayings, places lonely-hearts ads in tabloids and carries on torrid correspondences with lonely, vulnerable women. Then, he scams them out of hundreds, sometimes thousands, of dollars, prison officials say. Twenty-six women have sent Pardo money since January 1995, according to prison records. At one point, Pardo had $3,530.08 in his prison canteen account. Prison officials say they are powerless to stop him since nothing in the Constitution prohibits Pardo from requesting or receiving small sums of money. "I know it sounds cruel, but basically our hands are tied," said Debbie Buchanan, spokeswoman for the state Department of Corrections. "He has broken no rules." But he has broken many hearts. Barbara Ford, 46, an Ohio resident who earned $7,500 last year cleaning houses, sent Pardo $430 from May to November after reading an ad he placed in a newspaper. "FLA. 116-156 CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE INMATE," the ad began. "Ex-cop Vietnam vet. Took law into own hands and ended up on Death Row. He needs letters from sensitive-understanding female, for real-honest relationship." About three weeks after Ford responded, a letter arrived from Pardo, along with some favorable clippings from his career as a police officer. "I want one special lady in my life," he wrote. "I don't play emotional games cause I hate emotional games. I also hate liars and users." Ten months earlier, he had written pretty much the same thing to Betty Ihem, 54, of Oklahoma. By the time Ford answered Pardo's ad, Pardo and Ihem were calling each other husband and wife, though they never met face to face or heard each other's voice. Ihem had received 275 letters from Pardo -- and sent him $1,200, sometimes in money orders of $3 because she worked only part-time at Wal-Mart and was impoverished. Then, in October, a letter Pardo sent Ford mysteriously ended up in Ihem's mailbox. The two women contacted prison officials, who explained they weren't the only ones who had been duped. "I could kick myself, but I've learned one thing -- there are a lot of diabolical people out there," Ihem said. "From now on, before I deal with a man, I want to see wings sprouted on his back." [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yep ... and there are the guys who are in prison but don't tell the women they are. And they used to get away with it, explaining their absence or inability to come and visit 'their woman' by telling her they had no money for travel, no car, etc. Some of them 'had all their funds tied up in a business venture at the present time'. They could only get away with one or two letters like that but one or two letters was all it took to convince the lonely woman corresponding with them to send money; as often as not it was to be used to buy a bus ticket to come and live with her. A single copy of an 'adult' correspondence magazine would get passed all over the prison; dozens of guys writing to the women and keeping notes of who wrote to which one so that the women would not get suspicious of letters from two or three guys all at the same post office box in the same town, all with 'funds tied up in a company merger' as their excuse. Sounds incredible? Probably it does, but you are on the net and already a trifle more literate than great numbers of Americans in impoverished inner-city urban areas who will tell you, if they have the ability to express themselves that one can be surrounded by millions of people and still be very lonely; feel unwanted and unloved. They want *something* or *someone* to grasp; something that has meaning and value in their lives. They just live in a void. The really juicy pickings though, as any con artist in prison would tell you are the gay guys who live in remote, rural areas where they perceive they are the only person 'like that' for miles around. The prisoners pick on those guys a lot in large part due to their isolation and lonlieness and their need for friendship. A few 'hot photos' sent by someone in prison with a Poloroid camera to their 'new friend' will always net a few dollars *minimum* in return mail and they know it. Prisons can examine incoming mail for contraband obviously. They are forbidden to examine *outgoing* mail since the Court has ruled it violates the inmate's right to privacy. Many penal institutions now have a work-around however. Somewhere on the sealed envelope they rubber stamp a message, "This is sent to you from an inmate at the prison. Please refer any enclosed money orders or other negotiable instruments to your bank for review before acceptance. Please consider carefully any requests for money, assistance or personal information about yourself before responding." Now, the con artists work the net, although most prisoners have not yet gotten online. Believe it or not, a few have gotten online. They work the hot-chats, and