From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Sep 16 21:36:41 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id VAA05146; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 21:36:41 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 21:36:41 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199709170136.VAA05146@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #251 TELECOM Digest Tue, 16 Sep 97 21:36:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 251 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Dyslexic Telephone Switch Causes Billing Errors (Robert J. Perillo) Bell Atlantic Changes re: Wire Maintenence (John McGing) Reflections on PCS'97 (Tara D. Mahon) Phone System Pricing (was Hypocrisy of ISP Welfare...) (Steve Hayes) Re: Phoning Home to 5 (John Mianowski) Re: Area Code 209 Split - CPUC News Release (Laura Twombly) Re: California's 209 NPA Split and MedicAlert (Tom Watson) Re: Wireless ISPs and Free Competition (Zev Rubenstein) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 16 Sep 97 18:22 EDT From: Perillo@DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL (Robert J. Perillo) Subject: Dyslexic Telephone Switch Causes Billing Errors Northern Telecom Ltd. stated last week that its widely used DMS-100 telephone switch caused numerous billing errors in many phone company central offices due to a software bug introduced during a software upgrade this summer. The software glitch caused the billing interface to become dyslexic and use the wrong area code in phone company Central Offices covering more than one area code. The software snafu was fixed after about a month of erroneous billings. Net users calling their "fixed price" local access number found hundreds of dollars of overcharges on their telephone bills this summer. The local number was billed as a toll call with a different area code attached. To add to the confusion, customers were told by their local telephone company that the billing problem was with their long distance company or the Internet Service Provider (ISP). And these companies directed customers back to the local telephone company. Customers were refused an explanation but were finally told that it was a "System Error". Pacific Bell acknowledged that 167,000 Californians, mainly in the Bay Area's 415 and 510 area codes and 805 near Los Angeles, were billed $667,000 in unwarranted local calls. The problem was also reported by Nynex customers (now Bell Atlantic) in the New York City area. I do not understand why complete testing and some sort of independent review was not done by NorTel before they released the software upgrade? The local telephone companies should also have some sort of Quality Assurance program in place before they allow a contractor to upgrade software in their Central Offices? I also do not understand why the local telephone companies did not handle the problem better in terms of customer service, and inform all possible affected customer's of the problem? [References: Inter@ctive Week, "Net Users Overcharged in Glitch", by Louis Trager, 08-Sep-1997. Forbes Magazine, "Midsummer madness, New technology is marvelous, except when it isn't. System Errors", by Dan Seligman, 08-Sep-1997, page 234. ] Robert J. Perillo, CCP Richmond, VA Perillo@dockmaster.ncsc.mil ------------------------------ From: jmcging@dm.net (John McGing) Subject: Bell Atlantic Changes re: Wire Maintenence Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 22:30:36 GMT Organization: @Home Networks Note the out they put in if you run a modem on the line (or a fax, I guess.) BellAtlantic Dear Customer, September 1997 The Terms & Conditions for Bell Atlantic Guardian Enhanced Maintenance Service and Optional Wire Maintenance (the "Plans") have been revised. These changes will become effective on November 1" 1997. A copy of the new Terms & Conditions is enclosed. We encourage you to take the time to review the revised Terms & Conditions. A brief description of the changes to the Terms & Conditions are listed below. Description of the Plans - Optional Wire Maintenance : The description of the service has been revised to indicate that coverage applies to the inside wire and jacks associated with a Bell Atlantic or other eligible carrier's dial tone line. Inside wire and jacks associated with a dial tone line service not protected by the plan are not covered under the Plan. The description has also been revised to indicate that a service charge may apply when a repair person is dispatched and the problem is with the transmission or receipt of data or signals which is beyond the operating capabilities of the dial tone line. For example, using a voice grade dial tone line to transmit or receive data or signals. Description of the Plans : Guardian Enhanced Maintenance Service : The description of the service has been revised to indicate that a service charge may apply when a repair person is dispatched and the problem is with the transmission or receipt of data or signals which is beyond the operating capabilities of the dial tone line. For example, using a voice grade line to transmit or receive data or signals. Additionally, a sentence has been added to indicate that Guardian Enhanced Maintenance Service is not available for residential ISDN lines. Charges : A late payment charge has been added. A late payment charge may be applied to the unpaid balance of the bill for each billing period in which you fail to pay the bill in full by the due date. Exclusions : Two exclusions have been added to the Plans. In West Virginia, repairs resulting from major fires or acts of nature, such as floods, wind-storms and earthquakes will no be longer covered by the Plans. These exclusions have previously applied in all other states within the Bell Atlantic mid Atlantic service area. As noted above, an exclusion has been added to indicate that the Plans do not cover malfunctions in the dial tone line resulting from the use of voice grade lines to transmit or receive data or signals which exceed the operating capabilities of the line. A service charge may apply if a repair person is dispatched and the problem is determined to be of that type. Non-acceptance Instructions : If you do not wish to accept the above changes, you may terminate your participation under the Plan at any time by contacting Bell Atlantic al the number shown below. If you wish to continue your subscription to the Plan, do nothing. The Plan will remain on your line pursuant to the revised Terms & Conditions. Should you have any questions, please call us at 1 -800-232-4008. Sincerely, Glenn Pettit Assistant Product Manager ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Sep 97 10:51:36 +0100 From: Tara D. Mahon Subject: Reflections on PCS'97 Hi Pat and DIGEST, The following went out as part of Insight's email newsletter, NewsFirst Telecom, yesterday -- thought the list would be interested. Best Regards, Tara D. Mahon, tara@insight-corp.com The Insight Research Corporation >>>NEWSFIRST EXTRA Reflections on the PCIA's PCS'97 Show, Dallas, TX As Texans are fond of telling everybody, things are bigger and better in Texas. This year's PCIA Personal Communications Showcase conference, held September 9-12, seemed to confirm this, with over 20,000 attendees and 600 vendors loudly proclaiming their wares. On the show floor were singing salesmen at PageNet, dancers at Samsung, H. G. Wells at Ericsson, and several towering antennae. Amid the noise and hoopla, we also observed signs of important trends in the wireless industry: o Wireless handsets for cellular or PCS operation are rapidly becoming commodities. Several vendors showed very similar models with price and distribution as the only clear differentiators. While market leaders sought to create distinct market niches--Nokia with style, Motorola with small size and range of products, Sony with innovative design-- the growing list of vendors, plus new products from Samsung and Lucent/Philips, make this an increasingly crowded market. For several vendors, innovative software from Unwired Planet and GeoWorks provides Internet access and enhanced wireless services. o Wireless Local Loop has arrived. Interesting new products from Mitsubishi, LG Electronics, Sony and others give carriers and installers a range of choices in this increasingly important market. We even saw a version of the Japanese PHS wireless system for use in the US. Using both the licensed and unlicensed PCS frequency bands, vendors are meeting the demand for lower cost alternatives to stringing more copper wire. Insight sees this as a rapidly growing and potentially exciting market both in the US and in developing countries. o Competition between the CDMA, TDMA, and GSM digital protocols continues. By now most vendors realize that Qualcomm's CDMA technology really works, while end-users want features and are confused by technology. As of mid-1997 there were 44 million wireless phones registered in the US and market research is finding households with multiple wireless phones. Insight sees success in this competitive market increasingly being determined by how well carriers can meet users' needs for coverage, security (especially for business users), and network reliability. o There was a lot of talk but few announcements of LMDS products. Since the FCC announced last March that it will auction off spectrum in the 28-31 Ghz band for this new service, there has been a lot of speculation about its performance and competitive benefits. There is also something of a backlash against more auctions and vendors' taking on large amounts of debt. Insight sees LMDS as one of several local loop distribution technologies. LMDS has advantages for carriers entering a new market and initially having limited penetration or market share. Its cost advantages in these "thin" markets for CLECs and other new carriers should make it valuable, especially for providing "bursty" services to smaller establishments. o As carriers seek to differentiate their services, security or fraud reduction is being recognized as a problem facing carriers and their corporate customers. Just as "churn" was the buzz word that would get carriers' attention last year, so systems and software vendors from Lucent Technologies to Systems Link Corp. see fraud reduction as an important sales opportunity. Insight Research would be pleased to discuss any of these issues and how they might apply to your firm. For further discussions, please contact Michael French, Vice President of Market Research at (973) 605 -1400, or by e-mail at michael@mf.insight-corp.com. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 09:34:09 -0400 From: Steve Hayes Subject: Phone System Pricing (was Hypocrisy of ISP Welfare...) In Telecom Digest V17 #241, Dave Stott wrote: > I did the arithmetic a little differently. If I'm an ISP and buy a > business line for $35 (the going rate in Phoenix from U S WEST), hook > a modem up to it for incoming calls, then receive calls every single > minute of every single day in a typical 30 day month (43,240 busy > minutes), then I'm paying 0.081 cents/minute for access. If, more > typically, I use the specific line 75% of the time (32,400 busy > minutes), then I'm paying .108 cents/minute for access. >If IXCs are paying PacBell >> versus $0.014 per minute paid to the local phone company for >> handling connections to a long distance carrier > then there isn't that much difference. Dave - check your arithmetic. $0.014 per minute is 1.4 cents/minute. That is about 13 times as much as .108 cents/minute. Quite a difference, I'd say. In any case, much of that $35 is paying for the physical line to the ISP. I'm sure that the IXC has to either provide the physical interconnection itself or pay something comparable to or more than $35/month for it. In my opinion, the whole thing is a mess. Most people in North America have become used to "unlimited free" local calls which are heavily cross-subsidized by that 1.4 cents/minute and (in most places) relatively high line rentals. Here in Britain, we have the opposite situation - lower line rentals and (in general) lower long-distance rates but hefty local call rates (about 5c/min daytime). Neither is a satisfactory situation. They don't reflect the real costs; resulting in poor utilization of the telecommunications infrastructure. My prescription would be: 1 - Phone service should be metered like electricity. With per-minute non-fixed costs in the fraction of a cent range, the metered rate might be about 0. 5 cent/min - a bit more for long distance. This sort of rate shouldn't deter most people from using the phone, any more than electricity rates deter most people from turning on a light. It would deter people from abusing the system with ISP connections nailed up all day, etc. If someone still wanted a nailed-up connection, they would be paying enough to cover the extra costs. 2 - The metered rate would not provide for itemized billing any more than you get itemized billing when you switch on a light. If you still need itemization even at 0.5 cents/minute, you could buy recording equipment or perhaps Telco could offer this service at extra cost. I suspect it costs as much to bill calls unde r the present system as it does to connect them. It must cost a whole lot more to promote all those confusing call plans, to administer all those charge card and collect call charges and to sort out all the billing disputes. And what about the costs of area code splits because every competing carrier needs its own office codes for rating purposes? 3 - Line rentals should - on average - cover fixed costs plus a reasonable mark-up. This would tend to be higher than at present but would be partly offset in most parts of North America by stripping out the current payment for those "free" local calls. 4 - In time, competition would drive all these prices down and bring them even closer to costs. With the present arrangements, there's much less incentive to focus on costs and much more to focus on silly marketing gimmicks. If you're at long-distance carrier paying 2.8 cents/minute for local network access, there's not much incentive to work on the 1 cent/minute or so it actually costs to connect the calls. 5 - Payphones should charge a fixed per-minute cash amount on all calls (except emergency) in addition to the metered charge to cover the cost of installing and maintaining the phone. No doubt, some other arrangement could be set up to allow calls to be made without coins but this arrangement should cover its own administrative costs. I'd say that this cost would be so much higher that everyone would decide to put the coins in instead. As an aside, this already happens in most of Europe. In Britain, you can make a short call to anywhere in the country with a 10p coin (about 15 cents). Very few people go through the operator to make a collect call for about 10 times as much. 6 - Where it was necessary to subsidize phone service (rural and low-income), this should be explicit and probably a responsibility of government. The revenue could be raised by a percentage tax on all telecommunications services. Although I'm sure that most telcos are making quite ample profits, I don't see this as the real problem. It's more that the present price structures prevent efficient use of the system and lead to massive overheads which we all end up paying fo r. Steve Hayes, Swansea, Wales, UK ------------------------------ From: mianows@ix.netcom.com (John Mianowski) Subject: Re: Phoning Home to 5 Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 23:26:46 GMT Organization: Netcom When I was in the second grade, our small town got dial. It was a VERY big deal, with open houses at the CO, training presentations at the school, etc. I have a very vivid memory, from about three or four years before, having the following exchange: (Young child picks up phone handset). Operator: "Number please." Child: "459." Operator: "Their mother is sleeping." My friend's mother was a telephone operator, who had apparently worked the previous overnight shift. The day operator of course knew this, and would not put my call through!! JM ------------------------------ From: Laura Twombly Subject: Re: Area Code 209 Split - CPUC News Release Date: 16 Sep 1997 19:15:45 GMT Organization: ESAC Leonard Erickson wrote in article : > Anthony Argyriou writes: >> The 209 area code split will be implemented in the following stages: >> November 14, 1998 Start of Permissive Dialing >> May 15, 1999 Start of Mandatory Dialing >> August 21, 1999 End of Mandatory Dialing. > Excuse me? *End* of Mandatory dialing? I think someone at the CPUC is > using a bit too much "medical" marijuana. :-) It sounds goofy, but it's a useful name for what occurs at that time. That is when the new codes that the split released will begin to be assigned. The rest of the available codes will be removed from the special announcement that says something to the effect of "you must dial area code XXX." Which means that customers that misdial after that point will reach the standard Vacant Code announcement, or a wrong number. Laura Twombly ------------------------------ From: tsw@cagent.com (Tom Watson) Subject: Re: California's 209 NPA Split and MedicAlert Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 12:47:37 -0700 Organization: CagEnt, Inc. In article , Mark J. Cuccia wrote: > Could someone explain to me exactly _HOW_ these MedicAlert devices work? > I was under the impression that a _LOCAL_ telephone number of a _local_ > hospital or emergency reporting center would be dialed upon pressing the > 'panic' button, _or_ at least a toll-FREE 800 (or 888) number would be > programmed-in to be dialed. Do all MedicAlert signaling devices > throughout the US dial-out to a California 209 (toll) number? Medic Alert was founded BEFORE 800 numbers were in existance (or used very often) and as such, the early bracelets had instructions to call a 209 number COLLECT to get the 'vital' information. Later they did get an 800 number, but not until LOTS of bracelets had been issued. Thus I can see the reason why a particular number in 209 should continue to be that way. Of course, the phone company could do the "right thing" and setup a one-number CO that forwards the particular number to the correct area code (or some nice automated response). The fact remains, the number MUST be protected, as it is a "cast in stone" style number. I suspect that MedicAlert did some early negotation with the phone company (which was quite easy then) to insure that it would be "protected". Yes, there are lots of nice "igh-tech" solutions, but this is a political decision, and "high-tech" doesn't enter into the decision, only emotions. (*SIGH*) Perhaps we should re-unite the Bell System. (That's another topic, please create a new thread for it). tsw@cagent.com (Home: tsw@johana.com) Please forward spam to: annagram@hr.house.gov (my Congressman), I do. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 12:23:38 -0400 From: Zev Rubenstein Subject: Re: Wireless ISPs and Free Competition Rishab Aiyer Ghosh (ghosh@firstmonday.dk) writes: > Obviously ISPs should network themselves with the most cost-effective > technology possible, and the FCC part 15 spectrum is great for that. etc. Regarding ISPs networking themselves (in the business sense), check out Verio (http://www.verio.com), which has gotten lots of funding to buy smaller ISPs to create a nationwide network. Regarding wireless ISPs, check out http://www.warpdrive.net/hires/index.htm They are one of many wireless ISPs; they are using UHF frequencies for fixed wireless connectivity. I was going to use them myself, but am out of their current service area. Regarding bypass of the LEC in general by ISPs and NSPs, there was a great article a few weeks ago in Inter@ctive Week, which discussed how companies like Concentric Networks were applying for CLEC (competetive local exchange carrier) status. Concentric in particular doesn't offer ISDN service: they are banking on xDSL longer term, and are using frame relay and fractional T1 to service their market, which is primarily corporate & home office. As wireless technology is better able to compete with wireline infrastructure for bypass, there will likely be a price point where NSPs (like Concentric), larger ISPs and merged ISPs (e.g. Verio affiliates) eager to bypass the LEC bottleneck will pick the appropriate wireless technology to reach customers. Recall, also, that AT&T announced plans to use proprietary technology developed by AT&T Wireless Services (AWS) to do the same for both voice and data. (I recognize that there are those who claim that AWS is bluffing; I'm only pointing out that there are others with the same concept). Finally, MCI, which has always stuck to a reseller strategy in wireless and a build-infrastructure strategy in local service (in some areas) may choose to do the same: buying spare wireless capacity as it arrives (as George Guilder predicts it will). Zev Rubenstein Business Development Manager Predictive Systems 510-749-3210 zev@predictive.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #251 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Sep 16 22:25:21 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA08633; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 22:25:21 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 22:25:21 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199709170225.WAA08633@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #252 TELECOM Digest Tue, 16 Sep 97 22:25:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 252 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Indian Cabinet Clears Private ISP Policy Leaving Details to DoT (R Ghosh) Re: ISP Subsidy? Heheheheh (H. Peter Anvin) Re: ISP Subsidy? Yes (Fred Goodwin) Re: Hypocrisy of ISP Welfare and Myth of Internet Free Market (F Goldstein) Re: Hypocrisy of ISP Welfare and Myth of Internet Free Market (M Chance) Re: Hypocrisy of ISP Welfare and Myth of Internet Free Market (R McMillin) Re: BellSouth Refuses 900 Service to Charities (Michael Kagalenko) Re: BellSouth Refuses 900 Service to Charities (Clive D.W. Feather) Re: California's 209 NPA Split and MedicAlert (Bruce Wilson) Re: Nextel Cellular? (Michael D. Sullivan) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Indian Cabinet Clears Private ISP Policy Leaving Details to DoT Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 17:53:12 PDT From: rishab@dxm.org (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh) Reply-To: rishab@dxm.org Organization: Deus X Machina, New Delhi The Indian Techonomist - bulletin, September 16, 1997 Copyright (C) 1997 Rishab Aiyer Ghosh Indian Cabinet clears private ISP policy * Broad outlines cleared, details left for later * Telecom capacity shortage: $250 mil backbone plan * Power utility, railways long-distance telecom networks September 16, 1997: The Indian Cabinet in a meeting today cleared the policy proposal to allow private Internet service providers. As predicted by The Techonomist (August 31), what was cleared by the Cabinet makes up the broad outlines of the new Internet policy environment: no licence fees for two years, reduced telecom tariffs, traffic to be routed through the international telecoms monopoly (and till now the Internet monopoly), VSNL. The devil is certainly in the details here, and Department of Telecoms (DoT, the telecoms monopoly) has apparently evaded others' attempts to get it to include specific licensing terms in the policy approved by Cabinet. It is now up to the DoT to decide what exactly the new tariffs should be, and to whom they will apply. It remains unclear whether private operators' traffic must be routed through VSNL's TCP/IP gateway, or through transcontinental telecom capacity (also leased through VSNL). The policy on direct interconnectivity between private operators has not been clearly specified - the DoT has always preferred to act as intermediary, or penalise links between separate private operators with especially increased telecom tariffs. However, DoT Secretary A V Gokak had earlier this month said that interconnections would probably be allowed, ending the ridiculous situation where traffic between to geographically proximate nodes in separate networks has to take a path half-way round the world. Mr Gokak had also indicated that private operators would be free to set tariff structures for their customers, with the market, rather than the DoT determining prices. (Previously, private e-mail operators had to stick to DoT-specified tariff bands.) DoT "backbone" unlikely to ease capacity constraints There is no doubt that the growth in Internet users will take off rapidly - there are about 50,000 commercial subscribers today. Given the continuing restraints on operators, and capacity constraints, the number of Internet hosts will probably remain pitiful (barely a thousand), and Indian web sites will continue to be hosted off US-based servers. The DoT is also being urged to build telecom capacity specifically for an Internet backbone. It is not particularly keen to do so, given the far higher profit margins in extending India's limited infrastructure for telephony traffic. There is a proposal to build an Internet backbone, budgeted at roughly $250 million, but DoT cannot reasonably be expected to find the money on its own. It is, of course, spending several billion dollars on expanding its telecom network, and part of that may go into a dedicated Internet backbone - if someone else pays for it. Telecom capacity off power utility, railways' networks might Proposals have been floating around the corridors of government for alternative long- distance networks operated by the railways (a government Ministry) and the electricity transmission utility (Power Grid Corporation of India, PGCL). Both have huge property giving rights of way across the country, and the Ministry of Railways already runs a vast internal telecoms network. Both see long- distance telephony as a money-spinner rather more profitable than their core operations, and would like to build bulk capacity for either the DoT or private operators. India is expected to end the DoT's monopoly on domestic long-distance traffic in 1999 (the DoT's local monopoly has been in the process of ending since 1995, the first private local wireline operator plans to start operations this November). For the moment, the government is not allowing the Railways or PGCL to go ahead with joint-ventures with private or foreign companies, it is "studying the issue." Perhaps a good experimental first step would be to let the Railways sell the spare capacity on its telecoms network - much of it optical fibre - to new private Internet operators. As a compromise, the Railways could do this at non- competitive rates, sharing some revenue with the DoT. Given the DoT's attitude to new services - which is paranoid rather than welcoming - this solution to the shortage of available telecoms capacity is not very likely. The Indian Techonomist - http://dxm.org/techonomist/news Copyright (C) 1997 Rishab Aiyer Ghosh Reproduction permitted with this notice attached ------------------------------ From: hpa@transmeta.com (H. Peter Anvin) Subject: Re: ISP Subsidy? Heheheheh Date: 16 Sep 1997 08:54:46 GMT Organization: Transmeta Corporation, Santa Clara CA Reply-To: hpa@transmeta.com (H. Peter Anvin) In belfert@citilink.com (Brian Elfert) wrote: > The CCITT no longer exists. It was replaced by the ITU. > The ITU is not refusing to standardize 56K. They are currently > working on the standard, possibly to be called V.PCM. Because the ITU > is a political committee, it does take them quite a while to decide on > a standard. I can imagine the biggest political hurdle is probably two major corporate entities trying to get the standard as close as possible to their particular already existing nonstandard implementation ... hpa PGP: 2047/2A960705 BA 03 D3 2C 14 A8 A8 BD 1E DF FE 69 EE 35 BD 74 See http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/ for web page and full PGP public key Always looking for a few good BOsFH. ** Linux - the OS of global cooperation I am Baha'i -- ask me about it or see http://www.bahai.org/ ------------------------------ From: Fred Goodwin Subject: Re: ISP Subsidy? Yes Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 09:18:34 -0500 Eric Ewanco wrote: > In article Eric Florack > writes: >> Objection: Your use of the word "subsidy" suggests that the money >> lost to this (How can you lose something you never had?) is being >> gotten from some other source. That's simply not true. And yet, the >> telco's are hardly going broke over this. > Here I absolutely agree with you: the author employs a subtle shift in > language. He refers to price controls as "subsidies". So simply > because the tariffs are set low, he declares this a subsidy. A > subsidy is when the government forks over money to keep a profitless > but necessary effort afloat. It's not when it regulates a monopoly's > prices. > Even if we were to grant this, a flaw in his argument is that because > ISPs don't pay per minute for receiving calls, this amounts to a > "subsidy". But this is the same tariff all businesses pay. If the > ISPs are subsidized, so are other businesses. If it really did cost > the telco some rate per minute to maintain a connection, then they'd > be losing money on other business calls, too. But one can hardly > argue that the LECs would structure their business rates below cost! > Besides, the model for telco charges is that the one who places the > call usually pays for it. If the telcos are losing money, then why do > they offer flat rate residential service, that makes this possible? > Wouldn't the responsibility lay more logically with flawed tariff > structures on the calling end, rather than on the receiving end? Well, the flat-rate tariffs you refer to were built on a cost-model that assumed much lower holding times than are seen for ISP traffic. Does anyone in this group deny that residential calls are typically of shorter duration than calls to an ISP? If not, then there is no point in my making any additional comments, because you will never be convinced. OTOH, if you do agree that ISP calls are of longer duration, and that blockages can and do occur as a result, then I would submit the ISP (or its customers) should be the ones the foot the bill for the switch upgrades the telco must make in order to restore the required grade of service to its other, non-ISP customers. Because neither the ISP nor its customers are willing to pay for more than a flat-rate connection (which, again, assumes a much lower holding time), then the cost of the telco switch-upgrades necessitated by them is instead borne by all and that, to me, sounds like a subsidy. Fred Goodwin CMA SBC-Technology Resources, Inc. fgoodwin@eden.com Opinions are my own, not SBC-TRI fgoodwin@tri.sbc.com 9505 Arboretum, 9th Floor Dallas Cowboys Training Camp Page Austin, TX 78759 http://www.eden.com/~fgoodwin/cowboys.htm ------------------------------ From: fgoldstein@bbn.NO$LUNCHMEAT.com (Fred R. Goldstein) Subject: Re: Hypocrisy of ISP Welfare and Myth of Internet Free Market Date: 15 Sep 1997 16:25:18 GMT Organization: GTE Internetworking - BBN Technologies In article , hicom@oldcolo.com says: > What is Nathan (and indeed the RBOCs who cry in their beer about > overloaded switches) going to say when the 4,500 ISPs in the US wake > up to the fact that they can already, and soon will be able to do ever > faster and cheaper, drop the use of local loop telco services and > convert their customers to no-licence digital wireless? Bypassing the > local wired common carriers entirely? ... > When the shoe is on THAT foot, watch the RBOCs start bitching about > the 'bypass' technologies, and Internet phone. > *REAL* competition and open marketplace anyone? Interesting digression. Telcos' (specifically, ILECs') collective market power is eroding under both technological and regulatory weight. Alas, the vast majority of dial-up Internet users (especially the low-volume residential recreational users) are stuck with ILEC phones as their only option at the present time. So it is important to keep that channel available. But yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus on the horizon. The catch is that no one gift works for everyone. Wireless answers are getting better. Last winter the FCC gave us a wonderful gift in the "Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure" (U-NII) band, allowing up to 4 watts ERP for unlicensed wideband high-speed data in the 5.7 GHz range. This is too new for equipment to be available yet but there is huge potential for cellular-style (in topology, not pricing, but hey those towers look nice) "community networks". This goes back to Apple's 1995 petition. There's also a 2.4 GHz "unlicensed PCS" band medium-speed data; a fair amount of gear is now available for this. The 902 MHz "junque band" is still there but rather a bit noisy for longer-range (non-LAN) uses. Trouble is, these radio frequencies (the term "microwave" scares off civilians who think of ovens and thus danger) are somewhat limited to "line of sight". If you have a high tower or hilltop surrounded by the plains of Colorado or Arizona, then you'll do well. But here in New England we have rolling hills (tougher to get line-of-sight) and big trees (foliage fade). Some areas have serious rain fade problems. So a wireless solution typically ends up missing substantial areas. Still worth pursuing though. Two other gambits stem from the Communications Act of 1996, based on the status afforded to Competitive LECs. A CLEC who owns a switch negotiates a "reciprocal compensation" agreement with the Bell. This is sort of like what the UK and now Holland have -- the LEC recipient of a call is paid to terminate it. (US IXCs, on the other hand, pay the LEC at both ends.) The ILEC and CLEC are peers and pay each other. An ISP on a CLEC switch therefore generates "terminating minutes of use" revenue for the CLEC -- why do you think MFS (CLEC) bought UUNET (ISP)? Typical MOU reciprocal compensation rates are .3 - .7 cents/minute. Some ISPs are becoming or are creating data-oriented CLECs to take advantage of this. The second approach is "Unbundled Network Elements" (UNEs). Here, ILECs must rent CLECs elements of their network (the FCC defined the list) at cost-based prices. Local loops, switch ports, and LEC switch and trunk minutes-of-use are all included as UNEs. Incoming switch use is generally free, and ISDN PRI ports and interoffice mileage under UNE agreements are a fraction of tariff rates. Same network, different price. So the ILECs have less incentive to try to screw ISPs than they did a year ago, because the ISPs have CLEC alternatives (switched or switchless). And radio technology is making the local-loop bottleneck less critical than it used to be. I suppose an ideologue can call anything a subsidy, but enough lawyers have pounded on these rules to make for a very tender cutlet. Fred R. Goldstein k1io fgoldstein"at"bbn.com GTE Internetworking - BBN Technologies, Cambridge MA USA +1 617 873 3850 Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission. ------------------------------ From: Michael Chance Subject: Re: Hypocrisy of ISP Welfare Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 15:57:18 CDT Robert L. McMillin wrote: > What I have to wonder about here, though, is the idea that monopolies > are necessarily bad. In the long run they tend to be unsustainable; > and in any event, anti-trust legislation seems to me to be a > blunderbuss aimable at any politically convenient target (unions were > the first such target in the U.S.). While I could be wrong, I believe that the first anti-trust efforts were directed at such targets as Rockefeller's Standard Oil, J. Paul Getty's empire, Carnegie's U. S. Steel, and the big railroads. Those were the targets of Pres. Teddy Roosevelt and the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Except for the Grange, the unions didn't get big enough to notice until the 1920s-1930s. Michael A. Chance Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., St. Louis, Missouri Tel.: (314) 235-4119 Email: mc307a@helios.sbc.com ------------------------------ From: Robert L. McMillin Subject: Re: Hypocrisy of ISP Welfare and Myth of Internet Free Market Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 15:03:48 -0700 Organization: Syseca, Inc. -- a Thomson company Rishab Aiyer Ghosh wrote: > It would have been nice if Newman got his facts right -- but it's not > really necessary. In other words, proponents of market regulation (or outright nationalization) don't have to worry about the accuracy or truthfulness of their arguments -- all they have to do is make the right noises. Down with The Man! Feh. > While correcting his errors, all you've done is reiterate the need > for government regulation to ensure that prices bear some relation to > costs (your comparison with Europe is apt) and to ensure free > competition. That probably makes Newman satisfied. What??? Last time I checked, last-mile service is *required by law* to be provided by goverment-selected monopolies. That bears no resemblance at all to "free competition". Honestly, I'm astonished that Newman continues to get airtime around here. He is the Lyndon Larouche of Telecom. Robert L. McMillin | Not the voice of Syseca, Inc. | rlm@syseca-us.com Personal: rlm@helen.surfcty.com | rlm@netcom.com Put 'rabbit' in your Subject: or my spam-schnauzer will eat your message. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I run his stuff (I keep a little of it around in stock here) whenever I hear snoring coming from the direction of your terminal and realize that you must have fallen asleep, or other- wise gotten bored with the discussions. :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: Michael Kagalenko Subject: Re: BellSouth Refuses 900 Service to Charities Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 21:40:29 EDT > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: > I'll grant you there are dishonest IP's. But quite a few are honest > even if their information or service is essentially useless and they Now wait a minute. You assume some very interesting meaning of the word "honest" here. I would be interested to see how you could possibly consider honest someone who bills for worthless service. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, what you and I may consider to be worthless in our lives may be a treasure to someone else. For example, I have absolutely no use for astrology; I have no use for Tarot and other similar things. But there are people who believe stongly in these things and there are IPs who legitimatly provide these services to the believers. Not every IP who operates a religious phone service is a fraud. Granted, many are. Some IPs sincerely believe they are providing a great public service at a reasonable cost, and they have documented call counts to show they are getting inquiries, etc. Perhaps I should have qualified that by saying 'worthless as far as I am concerned ...' Here is another example: let's consider yours truly. I am an IP, albiet not using the phone or billing via telco. I send out this Digest every day to a few thousand names on the mailing list plus to a newsgroup and a few specialized other lists, etc. I maintain a web site with all the back issues. I say to whoever reads this, 'hey how about sending a donation every year or so in the suggested amount of twenty dollars ...' Now, you and some others think my rants mixed with news and reviews in the telecom scene are really great and you send me the money as encouragement to continue. On the other hand I get letters saying 'your stuff is useless; totally worthless to me; I would not send you five cents if you downloaded the entire archives to me ...' but they do not (in most cases, although some have) suggest I am dishonest for publishing 'useless' information. That is what I meant. There *are* many -- maybe most -- telephone IPs who sincerely believe in what they are doing and the service they are providing. Perhaps most people would disagree, but the IP did make good on delivery of information, etc. HaHa! I just remembered: I got another notice today asking me to cease and desist from sending spam to a site, despite the fact that the user at that site is on the mailing list. I removed the user's name from the list and sent him a note cc'd to his admin saying 'here, you guys work it out; I do not send out spam'. I'll let the user yell at his admin about it. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 06:18:02 +0100 From: Clive D.W. Feather Subject: Re: BellSouth Refuses 900 Service to Charities Organization: Clive's laptop (part of Demon Internet Ltd.) In article , Bob Holloway writes > 2) there is no easy way, currently, for 900/976 service > providers to know whether the person calling is authorized to use the > phone that he/she is calling from. Obviously, they would like to > assume that they do -- but this isn't always the case. I see this as > particularly a problem that prevents sex lines from screening their > calls to make sure they are from adults In the UK these lines are on 0898 numbers. Before these numbers can be dialed, the subscriber has to obtain a specific PIN from BT. No PIN, no calls, no charges. Problem solved. Clive D.W. Feather | Director of Software Development | Home email: Tel: +44 181 371 1138 | Demon Internet Ltd. | Fax: +44 181 371 1037 | | Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address | ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 02:33:28 -0400 From: blw1540@aol.com (Bruce Wilson) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: California's 209 NPA Split and MedicAlert In article , jay@west.net (Jay Hennigan) writes: > You mean someone actually BOUGHT the "Help, I've fallen and I can't > get up" gadget? And it costs them a long distance call every time the > neighbor opens his garage door? And they're still working? Somehow, > these have always seemed to be in the same realm as Chia pets and the > Clapper. You obviously are neither a senior citizen nor have a parent who's one. My late father, who died July 1 in his 82nd year, subscribed to a service provided by a local ambulance company; and one of the first things I did on arriving at his apartment was to see if he was wearing the pendant or find it and lecture him if he wasn't. The "base station" was effectively a radio-controlled speaker phone which autodialed the ambulance dispatch center on activation. Its pickup was sensitive enough to hear him anywhere in the apartment; and I got a call if he didn't respond when the dispatcher came on the line to ask him what was wrong. (Having more than one line, they could keep his open while calling me on another one.) Getting back on-topic for this discussion, I don't see why the base units can't be programmed (or reprogrammed) to dial *any* number, including changing the area code, if necessary. Bruce Wilson ------------------------------ From: Michael D. Sullivan Subject: Re: Nextel Cellular? Date: Tue, 16 Sep 97 09:30:23 -0400 Organization: DIGEX, Inc. Reply-To: Michael D. Sullivan On Sun, 07 Sep 1997 19:27:44 GMT, Ben Parker wrote: > All the discussion in the Digest here recently on CDMA/TDMA/GSM and > various cellular and PCS carriers and such has been very interesting > and informative. However, nobody has mentioned Nextel in this > discussion yet and I'd like opinions about there place in the overall > scheme. > Nextel seems to offer a nationwide digital/analog network (TDMA) that > is free of roaming charges. Additionally their phone sets offer text > paging functions and also have a unique 2-way radio capability that > allows you to connect to specific handsets anywhere in their network > for much less than usual rates. In essence this is long-distance > radio, using their cellular (850mhz) network. Seems like it delivers > today what most PCS promises for tomorrow. Too good to be true? I haven't used Nextel, but they don't use the cellular or PCS bands; they use the 800 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) bands, which are in the same vicinity as cellular. Their phones cannot roam on cellular systems; just on Nextel's own network (and potentially on other enhanced SMR networks using compatible technology, if and when there are such systems). Before Nextel, SMR frequencies were used for high-power, area-wide dispatch communications; Nextel bought up lots of these systems and "cellularized" the system architecture (lots of lower-power transmitters in a cellular grid). Michael D. Sullivan, Bethesda, Maryland, USA mds@access.digex.net, avogadro@well.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #252 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Sep 18 22:04:08 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA24364; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 22:04:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 22:04:08 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199709190204.WAA24364@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #253 TELECOM Digest Thu, 18 Sep 97 22:04:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 253 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Book Review: "Internet Infoscavanger" (Periodical) (Rob Slade) AT&T Database Glitch Caused '800' Phone Outage (Robert J. Perillo) Comprehensive International Country/City Code Listing (Jon Gilbert) Bell Atlantic Drops the Ball on New NPA (John Cropper) ISP Termination Charges (Joe Jensen) Peter Neumann to Receive Social Responsibility Award (Monty Solomon) Dial Access Unit For Value Added Fax Servers (Stuart McRae) NC's Three New NPA Numerics Announced (Bob Goudreau) Multiple Subscriptions on Ericsson (Sprint Spectrum) PCS Phone (S Dietrich) Heads-up for 800 Service Users (Judith Oppenheimer) NYNEX Voicemail Product? (Michael Gutteridge) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 10:33:01 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Internet Infoscavanger" (Periodical) PRININSC.RVW 970319 "Internet InfoScavenger", Cathy D. Dupre, 1996+, 1088-0666, U$149/yr %A Cathy D. Dupre %C MSC473, 1153 Bergen Parkway, Suite M, Evergreen, CO 80439-9501 %D 1996+, monthly %G ISSN 1088-0666 %I InfoScavenger Communications, Inc. %O U$149/yr 303-674-2794 800-449-8533 fax: 303-674-4184 subs@infoscavenger %T "Internet InfoScavenger" This is an eight page (letter size) periodical published monthly or possibly ten times per year. The slogan is "Sites and insights for growing businesses." The contents of the four sample issues I received deal with various issues of using the Internet as a business resource. There are articles on market research services, copyright, and business models, but the primary emphasis is on advertising and marketing. In fact, about half of the total material in what I received dealt specifically with publicizing your Web site. URLs (Uniform Resource Locators) are liberally sprinkled through the articles, and the last page of each issue lists all the Web sites again. Despite, or perhaps because of, the limited range of topics, the advice is practical and generally sound. An article on ensuring that your site gets frequently "hit" by search engines also notes that the tactics may be interpreted as "spamdexing", and thus may backfire. For those who are new to the Web, and primarily interested in using it as an advertising tool, there is a lot of good advice. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 PRININSC.RVW 970319 roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca Ceterum censeo CNA Financial Services delendam esse Please note the Peterson story - http://www.netmind.com/~padgett/trial.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Sep 97 13:57 EDT From: Perillo@DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL (Robert J. Perillo) Subject: AT&T Database Glitch Caused '800' Phone Outage AT&T's network of toll-free numbers (800) crashed Wednesday 03-Sep-1997 and thousands of callers were greeted with busy signals between 12:30pm and 2:00pm EDT. The network outage was the company's worst overall outage since Jan. 15, 1990. AT&T blamed human error of a technician for the crash. AT&T Corp. stated that it would compensate customer's for their toll-free service disruption. Many customers have contracts that entitle them for compensation. The problem was caused when a technician uploaded to AT&T's Signaling System # 7 (SS7) an incorrect set of translations for the routing of '800' phone calls. Calls using the new '888' prefix were not affected. '800/888' numbers have become increasingly popular for remote access and call centers, and may account for more than 40% of the volume on AT&T's domestic network. Loading incorrect Routing and Translation tables have been the cause of many recent network outages. These tables should be tested off-line, and automatically checked for format problems by a pre-processor. Preferably an automated "knowledge engineering" system should be used to create these tables. Since many of these problems have been blamed on a "technician's human error", increased training is in order. Before the changed Tables/Instructions are uploaded into the system, there should be a mandatory Quality Assurance review. [References: AP, "AT&T to Compensate Customers", 04-Sep-1997. Network World, "Database glitch KOs 800 lines", 08-Sep-1997. ] Robert J. Perillo, CCP, CNE Perillo@dockmaster.ncsc.mil Principal Telecommunications Engineer Richmond, VA ------------------------------ From: Jon Gilbert Subject: Comprehensive International Country/City Code Listing Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 23:42:14 -0400 Organization: Access Orlando (407) 895-1200 Reply-To: jong@ao.net I've seen the archives at http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/country.codes/, and the Americom CGI at http://www.inconnect.com/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/americom/aclookup, and I'm despaired: Is there a comprehensive listing in a singular format of internation country and city codes available? I'm planning on writing an automatic dialling script, and I'm going to need something along those lines. And rather than try to format all the data at massis into a standard format, I'm hoping that someone already has done this. Have they? jong out. Jonathan Gilbert jong@ao.net ------------------------------ From: John Cropper Subject: Bell Atlantic Drops the Ball on New NPA Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 16:15:05 -0400 Bell Atlantic is consistent, if not accurate. Upon trying to reach a client in the new 931 area code today, I was stopped at the 8th digit by a BA circuit in northern New Jersey with the standard canned message "it is not necessary to dial a 1 before calling this number". Upon calling Bell Atlantic repair, rep after rep repeated the company line: "It is a problem with your long-distance carrier, not us". I repeatedly tried to explain that THIER switch was not even letting me through, because 931 was not entered as an NPA, but apparently they had already made their mind up on the issue, and I was just "some dumb customer who didn't know better". Having completed a call TO THE SAME NUMBER earlier in the day using my LD carrier's calling card, I know that BA is pretty much full of S. This is the second incident in two days that BA has blamed on the LD carrier, and both were problems on THEIR end. In a few months when competition is in full swing, I will be among the first in line to switch local dialtone providers if BA's service department continues with their 'limited culpability'. John Cropper voice: 888.76.LINCS LINCS fax: 888.57.LINCS P.O. Box 277 mailto:jcropper@lincs.net Pennington, NJ 08534-0277 ICQ: 2670887 FREE areacode info: http://www.lincs.net/areacode/ $17.95 internet: http://www.lincs.net/internet/dialupacs.html [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I had the very same problem a few years ago with a new exchange which opened in 414; Illinois Bell refused to listen to anything I had to say. Finally after a couple days of trying to tell them my LD carrier worked just fine, I had to go way over their head and talk to a guy from AT&T based in Kansas City. I told him about it and how IBT/Ameritech would not even try to correct it. His response was, "they'll listen to me and do as I say ..." and sure enough, a couple days later I was able to get through just fine. I guess Ameritech had to completely reload the tables or something. So John, perhaps a reader here who carries some weight will get in touch with you for particulars and then call someone at BA and get them to straighten it out. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Joe Jensen Subject: ISP Termination Charges Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 07:40:08 -0400 In a recent TELECOM Digest article, Fred Goldstein wrote: > Two other gambits stem from the Communications Act of 1996, based on > the status afforded to Competitive LECs. A CLEC who owns a switch > negotiates a "reciprocal compensation" agreement with the Bell. > This is sort of like what the UK and now Holland have -- the LEC > recipient of a call is paid to terminate it. (US IXCs, on the other > hand, pay the LEC at both ends.) The ILEC and CLEC are peers and pay > each other. An ISP on a CLEC switch therefore generates "terminating > minutes of use" revenue for the CLEC -- why do you think MFS (CLEC) > bought UUNET (ISP)? Typical MOU reciprocal compensation rates are .3 > - .7 cents/minute. Some ISPs are becoming or are creating > data-oriented CLECs to take advantage of this. This fact has not gone unnoticed by the RBOCS, based on the inequity between outgoing termination compensation and incoming compensation. In at least one region, the RBOC has filed a complaint and placed the termination compensation associated with ISP traffic that would have gone to the CLEC in escrow pending resolution. Their argument is that internet access is interlata and therefore not subject to termination charges. This issue is still being debated at the national and state level. Joe Jensen ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 01:15:26 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Peter Neumann to Receive Social Responsibility Award Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM Begin forwarded message: Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 00:06:33 -0700 From: Susan Evoy Subject: Peter Neumann to Receive Social Responsibility Award September 16, 1997 For Immediate Release Contact: Duff Axsom 650-322-3778 Peter Neumann To Receive Social Responsibility Award Palo Alto, CA. - Peter Neumann, a national authority on computer security and risk, will be given the prestigious Norbert Wiener Award for excellence in promoting socially responsible use of computing technology. Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) annually honors an outstanding leader for personal dedication to increasing the public awareness of the social and political consequences of the uses of technology. Dr. Neumann will be honored October 4, 1997 at the CPSR Annual Conference in Berkeley, CA. "Peter Neumann is a remarkable scholar and social activist", said CPSR president Aki Namioka. "His contributions to our knowledge about the risks and reliability of computing technology are widely published in scientific journals, but even more importantly he initiated the public dialogue through open discussion in one of the most widely read computer online USENET newsgroups, RISKS Forum (comp.risks)." "Dr. Neumann is a pioneer in linking the risks in using technology to our most cherished rights to privacy and our need for a secure environment", stated Namioka. "CPSR is extremely proud to present the Norbert Wiener Award for 1997 to a truly important citizen, an activist and a distinguished scientist. He was one of the early members of CPSR and helped bring public awareness to the major flaws in the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) during the Reagan administration." The Norbert Wiener Award was established in 1987 by CPSR in memory of the originator of the field of cybernetics. Norbert Wiener was among the first to examine the social and political consequences of computing technology. His book, The Human Use of Human Beings, pointed out the dangers of nuclear war and the role of scientists in weapons development in 1947, shortly after Hiroshima. Dr. Neumann's research on the implications of computing gained wide recognition when he created the ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes in 1976 with considerable attention to risks issues, and then created the online Risks Forum in 1985. He was also co-author of the National Research Council (NRC) report, Computers at Risk in 1990. Dr. Neumann is the author of Computer-Related Risks, published in 1995 by The Association for Computing (ACM) and Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Computer-Related Risks summarizes many real events involving computer technologies and the people who depend on those technologies, with widely ranging causes and effects. It considers problems attributable to hardware, software, people, and natural causes. More information about this book can be found at: http://heg-school.awl.com/cseng/authors/neumann/crrisks/crrisks.html His expertise in the issues of privacy and cryptography are demonstrated in his role as an author of the seminal study, Cryptography's Role in Securing the Information Society for the NRC. He served on the Expert Panel of the U.S. House of Representatives' Judiciary Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights. He is a member of the U.S. General Accounting Office's newly formed Executive Council on Information Management and Technology. Over five decades, Dr. Neumann, Principal Scientist at SRI International in Menlo Park, CA, has been concerned with critical computer and communications systems issues such as security, reliability and human safety. He holds a Ph.D. from Harvard and was a Fulbright scholar at the Technicsche Hochschule, Darmstadt, Germany. He has worked in the computer field since 1953. He is a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). He was the recipient of the Electronic Frontier Foundation Pioneer Award in 1996 and the ACM SIGSOFT Distinguished Service Award in 1997. More information and access to many of his writings may be obtained at his webpage, http://www.CSL.sri.com/neumann.html. CPSR was founded in 1981 by computer professionals in the Silicon Valley concerned about the use of computers in nuclear weapons systems. CPSR has grown into a national public interest alliance of computer scientists, information technology professionals, and others concerned about the critical choices facing society in the applications of computer related technology. CPSR has 22 Chapters throughout the United States and is based in Palo Alto, CA. ---------------- Duff Axsom, Executive Director http://www.cpsr.org/home.html Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility P.O. Box 717, Palo Alto, CA 94302 Phone: (650) 322-3778 Fax: (650) 322-4748 Email: duff@cpsr.org ------------------------------ From: Stuart McRae Subject: Dial Access Unit For Value Added Fax Sservers Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 11:27:37 -0400 I'm looking for information on redialer units to provide access to value added fax services. We can route faxes over the intranet if a fax user dials the server and then DTMF's the recipient, but end user's aren't motivated to figure out how to do this (and some fax machines make it real hard). I've heard people talk about auto-dialers that can re-route calls like this to a different number, and DTMF the number dialed, but have never come across such a unit. I guess it would also need to insert a DTMF prefix to identify the originating machine for routing non-delivery notifications (and to authorize access). Can anyone provide a lead on how I find such a unit? I've never seen one in a catalogue, but I'd have thought that with more Internet Fax services being advertised there'd be a growing demand. I'm interested in availability in the US and also Europe and other countries. For users at the same site as the fax servers, it has been suggested that PABXs might support this function. Is this reasonable? Thanks, Stuart McRae ------------------------------ From: goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 10:24 EDT Subject: NC's Three New NPA Numerics Announced Today's issue of Raleigh's newspaper _The_News_&_Observer_ says that Bellcore has announced the numeric values of the three new North Carolina area codes which are to be split off from the existing three NPAs over the forthcoming year. The story also listed most (but not all) of the dates associated with the splits. The new codes are: 336, which will cover the northern half of the current 910 NPA, and which will encompass the "Piedmont Triad" of Greensboro, Winston-Salem and High Point, among other areas. This is the NC code in greatest jeopardy, and so it will take effect very soon (12/15). Unfortunately, there was no mention of the date on which permissive dialing will end. 252, which will cover the eastern three-quarters of the current 919 NPA, including cities such as Greenville and Rocky Mount and most of eastern North Carolina including the Outer Banks. This NPA takes effect on 3/22/98, and becomes mandatory 6 months later on 9/21. 828, which will cover the western two-thirds of the current 704 NPA, including Asheville and most of NC's western mountain region. This NPA is *tentatively* schedule to take effect on 6/1/98 and become mandatory on 10/5. For more details, see the N&O story online at . Bob Goudreau Data General Corporation goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive +1 919 248 6231 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA ------------------------------ Subject: Multiple Subscriptions on Ericsson (Sprint Spectrum) PCS Phone? Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 17:46:46 EDT From: spock@blacksun.adelphi.edu (Dr. Sven Dietrich) Hopefully someone can clarify this one for me, or point me in the right direction: I recently bought an Ericsson CH-337 PCS 1900 phone, with a subscription to Sprint Spectrum PCS. What prevents me from getting another smartcard (SIM chip) from, say, Omnipoint (NY) and using it with that in NY rather than roaming with Sprint? I mean, it's the _same_ model as the one being sold by Omnipoint, no? It's the same GSM technology, right? I've heard different stories, so if someone could explain the technical details or direct me to a FAQ, I'd be grateful. Please reply by e-mail, if possible. Dr. Sven Dietrich | Internet: spock@abraxas.adelphi.edu (MIME/PGP) Dept of Math & CS | Voice: +1-516-877-4488 Fax: +1-516-877-3545 Adelphi University, New York | http://www.adelphi.edu/~spock ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 14:42:49 -0400 From: Judith Oppenheimer Reply-To: joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com Organization: ICB TOLL FREE - 800/888 news... commentary... consulting... Subject: Heads-up for 800 Service Users AT&T IS SHIFTING GEARS in its policies towards call centers, large corporate users and others that have low-or-no-or-infrequent volume 800/888's along with their more active toll-free numbers. The essence of it is to reduce specific inventory that carries cost with no revenue, regardless of the overall business done with the carrier. Details can be found at ICB TOLL FREE NEWS, http://www.icbtollfree.com. 800/888 ICB TOLL FREE NEWS 800/888 today's regulatory news for tomorrow's marketing decisions. TRY US FREE FOR 15 DAYS !!! http://icbtollfree.com (ph) 212 684-7210. (fx) 212 684-2714. 