know just what to say. If you are male then they are female; if you are female then they are male; if you are gay, so are they; and they have some photos or .gif files they'd love to send you of 'themselves', but could you help me pay off this huge bill I have with AOHELL or Compuserve? They are gonna cut me off if I don't get money in to them by next week. I can take your credit card right here on line ... ... some old time netters fall for that routine, and lots of the new crowd does. Enough on a very sad topic for this time around. I feel bad for victims of those scams. Call them stupid, naive people if you want; it is all true. Still, I feel a hurt within me when I hear specific cases and realize as a result there must be broken hearts. PAT] ------------------------------ From: isindell@ix.netcom.com (Ivan Sindell) Subject: Source of ITU Documentation Date: 1 Apr 1996 01:46:41 GMT Organization: Netcom An excellent two CD set with the 1988 and 1993 ITU specs is InfoMagic Standards Set. Tel 520-526-9565 $30.00 (no joke) ETSI needs to open up and get its specs on the Net, also ITU, BellCore, TIA, EIA. Come on guys specs are not a revenue source they are the basis of a working system. A wide distribution specifications is good and necessary for a vibrant cyberspace. Unite to free specs. Beat on the standards organizations until they open up. Ivan Sindell, President/ Global Communications Systems Research Member: Society of Telecommunications Consultants (STC) 3940 Highwood Ct. NW; Washington, DC 20007 202-342-1500v; 202-298-6240f ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 02 Apr 96 00:30:22 EST From: tom zinn Subject: Tired of Calls From LD Telemarketers Pat, Any chance you have the 800 numbers for ATT, MCI and US Sprint to get put on their "do not hassle" list? I'm tired of hearing from them. Thanks, Tom [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am not sure if such numbers exist, but the person who might know is Bob Bulmash, who operates the Private Citizen organization. He is a regular reader here; he might be answering you once he sees this. PAT] ------------------------------ From: EschRob@aol.com Date: Mon, 01 Apr 1996 12:38:37 -0500 Subject: AT&T Wireless Services: Building a Factory? Can anyone explain to me what is going on near Seattle with AT&T Wireless Services? I have seen large advertisements posting job's wanted for manufacturing and design engineers. I have also been told by a friend that it looks like AT&T is building a factory there. Why would a company who just announced the split of their equipment company start putting up what looks like an equipment manufacturing site, and start hiring equipment design engineers? Does this make any sense? Can anyone explain? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 01 Apr 1996 14:52:55 -0400 From: cbranche@innet.com (calvin branche) Subject: Refranchising Cablecos Under the 1966 ACT As the new chair of the Pasco County Cable Advisory Committee I face the almost impossible task of coming up with suggestions for a new franchise agreement by June. Both cable companies try to assure us that there should be no problem, but some things I have read from conferences and here suggest that the task is filled with uncertainties. I am mainly interested in advice and wisdom (perhaps they are the same) from those of you who might have some thoughts to share. In particular, I am trying to make sure that our County can look forward to continuing (maybe expanding) the revenue from franchise fees; what access is allowed under the ACT (PEG or is it changed to a new acronym?); and how open video and telephone companies will muddy the waters. It appears that we will not have an outside consultant, so we are left to our own devices, one of which I hope will be those of you who read this. Thanks, cal branche chair, Pasco County CATV Comm. ------------------------------ Date: 01 Apr 96 14:28:28 EST From: CLIFFORD D. MCGLAMRY <102073.1425@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN > Now if you really are opposed to using a PIN and your phone will > not work without one, then yes, you can cancel your service and > no, they *cannot* charge you a cancellation fee simply because they > have broken the contract with you by changing the terms of the > service agreement. You cannot change the terms of a contract in > the middle of it. Or perhaps you can, but the other party to the > contract has the right to opt out of it if desired at that point. Pat, you need to go back and read the BACK side of your cellular contract again. There will be a statement in there somewhere about upgrades of the system and it being your responsibility for compatibility, not theirs. In truth, what they have promised you is the ability to make a cellular call. They haven't taken that away. Requiring a PIN number to make a call