1 800 THE EXPERT. ICB Headlines Autosponder: mailto:headlines@icbtollfree.com ------------------------------ From: Michael Gutteridge Subject: NYNEX Voicemail Product? Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 15:31:14 -0700 Organization: ONYX Software Corp. Reply-To: mikeg@spam.onyx.com Hiya I want to use NYNEX's Voicemail product in the Stoneham area (617-438-xxxx). Basically, there aren't enough people in our remote office there to really justify a key/integrated system, but we'd like to retain some "real" voicemail features. Most notably, we'd like to have the ability for people who reach a subscriber's mail box to transfer out to an operator (zero destination, I think it's called on the Meridian?) However, to get this feature, we are told that we need to go with what NYNEX calls "Type III" service, at the rate of $150 *per line*. For the 25 (minimum) lines we'd have to get, that's far too much money. I cannot believe this is accurate. I guess I'm suspicious because the NYNEX rep keeps bringing out a salesman hawking the Intertel switch/voicemail system. And, while he will talk with the end-users, he won't call me (responsible for telecom, thankyouverymuch.) Any users of NYNEX voicemail out there? Any hints on a way to do this without buying a switch? Thanks, Michael Gutteridge ONYX Software Corp. System Administrator http://www.onyx.com mikeg @ onyx.com 425.519.4118 (remove spam in the "from" address) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #253 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Sep 18 22:33:39 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA26398; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 22:33:39 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 22:33:39 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199709190233.WAA26398@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #254 TELECOM Digest Thu, 18 Sep 97 22:33:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 254 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Hypocrisy of ISP Welfare and Myth of Internet Free Market (Brad Allen) Re: ISP Subsidy? (Gary Novosielski) Re: ISP Subsidy? Yes (John Stanley) Re: ISP Subsidy? Yes (Jay R. Ashworth) Re: ISP Subsidy? Yes (Greg Hennessy) Re: ISP Subsidy? Yes (David Richards) Re: ISP Subsidy? Yes (Rahul Dhesi) Re: ISP Subsidy? Yes (Bill Sohl) The Medic-Alert Brouhaha (Joey Lindstrom) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bradley Ward Allen Subject: Re: Hypocrisy of ISP Welfare and Myth of Internet Free Market Date: 18 Sep 1997 16:31:32 -0400 Organization: Q > The ISPs along with AT&T, Apple Computer, Netscape, Microsoft, > Compaq Computer, IBM, and a host of other computer companies demanded > and won continued FCC intervention to prevent market pricing on local > telephone company services used by ISPs to reach their customers in > the first place. Since the initial breakup of AT&T back in 1983, the > FCC has exempted Internet providers from paying the same kind of > per-minute access charges to local phone companies that long distance > companies have to pay to connect their customers. This has allowed ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Internet providers to pay the flat business rate to local phone ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > companies that ordinary local business customers pay -- which in turn ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > has allowed them to offer flat-rate service for the Internet to their > customers. I take it you consider the backbones free? When's the last time peering at an interexchange point was free? When's the last time leasing fiber under the sea was free? When's the last time paying "settlement" fees to large ISPs that have good backbones from hither to fro was free? When's the last time that setting up cooperatives to make it more cost effective to deal with these settlement issues was free? Hey, btw, when's the last time that leasing a line from the local "previous"-monopoly "baby bell" was free? Oh, let's not forget the free connection that MAE charges you to connected to their POP. Hey, those free routers are really useful too. Oh, the free labor and free service contracts for all of these components is really a nice perk. Uh hum. Oh, I almost forgot --- and those large energy companies going through their own industry shakeup, hey, they love giving ISPs power for free, too, when used for the backbone! Radio equipment is free too. And setting it up! Wonderful price. Not to mention all the free real estate space that ISPs use. Oh -- I'm talking about the backbone connections the ISP has here, which you probably don't think exists, so it must be free. You betch'a. What you are forgetting is that this "flat rate" you speak of is actually far above a reasonable profit margin for the local phone company, since the connections are going through local networks with high capacity, and furthermore the biggest blunder in your argument is that the backbone that the ISPs use does NOT EXIST! Else, they'd be called "Service Providers", not "Internet Service Providers". The only problems that may come about due to overcongestion and cost of providing service are the stupid engineering and layout of the system by the local phone companies to not take advantage of the simple efficiencies involved. Take my connection. I have a 24 hour a day, 365 day a year wire from my home to my phone company, and there is another similar connection between them and my ISP. If the phone company is worried about congestion between their own switch and their own switch, which are in the same building, then they have a big problem. I'm just using the connection that's already there from me to the switch and from the switch to the ISP. The buildings' switch's being full is mere bullshit; they cost less than the wire that is already 24 365. In the case of interswitch congestion, the local bell companies haven't exactly made a point of tarrifing a seperate charge for that problem; instead they install enormous capacity. If they complain, it's because they designed the charge system in such a way as to complain. I consider it fair to ask ISPs to charge slightly higher rates for interswitch links, if they are also given reasonable rates to interconnect with the various other switches as well using their own communications network. Yes, that might cost the ISPs a little bit more, but considering the business, feature and flexibility possibilities, not by much, if any, will there be an end charge on that; the worst problem with this scenereo is that the local phone company previous-monopoly would now have a bigger network as their competition. The local phone companies are involved in anticompetitive measures, and regardless of whether they are paying you, you are definately a part of their scheme to obtain those ends. You are the hyprocrite. Wait, I seem to have missed something: > Worse than the actual costs of the upgrades for ISPs is the fact > that those investments are being made in traditional analog voice > phone lines and switches, instead of the phone system moving the ISP > phone traffic onto high-speed digital switching systems right at > customers homes, an approach that would be more efficient and create > the basis for upgrading all data traffic. Most of the Baby Bells > began offering such high-speed digital services for ISPs in 1997, but ^^^^ > the Internet providers have little incentive to pay for such services > as long as they can convince the FCC to allow them to use the local > phone lines like ordinary business users. Wow! And you're complaining about the way things were before 1997! Good for you! Of course, there is SO much time between 1997 and this year -- all that time to actually find out about these wonderful services you're talking about (what are they, anyway? DSP? Nope. Cable Modem? Nope. I can't get either, here. I'm in the middle of Manhattan!) We're talking about really fast companies, too -- companies, that when the customers have a large need for things back in the 1970s and 1980s, they are so fast to come to market that they have something in 2000s that answers those requests!!!! Well, at least we wish it were that good ... I *hope* they'll have *something* in my lifetime that is faster than ISDN. BTW, I'm thinking of augmenting my network with "Cellular Vision" here in the NYC area, and jettisoning that awful Time Warner Cable that I have. I'm sure that puts you up in arms -- you'd probably want a "air tax" that gets paid directly to Bell Atlantic, because Cellular Vision "threatens their monopoly". ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 16:59:03 -0400 From: Gary Novosielski Subject: Re: ISP Subsidy? In TELECOM Digest V17 #252, Fred Goodwin wrote: > ... I would submit the ISP (or its customers) should be the > ones the foot the bill for the switch upgrades the telco must make in > order to restore the required grade of service to its other, non-ISP > customers. ... [T]he cost of the telco switch-upgrades necessitated by them > is instead borne by all and that, to me, sounds like a subsidy. Well, there's a drug store about two blocks from here. When I need a newspaper, I walk down there and buy it. There's no need to get in the car since it's so close. But I notice that a lot of people do drive to that same store. In fact, in the last year, since they've started carrying milk and bread, auto traffic has increased -- so much so that they've been forced to add a whole new section to the parking lot. It occurred to me that this must be pretty expensive, and that I wasn't getting any use out of it, because I always walk to the store. In fact prices are a little higher than I remember, and I'm sure this has something to do with it. The cost of that parking lot is being borne by all the customers, not just those who use it. I got mad, and asked the lady behind the counter how come she was forcing me to give a subsidy to all the non-pedestrian customers of the store, and I demanded a lower price for my newspaper than the guy behind me in line, who had driven in from the street just as I arrived. She just looked at me funny. (I think she's a communist.) ------------------------------ From: stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) Subject: Re: ISP Subsidy? Yes Date: 18 Sep 1997 13:58:15 GMT Organization: Oregon State University In article , Fred Goodwin wrote: > Does anyone in this group deny that residential calls are typically of > shorter duration than calls to an ISP? Yes. Anyone who has a teenager knows this. Anyone who has a computer at home knows this. Anyone who has called any company with any sort of automated telephone system knows this. The typical data call I make lasts three minutes. How long does Mrs. Smith spend on the phone to her Mom? I have been paying a premium for a line that I almost never use just so I can use anther line for my computer. I had to pay extra for my "voice" line so I could pay more for unlimited calling on my "data" line. I have been paying this "subsidy" that the telcos are whining about, but I don't see them rushing to refund my money. > result, then I would submit the ISP (or its customers) should be the > ones the foot the bill for the switch upgrades the telco must make in > order to restore the required grade of service to its other, non-ISP > customers. I would submit that the telco should have used the premium I have been paying for seven years for unlimited calling on my voice line to keep its services up to par. They demanded that I get a more expensive line than I needed for a line I make almost no calls on, just because I had one line that was unlimited calling. If they didn't mean to charge me more, then I want my money back. > Because neither the ISP nor its customers are willing to pay for more > than a flat-rate connection The ISP isn't making the call, it shouldn't have to pay more than any other business does. I am already paying more for flat-rate than I have use, so why should I pay more? ------------------------------ From: jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us (Jay R. Ashworth) Subject: Re: ISP Subsidy? Yes Date: 17 Sep 1997 15:52:08 GMT Organization: Ashworth & Associates On Mon, 15 Sep 1997 09:18:34 -0500, Fred Goodwin wrote: > Well, the flat-rate tariffs you refer to were built on a cost-model > that assumed much lower holding times than are seen for ISP traffic. > Does anyone in this group deny that residential calls are typically of > shorter duration than calls to an ISP? Yes, damnit. You obviously don't have teenagers. :-) > If not, then there is no point in my making any additional comments, > because you will never be convinced. OTOH, if you do agree that ISP > calls are of longer duration, and that blockages can and do occur as a > result, then I would submit the ISP (or its customers) should be the > ones the foot the bill for the switch upgrades the telco must make in > order to restore the required grade of service to its other, non-ISP > customers. Nope. Poor foresight on the part of a regulated monopoly utility is _not_ the fault of the customers. > Because neither the ISP nor its customers are willing to pay for more > than a flat-rate connection (which, again, assumes a much lower holding > time), then the cost of the telco switch-upgrades necessitated by them > is instead borne by all and that, to me, sounds like a subsidy. You might, potentially, use that word, were it not for the fact that the RBOC's themselves are one of the beneficiaries, they being in the ISP business, too. But the sweepingly fast advance of wireless is going to make this a moot point shortly, I suspect, anyway -- as I noted in a posting a couple days back. Cheers, Jay R. Ashworth High Technology Systems Consulting Ashworth Designer Linux: Where Do You Want To Fly Today? & Associates ka1fjx/4 Crack. It does a body good. +1 813 790 7592 jra@baylink.com http://rc5.distributed.net NIC: jra3 ------------------------------ From: gsh@clark.net (Greg Hennessy) Subject: Re: ISP Subsidy? Yes Date: 17 Sep 1997 15:00:24 GMT Organization: Clark Internet Services, Inc., Ellicott City, MD USA > Does anyone in this group deny that residential calls are typically of > shorter duration than calls to an ISP? Yes. I deny that, since calls to an ISP are residential calls. This is simply trying to ghettoize internet users and suck more money out of them. ------------------------------ From: dr@ripco.com (David Richards) Subject: Re: ISP Subsidy? Yes Date: 17 Sep 1997 11:56:29 GMT Organization: Ripco Internet, Chicago In article , Fred Goodwin wrote: > Well, the flat-rate tariffs you refer to were built on a cost-model > that assumed much lower holding times than are seen for ISP traffic. > Does anyone in this group deny that residential calls are typically of > shorter duration than calls to an ISP? Yes, calls to ISPs are longer than 'typical' residential calls. But so are calls to BBS systems -- multiline BBS systems date back at least 15 years (Ripco does, anyway); they're just more popular now. And there have been rumors of an 'FCC mandated BBS tax' for almost that long. The problems of congestion and switch capacity upgrades are the result of telco monopolies not being prepared for a sudden shift in consumer calling habits, and chosing a rate structure that encourages certain behavior. Strange how I don't see any complaints about congestion in the Chicago area -- only in the last couple of months (coincidentally just after the launch of Ameritech's own internet service) has my ISP received _ANY_ customer gripes about 'fast busy' or 'The number you have dialed...' intercept messages. > If not, then there is no point in my making any additional comments, > because you will never be convinced. OTOH, if you do agree that ISP > calls are of longer duration, and that blockages can and do occur as a > result, then I would submit the ISP (or its customers) should be the > ones the foot the bill for the switch upgrades the telco must make in > order to restore the required grade of service to its other, non-ISP > customers. Bullshit. The telco proposes their own tariff, they chose to make packet-switched data service so expensive as to be out of the reach of the end user. because I suddenly order, use, and PAY FOR more circuits than they anticipated is a problem, but the telco dug their own grave by how they set up the rates. > Because neither the ISP nor its customers are willing to pay for more > than a flat-rate connection (which, again, assumes a much lower holding > time), then the cost of the telco switch-upgrades necessitated by them > is instead borne by all and that, to me, sounds like a subsidy. The local telephone _monopoly_ chose to set rates so as to discourage use of X.25 (packet-switched) services and encourage long holding times by endorsing flat-rate local calling. Compare this to Europe, where X.25 is in widespread use and untimed calls are generally an unheard of luxury. ------------------------------ From: c.c.eiftj@15.usenet.us.com (Rahul Dhesi) Subject: Re: ISP Subsidy? Yes Date: 17 Sep 1997 03:38:41 GMT Organization: a2i network In Fred Goodwin writes: > Well, the flat-rate tariffs you refer to were built on a cost-model > that assumed much lower holding times than are seen for ISP traffic. > Does anyone in this group deny that residential calls are typically of > shorter duration than calls to an ISP? Um, the situation is much simpler than that. Short calls are typically shorter than long calls. Let me repeat that: Long calls are longer. Short calls are shorter. > OTOH, if you do agree that ISP calls are of longer duration, and that > blockages can and do occur as a result, then I would submit the ISP (or > its customers) should be the ones the foot the bill for the switch > upgrades the telco must make in order to restore the required grade of > service to its other, non-ISP customers. You want heavier users to pay more. Then why not simply make heavier users pay more? I don't understand why it must be based on whether or not they call an ISP. I know people who are on the phone for hours and hours talking to their friends -- should they or should they not pay more? I know people who call their ISP for five minutes a day, max. Should they or should they not pay less? I really don't understand why people try to make it so complicated. If long calls are the problem, penalize the long calls. Let me ask you something, hypothetically. Suppose people of a certain race (call it Yellow, or Green, or Black, or whatever) were observed to make longer calls on the average than people of other races. What would your preference be, if you had to choose one of these two possibilities? - Charge all people of that race more for phone calls, regardless of the length of their call; - Charge people based on the length of their call regardless of their race. Explain and justify your choice. Rahul Dhesi ------------------------------ From: billsohl@planet.net (Bill Sohl) Subject: Re: ISP Subsidy? Yes Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 04:12:30 GMT Organization: BL Enterprises Fred Goodwin wrote: > Well, the flat-rate tariffs you refer to were built on a cost-model > that assumed much lower holding times than are seen for ISP traffic. > Does anyone in this group deny that residential calls are typically of > shorter duration than calls to an ISP? Not in a household like mine with three kids. > If not, then there is no point in my making any additional comments, > because you will never be convinced. OTOH, if you do agree that ISP > calls are of longer duration, and that blockages can and do occur as a > result, then I would submit the ISP (or its customers) should be the > ones the foot the bill for the switch upgrades the telco must make in > order to restore the required grade of service to its other, non-ISP > customers. Thousands of business lines generate huge minutes of use on a flat rate basis yet you wish to ignore those users and only focus on ISPs because they have tilted the model previously used. How do you identify ONLY the cost causing lines since they are only incoming calls terminating on them? > Because neither the ISP nor its customers are willing to pay for more > than a flat-rate connection (which, again, assumes a much lower holding > time), then the cost of the telco switch-upgrades necessitated by them > is instead borne by all and that, to me, sounds like a subsidy. Yet most ISPs busiest times are outside the normal peak hour periods. It seems there's more trouble with ISPs that don't provide enough lines (thus causing busy conditions to their users) than the network being short of switch capacity or trunking. Bill Sohl (K2UNK) billsohl@planet.net Internet & Telecommunications Consultant/Instructor Budd Lake, New Jersey ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Wed, 17 Sep 97 03:07:20 -0700 Reply-To: Joey Lindstrom Subject: The Medic-Alert Brouhaha Pardon me, a relative neophyte, for butting in here ... but it seems to me like we're going to see more problems like this Medic-Alert thing happening with every new area code split that comes down the line. It's another argument in favour of overlays, but I won't get into that - I'll just say that Mark Cuccia is God and that's that. :-) But I think it's completely AMAZING that the CPUC decided to change its mind and grant one area the right to keep the old area code while switching the other, more-populated, area to the new NPA, simply because Medic-Alert *HAD* to keep it's old phone number. What's wrong with simply going ahead with the split as originally intended, and then REPLICATING THE MEDIC-ALERT PHONE NUMBER IN BOTH CODES until such time as Medic-Alert can, over time, ensure that all the existing Medic-Alert bracelets are replaced? Or indefinitely if we want to save some expense? It's one phone number. It's done with toll-free numbers all the time for FAR less needful reasons ... am I missing something here??? Just a thought. From: The Desk Of Joey Lindstrom +1 403-606-3853 EMAIL: joey@lindstrom.com numanoid@ab.imag.net lindstrj@cadvision.com WEBB: http://www.ab.imag.net/worldwidewebb/ ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #254 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Sep 21 13:58:22 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id NAA15196; Sun, 21 Sep 1997 13:58:22 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 13:58:22 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199709211758.NAA15196@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #255 TELECOM Digest Sun, 21 Sep 97 13:58:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 255 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson SMS Changes 888 Release Policy AGAIN (Judith Oppenheimer) 800/888 Problem - Suggestions Welcome (Jay R. Ashworth) Bell Atlantic Alpha Messaging: Followup (Douglas Reuben) Book Review: "HTML 3.2 Quick Reference" (Rob Slade) AGIS Pulls Plug on Cyberpromo Due to Ping Attack (Chris Mathews) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 11:18:24 -0400 From: Judith Oppenheimer Reply-To: joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com Organization: ICB TOLL FREE - 800/888 news... commentary... consulting... Subject: SMS Changes 888 Release Policy AGAIN For years the RespOrgs say all numbers are the same, no one has any rights or interests in numbers, and the FCC buys into this and makes it law. During which time, however, the FCC facilitates the RespOrgs setting aside "valuable" 888's matching "valuable" 800's in which their customers have an "interest." Then the customers who've set aside their 888's want them, so the FCC says they can have them, *if* they assert no interest in them. (Who else besides me has said "huh?" yet.) So this goes on for a whole YEAR, until the FCC issues its guideline codification aka the April Report and Order, at which time the SMS says, a ha!, RespOrgs have been abusing the release process to grab 'their' numbers in violation of the FCC edict that they have no 'interest' in them. (I gotta tell you here, when the release of 888 set-asides was first ordered by the FCC in June '96, an SMS insider who shall remain anonymous told me it was because the FCC was getting pressure from 800 subscribers who wanted THEIR numbers.) But I transgress. So now, June 1997, the SMS changes policy, batches 888 set-aside releases and tells everyone what numbers are coming out, so that everyone has an equal chance to grab these "valuable" 888's, per the FCC's first-come-first-serve scenario. Except now the RespOrgs are complaining that other RespOrgs are "stealing" numbers out of 888 release that "belong" to their customers. (There's sort of an "honor system" among 'real' RespOrgs: that you don't touch "my" numbers, ie that 'belong' to my customers, and I don't touch yours. And if you do by mistake, of course, we'll settle it among ourselves. Not that we're brokering or dealing in numbers, of course.) Now remember: the 'my numbers' and 'belong' here refer to 888 numbers in the set-aside pool that have been assigned to no one, and according to the FCC, belong to no one. Heck, they even say numbers assigned to you and working for you that you PAY for, don't belong to you. SO, NOW, the SMS, as of September 17, "based on recent RespOrg input", will discontinue issuing a weekly list of 888's being released, and will release them in some un-defined timeframe as well. Presumably, it will be harder for "thieves" to "steal" the numbers. Of course, it will also be harder for RespOrgs to capture 888 releases "belonging" to their customers (which customer said they "assert no interest in" in order to get them released.) Who's had enough of this absurdity? If all these years everyone is saying that customers have no interest in these numbers -- as the Industry Guidelines, written by RespOrgs themselves, have always clearly stated -- then why are these same RespOrgs duking it out over their customers' proprietary interest in specific numbers? Perhaps it's time for everyone to get it that the Emperor is waddling down the street NAKED. (Gee, maybe someone should tell the FCC?) Judith 800/888 ICB TOLL FREE NEWS 800/888 ...today's regulatory news for tomorrow's marketing decisions. TRY US FREE FOR 15 DAYS !!! http://icbtollfree.com (ph) 212 684-7210. (fx) 212 684-2714. 1 800 THE EXPERT. ICB Headlines Autosponder: mailto:headlines@icbtollfree.com ------------------------------ From: jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us (Jay R. Ashworth) Subject: 800/888 Problem; Suggestions Welcome Date: 20 Sep 1997 14:57:33 GMT Organization: Ashworth & Associates Well, here we go again. A client of mine, who's had the same doesn't-spell-anything-in- particular 800 number for about ten years now, started getting calls this week that they didn't expect. 300 or more of them. For "AESolutions", which is apparently the power utility in Pennsylvania, somewhere. You see, the folks at AE Solutions apparently went to their carrier, MCI (big surprise) and said "we'd like a number that spells out our name". Presumably, the MCI people looked up my client's 800 number, discovered that it was assigned, and then said "well, 800-AESOLUT is already taken ... but 888-AESOLUT is available, why don't you take that". The customer, not knowing any better, of course said "sure". The expected chaos is ensuing. _My_ outlook on this is that the culpable party is the utility's sales rep at MCI, who should understand his business well enough to know, as we all do, why assigning a branded number in 888 is probably a bad idea just now. Obviously, the real culprits are the customers, but hell, you can't expect people to _read_ or anything. Would anyone like to challenge my appraisal of the situation, or offer suggestions are to which is the best approach to a solution? We can't even run a prompter front end to let callers pick the right number ... because their INWATS carrier and ours are different. I agree with Judith, as those who read my DNS NOI notes will know: branded numbers belong in 800, numbers that don't need to be branded should only be assigned in the other blocks. I'd grandfather, but if your brand ain't available in 800, lump it: find another way to spell it. Same problem as the "new big 7", which suck, BTW. :-) Please email, I'll summarize. Cheers, Jay R. Ashworth High Technology Systems Consulting Ashworth Designer Linux: Where Do You Want To Fly Today? & Associates ka1fjx/4 Crack. It does a body good. +1 813 790 7592 jra@baylink.com http://rc5.distributed.net NIC: jra3 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You could always answer with a taped announcment on the front saying 'this is Company X ... repeat, this is Company X; this is not AE Solutions. If you are calling AE Solutions you have reached a wrong number; please hang up now; if you are calling Company X at 800-whatever please remain on the line for an answer." Stress the 'eight hundred' part of the number, and maybe add a line saying 'this is not 888-whatever' stressing the 888 part. Of course some people will dial over and over when they hear that, but at least you can dump them after 15 seconds or so each time. PAT] ------------------------------ From: dreuben@tiac.net (Douglas Reuben) Subject: Bell Atlantic Alpha Messaging: Followup Date: 20 Sep 1997 20:38:53 GMT Organization: Interpage Network Svcs Inc / +1 510 254-0133 / www.interpage.net After receiving some feedback as a result of a recent post regarding Bell Atlantic's Alpha Messaging product on their Digitial Choice CDMA plans, I'd like to make a few corrections and add a few observations. 1. I noted that there should not be any alpha messaging in the ex-Contel Cellular of Vermont/00300 system, covering northern Vermont (north of a line running roughly from Rutland to White River Jct., more or less along US-4, and generally north of I-89), and that the switch servicing the 00300 system was probably still a Motorola EMX. Neither of the above are correct: Despite what BAMS told me (and I mean this only in a constructive way; the product manager was very helpful in explaining the issues involved), there IS alpha messaging in the areas I have traveled in the 00300 system, mainly from White River to Montpelier. Messages come in very quickly, and not only was it a pleasant surprise after being told that it would be "a while" before messaging worked there, but since my pagers do not work there, it was very useful being able to get my pages on the mobile phone. Interestingly, it seems that the switch recordings I get in the 00300 system say "119", which is the BAMS/A-side switch ID for the Connecticut system. Perhaps Vermont is being run off of the CT switch in some manner, similar to the way the Dutchess and Orange County (00486/00404) systems appear to be operating off the Albany (00078) switch (and thus receiving messages)? Additionally, the switch serving 00300 is definitely not an EMX, and sounds like an AT&T Autoplex, so that would perhaps support the notion that it is somehow run off of the CT switch or something along those lines. Just a guess, though. 2. I also unintentionally confused the two Vermont systems; to clarify: 00300 - is the "B" side in Northern VT, which used to be owned by Contel, and is now run by BAMS. It does not cover southern VT or New Hampshire (as does the A carrier), but handoffs work well (at least on I-89 and I-91 in the White River area) between the 00300 and the growing United States Cellular 01484 system serving Southern VT and southwestern NH. (The 01484 is on the NACN even though US Cell in this market is the "B" carrier, "A" roamers can roam on the system and receive calls, use features, etc. You can even set your phone to roam on the strongest signal, A or B, and receive calls, place them, and use features on either the 01484 or it's A-side counterpart, the Atlantic Cellular 00313 system. Roam charges, if any, may vary between the two system; check with your home carrier.) As noted above, the 00300 seems to be an Autoplex, although I think under Contel it was an EMX. 00313 - Cell One/VT and Western NH. This system is owned by Atlantic Cellular, which seems to own a number of RSA's, mainly in mountainous areas :) (Seriously, they also own a system in El Dorado County, CA, also in the hills southwest of Lake Tahoe. You can spot these systems by the male recording they employ in (seemingly) all their markets.) They cover all of Vermont (they took over the failing Montpelier and northen Vermont system a few years ago), as well as a good chunk of western New Hampshire. They also operate half a system (along with Cellular One/Boston) in the Lakes Region of eastern NH, which is so mismanaged it is laughable (the SID is 01485 or 87, I forget...one is in NH, the other is in NJ). They are the premier carrier in the region, offering by far the best coverage and service area. They finally got their EMX switch well integrated into the NACN, and calls and features for all NACN roamers work fine there. They also operate a small area near VT on the NY state side, and Franklin County, Mass, which they purchased from BAMS maybe 3 years ago. 3. Maine is NOT included in the BAMS extended "home roam" airtime plans, so if you go to Maine, you don't get the free incoming minute, or the off peak airtime plans (if you subscribe to them.) I do believe Maine's B side is run, at least in Southern Maine, off of the BAMS switch for the 00028 or 00428(?) system, so perhaps Alpha Messaging does work there. Anyone test that yet? Additionally, Rochester NH and the immediate surrounding area is covered by the Maine B side, so be careful if you roam there. Most people I know living in seacoast NH or in Rockingham County and Portsmouth are very disgusted with their cellular service: The A side has 3 systems all bleeding into each other in the area, and the B has two, none of which reciprocate in terms of airtime plans on their respective sides, so customers have to frequently pay higher roaming charges for using their phone because they happen to live on the line between systems. (A good market for Nextel? :) ) 4. The BAMS Eastern New Hampshire/00428 system also has alpha messaging. Thus, it would seem that the largest "holes" in the BAMS messaging "network" area: NY: Queens, Kings (Brooklyn), Richmond (Staten Island), Bronx, Westchester, Rockland, and Southern Putnam Counties in NY (all in the 00022 system -- do they even sell Alpha in NY? Who'd want it?) (Note: Kings County is Brooklyn, not the Bronx as I indicated in my earlier post.) RI: No Alpha Messaging anywhere in RI, except perhaps extreme northern sections of the state and Woonsocket, ie, near the Boston part of the 00028 system, where messaging does work. MA: No Alpha Messaging in the SE Mass area, New Bedford, Taunton, etc. CT: No Alpha Messaging in Litchfield, which is not run by BAMS. PA: Areas of Philadelphia seem to have it, and others don't; can't figure it out yet. I could also just be due to occasional delays in getting messages. Overall, though, with messaging now available in the BAMS Hudson River corridor (00486, 00404, 00078), VT (00300 - it may have worked there for a while; I was told it didn't), and Eastern NH (00428), the utility of the service has increased, at least for me. Now if they could only get all their markets online and allow more than 55 characters per page! ... Well, at least there is some progress :) Regards, Doug dreuben@interpage.net / +1 (510) 254-0133 / www.interpage.net Interpage Network Services Inc. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 10:36:52 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "HTML 3.2 Quick Reference" BKHT32QR.RVW 970319 "HTML 3.2 Quick Reference", Que Corporation, 1997, 0-7897-1144-3, U$19.99/C$28.95/UK#18.49 %A Que Corporation euteam@que.mcp.com 72410.2007@compuserve.com %C 201 W. 103rd Street, Indianapolis, IN 46290 %D 1997 %G 0-7897-1144-3 %I MacMillan Computer Publishing (MCP) %O U$19.99/C$28.95/UK#18.49 800-858-7674 317-581-3743 info@mcp.com %P 202 %T "HTML 3.2 Quick Reference, Second Ed." As with most quick reference guides, this contains all the HTML (HyperText Markup Language) tags and commands up to version 3.2. As a matter of fact, it goes a little beyond, listing obsolete and proposed commands as well. Each element is listed by name, and contains information on compliance. (The listings are for Netscape, Internet Explorer, Mosaic, HTML 2, and HTML 3.2. The codes for the graphical browsers indicate only the "latest version".) In addition, there is a brief description of syntax, some discussion of purpose and use, and an example or two. Some entries also contain screen shots, or lists of related commands. Surrounding this central reference are a number of aids. The tables grouping related commands are quite useful, as are the character code and colour listings. The newsgroup resources are somewhat less so, with a number of groups included by only the most tenuous connections. The expanded table of contents, alphabetically listing the alphabetically arranged element entries, is a twenty-one page waste of space. The choice of what to include and what to leave out is always problematic. In general, the guide concentrates on more recent or more esoteric commands, which is understandable in a work which is, after all, not tutorial in nature, but meant for experienced users. Less understandable is the brevity of both functions of the vital anchor tag in comparison to individual listings for each of the six header () tags, occupying a total of eight pages. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKHT32QR.RVW 970319 roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke http://www.netmind.com/~padgett/trial.htm ------------------------------ Date: 21 Sep 1997 10:43:00 +0100 From: rseoeg@site33.ping.at (Chris Mathews) Subject: AGIS Pulls Plug on Cyberpromo Due to Ping Attack Forwarded from alt.peeves... ## Nachricht vom 19.09.97 weitergeleitet ## Ursprung : /alt/peeves ## Ersteller: fps@netcom.com Spotted in news.admin.net-abuse.email, reposted FYAmusement. So who wants to break out the bubbly? In article <5vu8rd$pqq@darkstar.ucsc.edu>, Mark Boolootian wrote: > In http://207.87.233.68/outage.html, Sanford laments: > Network Outage Update Page > 9-19-97 10:00am > Letter to Cyber Promotions' customers by Sanford Wallace, President... > Dear Customers, > Cyber Promotions has experienced serious network problems for the last few > days. These problems have affected every customer in one way or another. I > have finally collected the information which explains this circumstance, and > I think it may make you quite mad. Cyber is also calling out for your help. > You can be part of this fight right now. > The major network problems started on Wednesday, 9-16-97. Our primary > backbone provider, AGIS, took responsibility for the problem. The following > is a quote from AGIS' web site... > Philadelphia Route Reflector > Posted at 23:45 EDT on September 16, 1997 > At 16:00 EDT, our Philadelphia Route reflector went down. After extensive > troubleshooting with the vendor, it was discovered that the ATM card the > reflector runs off of is defective. ETA for a replacement part on site is > 22:00 EDT on 9/17. Customers in the North East US will experience moderate > to high ping times and traces, but traffic is getting through. We have > opened Ticket# 032499 on this issue, and will update this page when we have > more information or an updated ETR. > Well, since that problem was detected, our network connection was never > restored back to normal. We called AGIS' network operation center over and > over again, every 10 minutes, to get an update and estimated time of repair. > I understood the damage that our customers would incur with each and every > minute of downtime. But AGIS' answer was always the same... "Engineering is > working on it. They won't give us any more info." Yesterday, their answers > began to change. At 8am, their network operation center told me that there > was only one engineer that could resolve the problem, and he wasn't in yet. > He was expected to get there in an hour. At 9am they then said he didn't > come in yet, but rather, he was in an off-premise meeting. But they would > page him. At 10am, they simply said, "He's not here yet." I even went so far > as to offer my personal assistance. At this point, I personally tried to > reach AGIS' CEO, Phil Lawler, to fill him in on the details. But, Mr. Lawler > was apparently out of town on business, and wouldn't return until Monday. > In a desperate move, we started asking our customers to call AGIS and > pressure then into escalating this repair. Within minutes, AGIS > representatives quickly changed their story. They started telling our > customers that the connection was down because Cyber Promotions had breached > some sort of security protocol, and that their routing equipment was never > broken (despite the fact that on their own web page, they still admitted > that the equipment was faulty). And since this was a "security issue" they > stated that they could no longer give out any further details. > At that point, we called in our legal representatives to contact AGIS. Our > lawyers actually got through to AGIS' in-house counsel. Within an hour or > so, we received a copy of affidavits that were prepared by AGIS' engineers. > You're never going to believe this... but in their affidavits, they claimed > that they had to turn off Cyber Promotions' connectivity because Cyber was > being ping attacked by a third party! > The following is important: Agis had filtered ICMP (ping and traceroute) for > months until they upgraded their routers a few weeks ago. When they upgraded > their routers, they stopped filtering ICMP for some unknown reason. We were > concerned, because they left the door open for ping attacks by > anti-spammers. > Here are some quotes from AGIS' affidavits (that were not marked > confidential in any way): > By Adam Hersh, senior engineer: "I attended (a) meeting with Les Addison and > Rick Pado, and we