does *NOT* change the terms of the contract; it is purely a part of system operation. While many may not like it, the same many don't like having to sit down with a 75 page phone bill and tell the carrier which calls are theirs and which aren't. The carrier isn't responsible for fraud anymore than the end user is. But, the carrier is the one that gets left financially holding the bag. If you will read carefully the back side of your contract, you will realize that the carrier could install, oh say a firefly encrypted authentication key system. After installation, no phones without this feature would work. It would remain YOUR responsibility to upgrade to maintain compatibility (at your expense). It would NOT void the contract. The carriers are aware, however, of the downside of suddenly making 95% of their user's equipment obsolete. Just as we all have a responsibility to report bank robberies and to lock our doors to keep theives out, cellular users MUST assume some responsibility of helping to deal with this problem. Otherwise, everyone will pay much higher rates because of "Mr. Using a Pin is to Inconvenient for Me to be bothered with". A better solution might be to store the PIN in a speed dial memory and just send it from there when needed. Of course, if you really want to deal with this, write your congressman and tell him you think that cloned phones should carry the same penalties as counterfit money for manufacturing or mere possession. Going to federal prison for ten years or so just for being in possession of such a unit would probably make a pretty big impact in the problem. ------------------------------ From: Tatyana Landis Subject: Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN Date: 1 Apr 1996 20:03:01 GMT Organization: Russia-On-Line In the GSM standard for Mobile Telecom, we are also required to use a PIN but this PIN resides on the GSM card that our phone uses and not in the switch. But you are not using GSM in America. The closest I think you will be able to get to real security is DSCS 1900 networks. ------------------------------ From: Gerry Moersdorf Subject: Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN Date: Mon, 01 Apr 1996 15:43:11 -0500 Organization: Applied Innovation Inc. I tried to use my ameri-smurf wireline cellphone in Phoenix a few weeks ago and it wouldn't work without my using a charge card, so the payphone looked pretty good since I wanted to dial an 800 number anyway. This pin requirment is gonna have a larger impact on billable hours than the cell fraud ever did. This is gonna trow out the baby with the bathwater! Gerry Moersdorf, President/CEO Applied Innovation INC 5800 Innovation Dr, Dublin OH 800-247-9482 ------------------------------ From: dialtone@vcn.bc.ca (Babu Mengelepouti) Subject: Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN Date: 2 Apr 1996 01:19:21 GMT Organization: Vancouver Community Net > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have often wondered by the carriers > do not use something like a voiceprint of their users. Voiceprints are > supposed to be unique. This would solve a couple of problems. One is > the accident rate supposedly attributed to dialing while driving. The > voiceprint would also help out with the fraud problem since the switch > would only recognize the phone owner's voice to go with the ESN. You > would speak to the phone saying something like "Dial, five five five > one two one two send." Your unique voiceprint would go to the tower > and either it would be acceptable or it would not be. Using a combin- > ation of voiceprint and what has been termed the 'RF print' unique to > each phone -- in combination of course with the ESN -- should help > cut down on fraud. PAT] PINs don't stop cloning because on many systems the ESN is transmitted along with the PIN -- as well as transmitted when the number is dialed. So all someone with an ESN "grabber" has to do is match the ESN of the call to the ESN of the PIN and a complete pair is obtained. I was discussing PINs with a cellular pirate in the New York area. He says that with old software, it could be cumbersome, but his software goes through the logs and matches everything up nicely. So much for PINs stopping cloning. Also PINs don't stop someone from roaming on a pair from out of the area, PLUS roaming doesn't do trip accounting because the home carrier doesn't get the billing until long after the calls are made. Voiceprints won't work. When do you start billing? What about bad connections? What about different kinds of phones? Speaking at a different volume? What if the user has a cold? The technology is just too new. Babu dialtone@freenet.vancouver.bc.ca ------------------------------ From: Alan Barclay Subject: Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 20:29:13 EST > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have often wondered by the carriers > do not use something like a voiceprint of their users. Voiceprints are > supposed to be unique. This would solve a couple of problems. One is > the accident rate supposedly attributed to dialing while driving. The > voiceprint would also help out with the fraud problem since the switch > would only recognize the phone owner's voice to go with the ESN. You Because phones are used by more than one person? I share a cellular with my coworker, whoever is on call for that week carries it so that the helpdesk can contact whoever is on call, and we can phone the user having difficulty. In a previous job, it was decided to equip all the fleet of cars with cellulars, for business and emergency use. It was not unusual for a pool car, and therefore possibly the phone, to be used be ten or more people in a week. ------------------------------ From: joel@oo.com (Joel Upchurch) Subject: Re: Bill Gates Gives Million Dollars to Our Library Date: Mon, 01 Apr 96 20:01:58 GMT Organization: Online Orlando It occurs to me that in a library these Web PCs they are talking about would actually make sense. You could hook a couple of dozen up with TP Ethernet connections to a server that would handle the card catalog and internet connections. The downtown library has computers to search to search the card catalog, but there is only one on each floor and the interface is very limited and slow. I can actually get information more easily about books in other libraries that are hooked to the Internet from home, than I can from Orlando Public Library when I'm actually there. I don't really see a future for Web PCs in the home, but in an application like this where they are being used as super terminals they would make a lot more sense. Joel Upchurch @ Upchurch Computer Consulting joel@oo.com 28 27 23 N 718 Galsworthy Ave. Orlando, FL 32809-6429 phone (407) 859-0982 81 23 11 W ------------------------------ From: edellers@shivasys.com (Ed Ellers) Subject: Re: Bill Gates Gives Million Dollars to Our Library Date: 01 Apr 1996 13:59:18 GMT Organization: Pennsylvania Online [Usenet News Server for Hire] > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: > What never ceases to amaze me are the people who put out messages on the net > -- they even have the brass bedsprings to send messages to me for the Digest > -- with little things in their .signature line saying 'Use of this message > on the Microsoft Network is forbidden'. I have to wonder about them ... > obviously at least where this Digest is concerned, which is all I have any > control over, I just return the message to them saying I cannot accept it > for publication under the terms they require. PAT] That's a fad I've never understood; I even sent email replies to one or two of these guys, just asking "Why the anti-MSN venom?," but got no response. (Maybe they figure that anyone who questions their rationale at all must be working for Microsoft!) Of course, one guy has made a bizarre claim in several newsgroups that MS and Intel have some agreement that anybody selling x86 PCs is required to license Windows for every unit, whether they bundle Windows with it or not! Honestly, the more I read Usenet the more examples I see of people who need to grow up and start living in the real world. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 01 Apr 1996 10:55:00 EST From: Seymour Dupa Subject: Re: Bill Gates Gives Million Dollars to Our Library Organization: Exchange Network Services, Inc. In article TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: > Well, I have not ever won the lottery nor do I play in it, ... Reminds me of a story ... One day, Moisha goes to Temple and prays, "Lord, let me win the lottery". He goes home, and nothing happens. Next week, he goes again and prays, "Lord, please let me win the lottery. I've been good and faithful. Let me win." Goes home, and again nothing. The third week he goes and prays, "LORD, *please* let me win the lottery. I've been good. My wife's been good. My son is studying to be a rabbi. What more do You want?". All of a sudden, a clap of thunder is heard, and a deep voice slowly says, "Meet me half way. Buy a ticket!" [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But it would be more like meeting at 99.999999987 percent of the way. Lotteries are taxes on people who are very poor at mathematics. Yes, I know *someone* has to win, but it is not going to be you or me, or at least not me. If I were asked which was more likely, that I would win the lottery and live to collect it all or that Bill Gates walked up to me personally and handed me a check for a million dollars, I would say the latter, and I am not holding my breath until he knocks on my front door either. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #150 ******************************