analyzed the status of AGIS network performance problems, > and I determined and recommended that the circuits of Cyber Promotions and > Quantcom needed to remain off in order for AGIS not to suffer further > network performance problems ... The ping flood attacks observed originating > from the west coast into AGIS network and directed to the Washington routers > and Philadelphia routers, severely degraded AGIS network performance to (an) > unacceptable level ... AGIS had no alternative but to shutoff services to > Cyber Promotions and Quantcom." > By Richard Pado, senior engineer: "Les Addion, AGIS Chief Engineer, worked > with me to reset configuration settings in attempts to resolve the AGIS > network disruption. These attempts failed ... I attempted several ICMP > debugs and consequently lost connectivity because of the massive ping flood > attacks ... I performed and analyzed TCP dumps regularly ... I resolved the > AGIS network disruption by shutting down the interfaces of Cyber Promotions, > Inc. and Quantum ..." > In other words, AGIS admitted just three days ago that their equipment was > faulty, and then admitted that their so-called senior engineers don't know > how to stop a ping attack without disconnecting their customers. > Also bear in mind, Phil Lawler, CEO of AGIS, signed the connectivity > contract with Cyber Promotions. I am not allowed to disclose the details of > the contract, but let it be known that immediate termination is blatantly > against the provisions of the agreement. Unfortunately, it appears that > since Mr. Lawler was out of town, the terms of our contract were not even > considered. > What can you do? You may wish to call AGIS and explain to them the damaging > affect of having your connectivity shut down. You may wish to suggest > alternatives to them. You may wish to offer your help. You may wish to give > them a piece of your mind. That is up to you. Our official recommendation is > that you should realize that we are all in this together. Cyber Promotions > will fight hard, and so should you. > At this time, our lawyers are preparing temporary restraining order papers. > We plan to bring this issue to federal court immediately. We are also > transferring many of our services to our backup connections with other > backbone providers. We can not give you an exact ETA on full service > restoral until we get more information about the status of the AGIS > connection. Please come back to this web page to see frequent updates. Thank > you for your continued support. Free commerce on the Internet WILL PREVAIL! > (Agis contacts below). > Regards, > Sanford Wallace > President and CEO > > Cyber Promotions, Inc. > > AGIS contacts: > AGIS engineering: Adam Hersh, Les Addison, Richard Pado (313) 730-1130 > AGIS Network Operation Center (313) 730-5151 > AGIS Fax (313) 563-6119 (submitted to the net by) > Mark Boolootian > booloo@cats.ucsc.edu [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What a rotten shame! So is Spamford still out of service or has he managed to snooker other ISP's and/or networks, etc into handling his nasty traffic? I wondered why my inbox had so little spam when I checked it early today, and now I know. Whoever was doing the pinging which caused this to happen, you have the heartiest congratulations of net-people everywhere. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #255 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Sep 21 22:31:03 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA15004; Sun, 21 Sep 1997 22:31:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 22:31:03 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199709220231.WAA15004@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #256 TELECOM Digest Sun, 21 Sep 97 22:31:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 256 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Bell Atlantic CDMA Privacy Option (brian@his.com) 56k Standards Fight is a Patent Fight, Too (Eric Florack) DNS Scheme For All Telephone Numbers in NANP? (J.F. Mezei) Master List of SLC's by LEC's (Herman Ohme) Online Service Provider a Moneygrubber? (J. DeBert) Re: MedicAlert and 209 Split (Babu Mengelepouti) Re: The Medic-Alert Brouhaha (Ed Ellers) Re: The Medic-Alert Brouhaha (Tom Watson) Re: AGIS Pulls Plug on Cyberpromo Due to Ping Attack (William H. Bowen) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 18:27:02 -0400 From: brian Subject: Bell Atlantic CDMA Privacy Option When I got my BANM CDMA phone in January the saleswoman told me several things that turned out not to be true. The first was the availability of the hands free car kit with external antenna. She said it would be available in about a month. It has been almost nine months now and they still say they don't have it. And the other thing that was not true is the "Privacy" option on the Qualcomm phone. Basically, it is the encryption in the IS-95 CDMA standard. She said that I wouldn't like it because it added about a half second of delay into the audio due to the processing; however, it would be available "shortly." Well, I have never been able to get BANM to define "shortly." Last week however, I finally got a somewhat-knowledgeable customer service agent. She said the only thing on their service menu remotely like encryption is 'Transcrypt' and it was on the analog phones, not the digital phones. So then I send my fourth e-mail to BANM in eight months, hoping to get a higher-level response. This time, they call me back for the first time. A lady in Networks says they have no plans to activate the option. Why? "Dunno." Has anyone else been told anything about "Privacy." Caveat Emptor. And as always, please visit my home page at http://www.his.com/brian Find my PGP keys at http://keys.pgp.com:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=brian@his.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 05:58:39 PDT From: Eric Florack Subject: 56k Standards Fight is a Patent Fight, Too This has been under discussion, and this adds information to that discussion. /E Fighting Over the Bone by Brian McWilliams, PC World News Radio September 18, 1997 Setting international modem standards used to be a private process carried on behind closed doors, but the heated discussions over the pending 56-kbps modem have spilled into the streets -- again. This time, it's Lucent Technologies that claims to be in the driver's seat regarding intellectual property. "We think that the patents we have will limit the ability of other parties to get patents that read on the core of the technology," says Bob Rango, general manager of Lucent's modem chip-making group. "We didn't say that no other patents would be granted, but since we invented this thing back in 1992, we started filing patents way back then. I mean, the patents that we're getting issued now were filed two to three years ago." Lucent was responding today to the announcement earlier this month by 3Com that it had exclusive rights to the intellectual property of inventor Brent Townshend, who claims to have patents pending on core 56-kbps modem technology. Rango said that Lucent sent a letter to the International Telecommunications Union today saying that it will license its patents on PCM, or pulse code modulation, to other companies under reasonable terms and conditions. 3Com, of course, earlier made a similar announcement regarding its patents. Dataquest analyst Lisa Pelgrim says it's all a continuation of the jockeying that's historically occurred during the modem standards process. The only difference today is that PC users are closely following the twists and turns. "In past standards, most recently V.34, there were a lot of issues that came up in court that were not publicized," notes Pelgrim. "One of the things that has happened with 56K is that it has been very public. A lot of it comes from the Internet taking off and so many people finding that they do want faster [access] speeds, which makes 56K a big story." (Eric notes: Not to mention the lack of real commitment to ISDN from locals, as has been suggested previously in this forum.) One significant element of Lucent's intellectual property that we know won't be in the ITU draft standard that's in the works now is Lucent's technology for doing PCM on the upstream side of the connection. Last January, Lucent said it had developed and was testing PCM for transmission from the PC to a host modem, and had been able to get nearly bisymmetrical connect speeds with upstream speeds of 45 kbps. But Rango today said Lucent had to shelve that technology for compatibility reasons. "In order to expedite the technology deployment on K56flex, we elected to do V.34 upstream because we wanted to get the quickest interoperability with our partner, Rockwell," he explained. Rango says Lucent and other modem companies involved in the ITU standards process are doing everything they can to get a draft standard in January. He said most are already designing their modem code to reflect the standards work that's occurred so far. ------------------------------ From: J.F. Mezei Subject: DNS Scheme For All Telephone Numbers in NANP? Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 03:45:00 -0500 Organization: VTL Reply-To: "[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca 800 (and 888) numbers are "router" based, right ? When I dial an 800 number, the telco translates this to a standard telephone number, right ? Why not do the same for *ALL* NAP numbers ? You dial any number, and the telco translates it to an actual "network address" wherever that phone might be ? This would remove the need to constantly split area codes since there wouldn't be "area codes" anymore, just 10 digit telehone numbers. Need a new line, just grab the next available number. With more and more cities being split into different area codes, dialing 10 digits for ALL numbers might become more natural than having to decide whether one has to dial 7 or 10 digits. Also, when one person moves, one could keep the same telephone number and the telco would simply change the routing tables. If one changes supplier of dial tone, same would happen. Keep your number, change routing table. This would be quite similar to the internet domain name system. The questions: -Has this been studied ? -Is computer technology fast enough to allow such a "DNS" based scheme (similar to the internet) for all calls in North America ? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I would think this would be sort of risky, although there is lots of talk about 'number portability' and I guess we are going to have it in the not to distant future. The problem I see is the inability of the technology at the present time to keep up with the speed needed. Now, this look-up arrangement is done with most (all?) 800 numbers (are there still any 'hard-wired' 800 numbers around in any telco, anywhere, dating back to the late 1960's perhaps?) but toll-free calls make up only a small percentage of the total traffic, and if one listens closely one can detect a very slight delay in processing those calls now while the lookup is being done as contrasted to 'regular' local calls. Also, I have to wonder about database failures as happens occassionally now with 800. Just the other day AT&T's 800 numbers were out of service for a short period of time -- was it a couple hours? -- due to the database having been incorrectly loaded. When number portability becomes the norm over the next few years should we expect from time to time that the entire national phone system will freeze up and reject calls if the database happens to be trashed? And what happens if the database is deliberatly tampered with? I am reminded of an occassion quite a few years ago when in the process of mailing out this Digest one day, every single copy got tossed back in my face. Not a known host in the bunch, but then a couple hours later I found out from someone that, "well, you see there is this domain/host resolver in (I think they said Georgia) that got all screwed up last night. There was a comma in one of the entries which messed up everything after that point; it propogated around the net ... made quite a mess ... but they edited it and reloaded it and now all is fine ..." Well ... accidents will happen I suppose; the latest problem with AT&T and the 800 number fiasco several days ago was blamed on 'human error' which is all quite understandable. But to trust every single telephone number to a database which is susceptible to 'human error' seems like quite a risk to me, to say nothing of human malice and terrorist hackers, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 08:57:22 -0500 From: Herman Ohme Subject: Master List of SLC's by LEC's Is there a master list of (SLC's) Subscriber Line Charges by all LEC's for fixed monthly fees for special telco circuits (ie. WAL, DAL,T-1), or Special Access Surcharge (SAS) on special access circuits. ------------------------------ From: J. DeBert Subject: Online Service Provider a Moneygrubber? Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 20:23:28 -0700 It seems that there is a problem with one of the oldest online service providers, based somewhere in Ohio. Three months ago they "double-dipped", charging both my checking account _and_ credit card for monthly fees, including a rather significant amount they had previously credited back to me. Since then, all they tell me is, "Your refund is in process" or "We'll submit a refund request" and to "wait two weeks", until the last time when they said that they could not issue a refund. Since then I closed my account, waited fourteen days then called to see what was up. Again, I am told that "it is in process", whatever that means -- apparently it does not mean that they intend to repay the money they owe me. They double-billed once, long ago, but refunded the money relatively quickly. Has any other comp.dcom.telecom readers had such a thing happen to them? Are they perhaps so strapped for cash that they cannot pay? Are they so desperate that they need to double-bill? Any advice? Should I sue them? File a report with a credit bureau such as Standard & Poor's? Call a newspaper "Action Line" and set them on this service provider? Complain to the BBB? Call the FCC? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Since the oldest online service provider anywhere, as you point out, based in Ohio, has a few management people who read this Digest regularly, I'd hope one of them would call you after seeing this and make the needed correction. Honestly, they are pretty good most of the time in their customer service. Try to get through to a supervisor or the head of customer service. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 19:23:04 -0400 From: Babu Mengelepouti Reply-To: dialtone@vcn.bc.ca Organization: US Secret Service Subject: Re: MedicAlert and 209 Split jay@west.net (Jay Hennigan) wrote Re: California's 209 NPA Split and MedicAlert > You mean someone actually BOUGHT the "Help, I've fallen and I can't > get up" gadget? And it costs them a long distance call every time the > neighbor opens his garage door? And they're still working? Somehow, > these have always seemed to be in the same realm as Chia pets and the > Clapper. Actually, my grandparents purchased these at my insistence two years ago. My grandfather had been stricken with bone and prostate cancer, and was immobile (the cancer had made his bones so brittle he'd broken both hips). And my grandmother was able to totter around the house a bit, but due to severe arthritis she could not even walk so far as from the house to her car without assistance -- and usually was taken around in a wheelchair. I cared for them over the summer, but had to return to school in the fall. And I was worried. They lived on a farm on a remote road six miles outside of town, in a remote valley in the North Cascades. Since they never went anywhere, it could be days before anyone noticed that something was wrong. What if my grandmother fell down? It had happened before -- shortly after I got there for the summer, she fell down in the kitchen and I had to lift her. Clearly it was necessary for them to have something. While there were two cordless phones in the house, I wasn't sure that if she fell the phone would not break -- and besides, a 78 year old woman with arthritis, in pain after having fallen, may be unable to dial the phone. So I discussed the situation with them, and insisted that they get the "I've fallen and I can't get up" device. The device itself is a radio transmitter which communicates with a base unit. The base unit is connected to a regular phone line. When the button is pressed (in the event of an emergency), the base unit has a yellow light that starts flashing and sounds an alarm. If the button on the device was pressed accidentally, you can go press a button under the yellow light and it won't summon help. If within 2 minutes you don't go press the button, it calls an 800 number, and a modem transmits to the company's central computers that there is a situation. The company (I believe they're called "LifePlus" in Issaquah, Washington) calls back the number they have on file to make sure that everything is okay. If everything is NOT okay, or there is no answer, they make an aid call to the fire department. While these devices did not save the lives of my grandparents (my grandmother recently passed away due to heart problems, and my grandfather died of cancer last year), it did extend them by awhile. She did fall down and used the device to summon help. Without it, she could have died! I think that this much-ridiculed invention can be a lifesaver to older people living alone, especially in remote areas -- of which we have many in Washington state. And I'm glad that it was available for my grandparents to use. Given the circumstances, I very much am in favor of the 209 split happening the way that it did. Each unit would have to be returned to the company to be reprogrammed, or someone sent to every home to reprogram each of them before the split. And there is always a possibility that one might be missed -- one which could later need to be used to summon emergency help. I think it would have been a far better design for an 800 number to be used, as the company in Issaquah does. But what's done is done and I don't think that an old woman who's fallen down ought to pay with her life (or health) for MedicAlert's incompetence. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I got the very same thing for my mother several years ago and paid for the first year of service in advance. Hers operates the same way and calls an 800 number. The range of the base unit is pretty good; it works anywhere in her two-story house, the front or back yard, and over into the neighbor's yard as well. On hers, she can either press the button on the necklace she wears *or* she can not respond to a phone call at a certain time of day as pre-arranged. I think she has them call her at 9:00 AM daily which is a time she is always up. If she presses the button -- and she has done so a couple times by accident, and once when she first got it to test it out -- a speakerphone comes to life and dials the number. Within a few seconds the operator/dispatcher has her name and address on the screen (they do not rely on ANI, but rather, the base unit transmits data over the line when an answer is received) and the dispatcher will say something like, "Ruth? (that is her name) ... are you there Ruth? Is something wrong? Please speak to me." If she answers she can explain the problem (or say it was an accident). If there is no response or if the dispatcher does not like the sounds he is hearing -- for example someone screaming or crying -- then he can make a decision on how to handle it. If the dispatcher does not get an answer at the agreed-upon time for a call each day he can also make some decision for handling it. The company asks for the name and address for a couple of close relatives as well as the name, address and phone number of the neighbor on either side, provided those people have given their written permission to be listed with the company. A 'no-answer' situation on the daily phone call means a call will go to the two neighbors with a request that they check on my mother. If the user answers and describes a problem then a call will go out to police/fire/medical personnel as needed. In the event of a 'no answer' to the daily call and the neighbors are not available then police are called and asked to check the well-being of the person. I think it is a great system for elderly people who insist on retaining their independence and living alone, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: The Medic-Alert Brouhaha Date: 21 Sep 1997 06:27:13 GMT Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Joey Lindstrom wrote: > What's wrong with simply going ahead with the split as originally > intended, and then REPLICATING THE MEDIC-ALERT PHONE NUMBER IN BOTH > CODES until such time as Medic-Alert can, over time, ensure that all > the existing Medic-Alert bracelets are replaced? Or indefinitely if > we want to save some expense? It's one phone number. It's done with > toll-free numbers all the time for FAR less needful reasons ... am I > missing something here?" The difference between replicating toll-free numbers and replicating conventional numbers is that the former use a lookup table while normal numbers *always* go to a specific central office based on the NXX. Once the "mandatory" dialing period (where you get a warning recording) ends and the NXXs open up any seven-digit calls to this number, dialed within the new NPA, will either go to a different central office in the new NPA -- which would have to call-forward them to the desired number -- or else will fail if there is not yet a CO in the new NPA that uses that prefix. I don't know of any way to "fix" the switches so that that one seven-digit number will be sent directly to a different CO from the one that normally handles that NXX. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There really would be nothing to be 'fixed'. Have the number which winds up in the wrong area code be a 'foreign exchange' (FX) line to the place where it is desired, or use 'remote call forwarding' where a virtual number terminates in the central office (never going to any actual subscriber) and from there it gets forwarded to the same number but in the new area code. When Ameritech opened 847/630/773 they were offering remote call forwarding to customers -- at a price of course -- telling people they could have 'their' number in any area they desired. The only catch was assuming the 312/708 version of the number was not already taken, which usually it was not since the former 312/708'er was being put in 847 or 773 anyway. So, you just let the distant telephone switches do their thing in the usual way; when the receiving switch gets the call it handles it like FX or RCF to wherever the subscriber is. With RCF the person receiving the calls pays for them being forwarded, and with FX there is just some monthly rate to the subscriber; it is all transparent to the person originating the call; all he pays for is what he actually dialed, period, not what the receiving CO decides to do with it. Also you are mistaken on how 'normal' numbers are handled where the competition is concerned. For example, MCI now offers local service in this area and they allow you to keep your existing Ameritech number if desired. Ameritech's CO still gets the call, but sees it now goes to MCI and translates it (or maybe call forwards it) to the MCI pseudo-number assigned to you. PAT] ------------------------------ From: tsw@cagent.com (Tom Watson) Subject: Re: The Medic-Alert Brouhaha Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 15:44:28 -0700 Organization: CagEnt, Inc. In article , Joey Lindstrom wrote: > What's wrong with simply going ahead with the split as originally > intended, and then REPLICATING THE MEDIC-ALERT PHONE NUMBER IN BOTH > CODES until such time as Medic-Alert can, over time, ensure that all > the existing Medic-Alert bracelets are replaced? Or indefinitely if > we want to save some expense? It's one phone number. It's done with > toll-free numbers all the time for FAR less needful reasons ... am I > missing something here? No, you ARE NOT missing anything. The whole decision is/was POLITICAL. Political decisions are not based on anything reasonable. Somebody wanted their way, and found a "good excuse" to get it that way. Similar arguments have been touted as "starving " and thus detremental. Based on fact, you ARE joking!! Welcome to the USA. It was related to me this way: Legislation is like sausage. The final product is OK, but you don't want to know how it is made. This probably relates to almost ALL area code problems, "equal" local access, why the Bell system was broken up, why Microsoft is intact, etc ... the list goes on. Everybody comes up with an "excuse". Some are more reasonable/palatable than others. They mask the "real" agenda. tsw@cagent.com (Home: tsw@johana.com) Please forward spam to: annagram@hr.house.gov (my Congressman), I do. ------------------------------ From: bowenb@best.com (William H. Bowen) Subject: Re: AGIS Pulls Plug on Cyberpromo Due to Ping Attack Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 20:37:04 GMT Reply-To: bowenb@best.com rseoeg@site33.ping.at (Chris Mathews) wrote: > snipped Spamford's "crying in his beer" for brevity< > (submitted to the net by) >> Mark Boolootian >> booloo@cats.ucsc.edu > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What a rotten shame! So is Spamford > still out of service or has he managed to snooker other ISP's and/or > networks, etc into handling his nasty traffic? I wondered why my > inbox had so little spam when I checked it early today, and now I > know. Whoever was doing the pinging which caused this to happen, you > have the heartiest congratulations of net-people everywhere. PAT] Chris, The latest I've heard is that BBN Planet is going to provide Spamford with connectivity. BUT, on another note, I've also heard that two large BBN customers in the Bay Area are going to have a long talk with BBN and tell them "if you accept Spamford, we're out of here". Maybe the saner heads at BBN will prevail. BTW, I still think the only thing that will dissuade Spamford and his ilk is a direct physical attack (a commando raid) on his operation and put it out of business. A little drastic maybe, but, as the Sean Connery character said in the movie "The Untouchables": "if he brings a knife, you bring a gun. If he puts one of yours in the hospital, put one of his in the morgue". Regards, Bill Bowen bowenb@best.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well now, I certainly cannot condone any unlawful activities, which I guess would cover a commando raid on Spamford's heaquarters, busting up his computers, tearing down all his circuits, etc. I mean, I would not be surprised to see it happen one of these days/nights, knowing human nature as I do, and knowing how *really bitter and angry* a lot of netters are over his antics, but I still cannot and would not condone it. Violence is never an answer to the problems of the net. I think back to the olden days of Citizens Band Radio when it was in its glory and how after periods of massive interference and static caused by CB'ers operating illegally certain vigilantes would go out late at night to use triangulation to locate the offender. When located, indeed the response was pretty ugly. Antennas would be toppled over, the coaxial cable would be sliced in several pieces; if possible, the vigilantes would gain entrance to the premises and totally destroy the radio. By the time it was finished and the vigilantes left, the illegal CB-er would be wishing it was the FCC which had raided him instead. Now the FCC agents could be and were pretty vicious -- I have often joked that FBI agents in those days were trained by the FCC field inspectors which is how the FBI guys got such ugly dispositions -- but the FCC at least could usually be counted on to do no more than smash up the radio, seize everything which remotely looked like radio equipment to use as 'evidence' and give you your day in court. The vigilante CB-ers on the other hand had no time or patience to waste on the justice system in the USA; a couple broken arms or a house set afire were not unheard of. And then for a few days the radios would all be very, very quiet. Most all the CB community knew who the vigilantes were, and most condemned violence to the extreme they had seen it, but at the same time their attitude was damned if they would cooperate with the police at all when it came to catching/prosecuting the 'community heroes'. We never, not once, in the 1960's and early 1970's ever thought that our wonderful communications medium known as Citizens Band Radio would ever be abused or come to an end after people got so bitter and fed-up that they unplugged their radios and tossed them on a shelf in the closet. And who on this net who has been around since the early 1980's or even five years ago would have suspected that we may indeed see physical violence against abusers, or even the technological violence -- pinging, email bombs, etc -- that are so common today. Years ago on Usenet we would have discussions about 'the death of Usenet'. I even got into them and everyone would laugh and predict the 'death of the net' for whatever reason. Maybe the death of the net will come when we turn on the news some day and read that Spamford was found dead; his office a shambles; and FBI agents harassing all the netters they can find about it. Maybe people will say to hell with it and toss their computers on the shelf next to the dusty old CB radio. I don't know why, and I don't really approve of violence, but I have a feeling we are going to experience a net catharsis sometime soon in the form of such a shocking act of violence. It just seems to be the logical response to the direction in which we are moving very rapidly. And like the CB community more than twenty years ago, if I did know anything about it I'd be damned before I told the government anything. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #256 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Sep 22 21:06:08 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id VAA11146; Mon, 22 Sep 1997 21:06:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 21:06:08 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199709230106.VAA11146@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #257 TELECOM Digest Mon, 22 Sep 97 21:06:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 257 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Tonight's Monday Night Bandwidth Chat 7-8PM Pacific Time (Peter J Harrison) BellSouth Can't Tell Time (John E. Connerat) SprintPCS Long Delay Before Voicemail (Rick Strobel) Long Distance Information? Don't Count on It (Steve Bunning) Here We Go _Again_ ... AT&T National Directory Assistance (Jay R. Ashworth) AT&T Tests New DA Service (Tad Cook) Radio Vigilantes (Ed Ellers) Insight on ABC's 20/20 (Tara D. Mahon) Call for International Testers (Mike Fine) New and Existing NPA/NXX Index? (Thad Jacobs) Hooking Up Two Computers to a Cable Modem? (Marc Baime) Re: AGIS Pulls Plug on Cyberpromo Due to Ping Attack (John Nagle) Re: AGIS Pulls Plug on Cyberpromo Due to Ping Attack (Bruce Pennypacker) Re: AGIS Pulls Plug on Cyberpromo Due to Ping Attack (Kevin Podsiadlik) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: PeterH_MSN@msn.com (Peter John Harrison) Subject: Tonight's Monday Night Bandwidth Chat 7-8PM Pacific Time Date: 22 Sep 1997 19:41:28 GMT Organization: Peter's Bandwidth Fontier on The Microsoft Network Tonight 7-8PM, Pacific Time on the *Monday Night Bandwidth Chat*! Come learn about going Wireless with Metricom's Wireless Modems! Ever wished you could log on from your favorite coffee shop? Your back yard? How about just stop tying up your phone line? A wireless modem and Internet service like Metricom's could be just what you need! Come talk with Metricom's Greg Dalzell. Greg is the Metricom's Director of Product Marketing at Metricom. This is your opportunity to learn something about how packet modems work, and how to go wireless without paying for a cell phone. So come join us from 7-8PM, Pacific Time for our weekly *Monday Night Bandwidth Chat*, Hosted by Peter John Harrison. To enter the chat, go to http://207.68.136.82/bandwidth/category1/01c1ts.asp To get some background on wireless modems, see the current issue of *Bandwidth: Focus on Technology* at http://207.68.136.82/bandwidth/category1/forum5/cool/focus.htm See you online! Peter John Harrison MSN Forum Manager, *Peter's Bandwidth Frontier* http://forums.msn.com/bandwidth/ ISDN? Cable Modems? ADSL/xDSL? Satellite Downlinks? The Bandwidth Forum on MSN -- A place to find the amswers. Hosted by Peter Harrison at http://forums.msn.com/bandwidth (Trial memberships available via MSN at http://www.msn.com) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 16:52:12 -0400 From: John E. Connerat Subject: BellSouth Can't Tell Time I recently moved to 706-208 (Athens, Georgia), where I signed up for "Memory Call" -- BellSouth's voicemail service. Since the very beginning of my service, the time stamp on my incoming messages has been 12 minutes fast. Assuming that this was an anomalous quirk, I did nothing about it for several days. When the problem didn't resolve itself, I called BellSouth repair. The agent with whom I spoke was in great disbelief, until I had her call my line, leave a test message, and let her listen in as I checked it. She proclaimed that, "it must be wrong for everyone in your area. How can that be?" I proceeded to tell her that it had been wrong for days. She said that it would be fixed in 24-48 hours. I subsequently got a voice mail message from a human saying that my problem had been fixed (with the wrong time stamp again). Since it had not been fixed, I called back a week later, and went through the same routine, explaining to this new agent that I had indeed called before, and it really, really was broken. Despite the same initial disbelief, she was convinced that indeed it was broken and said she'd make sure it was repaired! 24 hours later I get an automated message left on my voice mail proclaiming that "the problem I reported had been fixed." Guess what? It's not! Can anyone possibly fathom an explanation why all the techs involved in the 706-208 Memory Call believe it's 12 minutes later than it really is? Wouldn't this mess up all sorts of records, and wouldn't you think a herd of customers other than me might be inquiring? I'm puzzled. John E. Connerat Athens, GA TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: They do not 'believe it is 12 minutes later than it really is ...' What they are doing -- and had hoped you would take a hint by now -- is closing your trouble tickets with no action taken; just putting it down as a crank caller and letting it go at that. They do not understand what you are talking about or what it is you want done. Maybe the first person who answers your call eventually figures it out, but like the old game called 'Chinese Telephone' by the time the ticket works its way around through the maze and gets to some technician that person has no idea what you wanted. Or maybe he does, but wonders why you would be the one to report it instead of one of his own kind so he closes the ticket and someone calls you and says 'all good now'. PAT] ------------------------------ From: rstrobel@infotime.com (Rick Strobel) Subject: SprintPCS Long Delay Before Voicemail Date: Tue, 23 Sep 97 01:01:51 GMT Organization: InfoTime, Inc. Sprint just upgraded to a new voicemail system that is supposed to work, unlike the original one. I waited six months for it. After the specified number of rings to my phone (about four or five) there is a long pause of nine to twelve seconds before the voicemail system picks up. I rely on this voicemail for my small business. I have call forwarding busy/no answer on my main business line that forwards to my PCS phone. That way if the call can't be answered then I know the caller will at least reach voicemail. But, I'm afraid that after several rings and three "rings" worth of dead air, many callers will just hang up -- and I could lose a sale. I need to address this with my rep. again. Can anyone provide any data that might say "xyz study found that callers assume the line is dead after 12 seconds of no sound ... and hang up..."? Thanks in advance for any advice or info. Rick Strobel | | InfoTime Fax Communications | Fax-on-Demand | 502-426-4279 | & | 502-426-3721 fax | Fax Broadcast | rstrobel@infotime.com | Services | http://www.infotime.com | | ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 16:40:55 -0400 From: Steve Bunning Subject: Long Distance Information? Don't Count on It There is a front page article in the print edition of Sunday's {Washington Post} titled "Long-Distance Information? Don't Count on It" which highlights the problem with getting up-to-date and reliable long distance information via NPA-555-1212. While this is old news to TELECOM Digest readers, the mass media now seems to have picked up on the issue. Here is a link to the electronic version of the article. http://search.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1997-09/21/243l-092197-idx.html Steve Bunning | ACE*COMM | 301 721-3023 (voice) Product Manager | 704 Quince Orchard Road | 301 721-3001 (fax) TEL*COMM Division| Gaithersburg, MD USA 20878 | sbunning@acecomm.com NASDAQ:ACEC | "CDRs in Real-Time" | WWW= www.acecomm.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 14:58:27 -0400 From: Jay R. Ashworth Subject: Here We Go _Again_ ... AT&T National Directory Assistance Organization: Ashworth & Associates, St Pete FL USA The following article was seen on the AP wire, and is included here for commentary, under the fair use provision of US Copyright law. [ ... ] AT&T on Monday began testing its new ``00'' Info national directory assistance service in Minneapolis, Seattle, Phoenix, Denver and Portland, Ore. By dialing ``00'' customers in those areas will be able to obtain telephone listings for any place in the United States - even if they don't know the area code or city. [ ... ] Um, does AT&T not realize that "00" is _taken_ as a dialable? Cheers, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "People propose, science studies, technology Tampa Bay, Florida conforms." -- Dr. Don Norman +1 813 790 7592 ------------------------------ Subject: AT&T Tests New DA Service Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 10:17:12 PDT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) AT&T Tests New `00` Info Directory Assistance Service - Directory Assistance the Way Customers Really Want It - BASKING RIDGE, N.J.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--September 22, 1997--AT&T today announced a market trial of its new AT&T `00` INFO(sm) (Double-0 Info) national directory assistance service that allows AT&T customers to obtain a telephone listing for any place in the United States with one simple phone call - even if they don't have the area code or exact city. The `00` INFO service trial begins today in Seattle, Denver, Phoenix, Minneapolis, and Portland, Ore. In marked contrast to the industry trend to provide fully automated directory assistance, AT&T `00` INFO Service features personal, courteous, helpful service from specially trained AT&T information assistants who will stay on the line for the entire call. From the moment they greet the customer by introducing themselves, AT&T assistants are there to help customers simplify their lives, by searching for a directory listing with as little information as a partial name and a locality or state. And AT&T assistants will stay with the customer through the end of the call when they provide the requested information. `We're providing directory assistance the way customers really want it,` said Howard McNally, vice president of AT&T Consumer Markets Division. `AT&T is bringing back the personal touch. Not only will we stay on the line with our customers, but we'll do everything in our power to meet their needs -- using enhanced search features to find the listings they want, and even the address and zip code, if that's what they need.` AT&T `00` INFO takes directory assistance to a higher level of customer service, providing a renewed emphasis on personal service that is supported by several new search capabilities: -- A new expanded search capability allows AT&T information assistants to extend a directory search to surrounding communities when they can't find a requested listing in a designated city or town - even if the caller doesn't know what those communities are. -- A key word search function allows AT&T information assistants to search for a business listing when the caller doesn't know the full or exact name of the business. This search will find the listing if the key word appears anywhere in the name. AT&T's new `00` INFO Service makes it easier for callers to use directory assistance. They no longer need to remember multiple numbers for directory assistance. And they don't need to know the area code. Customers need only dial one simple number to reach an AT&T information assistant who will help them find telephone listings anywhere in the United States. During the market trial, AT&T is offering the new AT&T `00` INFO Service at the same 95-cent price that it charges for conventional directory assistance. With `00` INFO Service customers can get unlimited listings per call, but pay 95-cents for every two listings. AT&T customers in the five test markets can use `00` INFO from their home phones, or when they are away from home, by dialing 1-800-CALL-ATT. The AT&T `00` INFO directory assistance service trial is limited to listings in the United States. ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Radio Vigilantes Date: 22 Sep 1997 13:05:19 GMT Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Our Moderator noted in reply: > I think back to the olden days of Citizens Band Radio when it was in > its glory and how after periods of massive interference and static > caused by CB'ers operating illegally certain vigilantes would go out > late at night to use triangulation to locate the offender. When > located, indeed the response was pretty ugly. > Antennas would be toppled over, the coaxial cable would be sliced in > several pieces; if possible, the vigilantes would gain entrance to the > premises and totally destroy the radio. By the time it was finished > and the vigilantes left, the illegal CB-er would be wishing it was the > FCC which had raided him instead." There are reports out of Elkhart, Indiana, that two people who have taken a dislike to the operators of a local amateur radio repeater have been devising some ingenious ways of jamming it (as opposed to just transmitting jamming signals from their own location). For one thing, they put small jammer transmitters inside beach balls and left them at the beach. In another incident, they bought a new TV set from Wal-Mart, installed a jammer inside, repacked it and returned it for a refund; Wal-Mart then resold the TV to an innocent customer who didn't know that he was "interfering with" emergency communications. Supposedly one of their jammers even included a seismometer to shut it down if it detected people walking near it (say, with direction-finding receivers). The Elkhart police know who these characters are but have no jurisdiction in the case; there has been no word on any action by the FCC. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The Elkhart police most certainly would have jurisdiction in some aspects of it. The incident with the television set which was tampered with and returned constitutes fraud against Wal-Mart and the re-buyer of the merchandise. The behavior in general of the individuals involved would also most certainly qualify as disorderly conduct and the Elkhart police could act on that as well. Furthermore, police are charged with the duty of enforcing *all laws* whether of a local, state or federal nature, however they would of course refer a federal matter to federal authorities. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Sep 97 11:36:32 +0100 From: Tara D. Mahon Subject: Insight on ABC's 20/20 Hi Pat and list, Insight Research is pleased to announce that Michael French, our VP of Market Research, will be appearing on the Thursday night edition of ABC's award-winning 20/20 news magazine program. Mr. French was interviewed as an expert on telecom fraud. The segment, to be aired next Thursday, September 25, is reported by 20/20 correspondent Arnold Diaz. Please check your local listings for channel and time (20/20 airs 10pm EST). Insight Research would be pleased to discuss the issue of telecom fraud, the opportunities to control it, and how it may apply to your strategic plans. For further discussions, please contact Michael French at (973) 605-1400, or via e-mail at michael@mf.insight-corp.com. Regards, Tara D. Mahon tara@tm.insight-corp.com The Insight Research Corporation www.insight-corp.com Gatehall I, One Gatehall Dr. 973-605-1400 phone Parsippany, NJ 07054 973-605-1440 fax ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 13:17:27 -0400 From: mcctest@aol.com (Mike Fine) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Call for International Testers CALL FOR BETA TEST PARTICIPANTS 3Com Corportation's Mobile Communication Division is looking for 40 people to participate in a Beta Test. This test will test the new x2 technology and explore international aspects of modem operation. Qualified Applicants must have the following: -Laptop Computer with PCMCIA or Cardbus Slot -Complete Internet Access including FTP, WWW, and E-Mail -Understanding of modem technology -Ability to dedicate time to testing Acceptance into our test program provides the following benefits: -Test the latest in technology -Opportunity to keep the product -Opportunity to participate in other tests Please visit the following web site no later than 09/26/97 and complete an application: http://beta.mhz.com/ For more information, please contact: Mike Fine Beta Test Supervisor 3Com Corporation Mobile Communications Division E-mail: mfine@mhz.com Voice: 801-320-7561 Fax: 801-320-6009 -Test Participants will be expected to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement -Testing is Global. Participation is open to residents of the following countries: Canada Argentina Australia Austria Belgium Bolivia Brazil Chile China Colombia Costa Rica Czech Republic Denmark Ecuador Egypt Finland France Germany Greece Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Ireland Israel Italy Japan Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand North Korea Norway Peru Philippines Poland Portugal Romania CIS Saudi Arabia Singapore South Africa South Korea Spain Sweden Switzerland Taiwan Thailand Yugoslavia United Kingdom Venezuela ------------------------------ From: Thad Jacobs Subject: New and Existing NPA/NXX Index? Organization: IAS Date: 22 Sep 97 17:43:29 GMT Is there an online location to obtain, new and existing NPA and NXX's by state for the whole country? Is there a list of new ones to come and when their proposed effective date is as well? ------------------------------ From: Marc Baime Subject: Hooking Up Two Computers to a Cable Modem? Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 01:27:05 -0400 Organization: Road Runner If possible, I would appreciate some detailed direction on what to get and how to setup for a second computer on a single cable modem. Can both machines run at the same time? Do I need a multiplexer? A hub? Where does the cable need to be split? Before coming into the cable modem? Coming out of the cable modem? I have a NEC2000 ethernet card I used to use for a two PC Novell lan that I had set up in my home ... can I use this card? Are there any books on this subject? Any literature on the web? All replies appreciated. Please respond to mbaime1@tampabay.rr.com with any information on this subject. Probably be nice if you responded to the group also as I'm sure many inquiring minds would like to know. Thanks in advance, Marc Baime ------------------------------ From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) Subject: Re: AGIS Pulls Plug on Cyberpromo Due to Ping Attack Organization: Netcom On-Line Services Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 03:28:18 GMT bowenb@best.com (William H. Bowen) writes: > BTW, I still think the only thing that will dissuade Spamford and > his ilk is a direct physical attack (a commando raid) on his operation > and put it out of business. A little drastic maybe, but, as the Sean > Connery character said in the movie "The Untouchables": "if he brings > a knife, you bring a gun. If he puts one of yours in the hospital, put > one of his in the morgue". I suggest simply redirecting any spam you get from anybody, especially if it has any forged address information, or any hint of a false health claim or other scam, to the new Federal Trade Commmission spam reporting point, "uce@ftc.gov". The FTC has the power to take action, so send them the evidence they need to do so. John Nagle ------------------------------ From: Bruce Pennypacker Subject: Re: AGIS Pulls Plug on Cyberpromo Due to Ping Attack Date: 22 Sep 1997 13:33:37 GMT Organization: Applied Language Technologies > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What a rotten shame! So is Spamford > still out of service or has he managed to snooker other ISP's and/or > networks, etc into handling his nasty traffic? I wondered why my > inbox had so little spam when I checked it early today, and now I > know. Whoever was doing the pinging which caused this to happen, you > have the heartiest congratulations of net-people everywhere. PAT] Pat, The latest I gathered from reading through the weekend of posts in news.admin.net-abuse.email is that Cyberpromo was kicked off a total of four ISP's in 24 hours (some sort of record?) and currently isn't getting connectivity through anybody. Just try accessing http://www.cyberpromo.com and you'll see. There's an article on this at http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,14429,00.html?latest that gives some details. According to AGIS themselves, Cyberpromo, Quantum, and NacyNet were all kicked off for "security issues" and not this ping attack that has been reported. Check out the AGIS network operation at http://www.agis.net/outages.htm to see what little AGIS has said about it. The rumors are flying about why AGIS did this, and so far it doesn't appear that there are a lot of facts. I'm sure that all the details well be posted here as well as on news.admin.net-abuse.email as well as other places as quickly as we all learn them. By the way, the Cyberpromo parody page at http://members.aol.com/macabrus/thyberpromo.html has also been updated as a result of this new chapter in the saga of spam. Bruce [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I tried to connect just now with www.cyberpromo.com and it just sat there for several minutes until I finally broke the connection. PAT] ------------------------------ From: kjpodsia@spd.dsccc.com (Kevin Podsiadlik) Subject: Re: AGIS Pulls Plug on Cyberpromo Due to Ping Attack Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 10:01:28 CDT > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What a rotten shame! So is Spamford > still out of service or has he managed to snooker other ISP's and/or > networks, etc into handling his nasty traffic? Oh, Spamford had backup plans all right. After AGIS dropped him, he went over to Digex. Then he went to Sprint. (Might have been Sprint then Digex ...) Then he went to BBN Planet. The game of Internet Hot Potato ended with Wallace getting dropped by four different backbone providers in a span of 24 hours, a record which may well never be broken. A moment for the Internet history books, to be sure. Kevin Podsiadlik DSC Communications Corporation Internet: kjpodsia@spd.dsccc.com 1000 Coit Road, Plano, Texas 75075 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Congratulations to the pholks who made it happen with their constant pinging, etc. But will it last? Will he be back in a day or three, meaner than ever? Let's watch and see. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #257 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Sep 24 02:47:28 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id CAA21948; Wed, 24 Sep 1997 02:47:28 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 02:47:28 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199709240647.CAA21948@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #258 TELECOM Digest Wed, 24 Sep 97 02:46:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 258 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: New and Existing NPA/NXX Index? (Paula Pettis) Re: New and Existing NPA/NXX Index? (G.L. Waltman) Re: New and Existing NPA/NXX Index? (Eric B. Morson) Re: New and Existing NPA/NXX Index? (Ken Dulin) Re: New and Existing NPA/NXX Index? (Linc Madison) Re: AGIS Pulls Plug on Cyberpromo Due to Ping Attack (Ray Morian) Re: AGIS Pulls Plug on Cyberpromo Due to Ping Attack (Louis Raphael) Re: AGIS Pulls Plug on Cyberpromo Due to Ping Attack (Trey Valenta) Re: Tonight's Monday Night Bandwidth Chat 7-8PM Pacific Time (Dan Seyb) Re: Here We Go _Again_ ... AT&T National Directory Assistance (Stan Cline) Re: Here We Go _Again_ ... AT&T National Directory Assistance (Ed Ellers) Re: Here We Go _Again_ ... AT&T National Directory Assistance (John Grout) Re: Hooking Up Two Computers to a Cable Modem? (John R. Levine) Re: Hooking Up Two Computers to a Cable Modem? (Leonid A. Broukhis) Re: Radio Vigilantes (James Bellaire) Re: MedicAlert and 209 Split (jf@oxy.edu) I've Fallen, and I Can't Get Up! (Harry Bowman) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paula Pettis Subject: Re: New and Existing NPA/NXX Index? Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 20:28:12 -0400 Reply to Thad Jacobs: Please check out our website. We have all of the existing NXX's but not the future ones. We update our software every month from the FCC tariff number 4. Paula Pettis Stuff Software 1249 Silver Palm Drive Altamonte Springs, FL 32714 Voice: (407) 290-2301 Fax: (407) 290-0079 http://www.stuffsoftware.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I would like to point out that Paula Pettis has been a long-time regular supporter of the Digest and she maintains a link via the Telecom Archives web page which is well worth the time you might spend to take a look at the services her company offers. Her area code lists mentioned above are very complete and accurate. PAT] ------------------------------ From: G. L. Waltman Subject: Re: New and Existing NPA/NXX Index? Date: 23 Sep 1997 17:46:20 GMT Organization: Air Products and Chemicals Bellcore offers a good amount of information at http://www.bellcore.com/NANP/index.html The information is updated monthly. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 15:22:37 -0400 From: Eric B. Morson Reply-To: EasyE1@aol.com vSubject: Re: New and Existing NPA/NXX Index? The most comprehensive NPA/NXX site is run by my friend John Cropper in NJ. His URL is http://www.lincs.net/areacode.htm Eric B. Morson EasyE1@aol.com ------------------------------ From: Ken Dulin Subject: Re: New and Existing NPA/NXX Index? Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 12:43:17 -0500 Organization: Arch Telecom, Inc. Reply-To: kend@archtelecom.com Thad Jacobs wrote: > Is there an online location to obtain, new and existing NPA and NXX's > by state for the whole country? Is there a list of new ones to come > and when their proposed effective date is as well? Your information is at http://www.bellcore.com/NANP/update97.html Ken Dulin Arch Telecom, Inc. kend@(badspammer)archtelecom.com remove (badspammer) to email http://www.archtelecom.com ------------------------------ From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: New and Existing NPA/NXX Index? Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 23:51:53 -0700 Organization: No unsolicited commercial e-mail! In article , Thad Jacobs wrote: > Is there an online location to obtain, new and existing NPA and NXX's > by state for the whole country? Is there a list of new ones to come > and when their proposed effective date is as well? There are several. My web pages at < http://www.best.com/~eureka/telecom > focus on the new area codes and their mandatory effective dates, although I'm in the process of preparing a comprehensive listing by state and city, and some other new features, along with updating the basic info. (I just returned from a two-month vacation, so the pages are still on the July update.) John Cropper, a frequent contributor here, maintains web pages at < http://www.lincs.net > (That's an acronym LINCS; no relation to my name.) He has all area codes listed in a variety of sorting orders, and information about definite, proposed, and speculated future changes. Both pages also provide a variety of links to other sources. ** Do not spam e-mail me! ** Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best-com >> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must change "NOSPAM" to "com" << ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 18:32:16 -0700 From: Ray Morian Subject: Re: AGIS Pulls Plug on Cyberpromo Due to Ping Attack >> Letter to Cyber Promotions' customers by Sanford Wallace, President... > >> Dear Customers, 8< bunch of Spamford's whining deleted >8 > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What a rotten shame! So is Spamford > still out of service or has he managed to snooker other ISP's and/or > networks, etc into handling his nasty traffic? I wondered why my > inbox had so little spam when I checked it early today, and now I > know. Whoever was doing the pinging which caused this to happen, you > have the heartiest congratulations of net-people everywhere. PAT] I agree totally with you Pat! :) I also called AGIS's NOC and engineer as listed on the email and congratulated them :) ... > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well now, I certainly cannot condone > any unlawful activities, which I guess would cover a commando raid on > Spamford's heaquarters, busting up his computers, tearing down all his > circuits, etc. I mean, I would not be surprised to see it happen one > of these days/nights, knowing human nature as I do, and knowing how > *really bitter and angry* a lot of netters are over his antics, but I > still cannot and would not condone it. Violence is never an answer to > the problems of the net. 8< snip >8 ] True, but humans being humans, the worst qualities of some people do tend to show through. Ray ** From and reply-to headers ROT-13'd to discourage other spammers ** Morian -- morian@globalserve.net -- http://www.globalserve.net/~morianFinger for copyright statement/disclaimer & PGP public key. ------------------------------ From: raphael@willy.cs.mcgill.ca (Louis Raphael) Subject: Re: AGIS Pulls Plug on Cyberpromo Due to Ping Attack Date: 23 Sep 1997 02:11:53 GMT Organization: McGill University Computing Centre Kevin Podsiadlik (kjpodsia@spd.dsccc.com) wrote: > A moment for the Internet history books, to be sure. Indeed. Maybe, just *maybe*, a serious dent in the spam problem will be made. A few weeks ago, I had given up on the Internet, having decided to filter out what I could until the soon-to-come end. Now, I think that there may be a bit of hope - I've started complaining to spammers admins (etc) again. I'm also including my last twenty days worth of spam as a free "gift" to spammers whose addresses I can figure out for *sure*. It comes standard with an offer for a permanent subscription, to be activated by the sending of a second UCE. So far, no takers. No remove mechanism is provided, as subscription is strictly voluntary ... :-) ------------------------------ From: trey@zipcon.net (Trey Valenta) Subject: Re: AGIS Pulls Plug on Cyberpromo Due to Ping Attack Date: 23 Sep 1997 23:09:54 GMT Organization: Alternate Access Inc. In nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) writes: > I suggest simply redirecting any spam you get from anybody, > especially if it has any forged address information, or any hint of a > false health claim or other scam, to the new Federal Trade Commmission > spam reporting point, "uce@ftc.gov". The FTC has the power to take > action, so send them the evidence they need to do so. I suggest you DON'T do this. I can't find the article now, but the FTC recently put out a statement that the large numbers of people who were doing this is putting severe strain on the systems. Seems many have set their procmail scripts to do forwarding on any suspected UCE/spam. According to the FTC, they don't want to see the messages unless it's definately fraud related and overall abuse will result in them pulling the plug on the address or tracking the person down who is flooding their systms. I'll still look to see if I can find this post. Trey Valenta trey@zipcon.net Seattle, WA ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Tonight's Monday Night Bandwidth Chat 7-8PM Pacific Time Reply-To: d.seyb@telesciences.com Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 12:52:07 -0400 From: Dan Seyb Egad, Pat. I can kind of forgive the fact i didn't see the notice of the Monday night chat until Tuesday morning. From the header, the email reached me around 9PM yesterday. If I had been at work then, and I had read the mail immediately, I could have participated. What really annoyed me was the URL they listed for more information. (http://207.68.136.82/bandwidth/category1/forum5/cool/focus.htm) When I tried to view it, a popup window asked for an id and password. Their option, but I don't play that game. But that password window would NOT go away. I hit Cancel. The window came back. I hit Ok. I got an error message window. I hit Cancel on that window. The original password window came back. I hit Ok again. The error window came back. I tried Ok this time. The password window came back. Repeat until tired of it. I finally gave up and killed the entire session. Kind of a shame, too. If wireless access was wide spread and priced even reasonably close to wired modems, I would definitely be interested, and so would several of my friends. dan [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The timing on that message was really strange. I got it just three or four hours before the on-line meeting was due to start (I think about 6 pm central time) and probably would have not used it at all except that I was in the process of working on an issue of the Digest and figured that if I got it out right away probably a third to half the readers would see it in time if they cared to participate. I wish I had gotten a little more advance notice on it. I did not bother to go check the web page but just pushed it out ASAP in the issue then being prepared. I sort of appended it to the issue then in preparation. PAT] ------------------------------ From: roamer1@pobox.com (Stanley Cline) Subject: Re: Here We Go _Again_ ... AT&T National Directory Assistance Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 02:00:58 GMT Organization: missing Reply-To: roamer1@pobox.com On Mon, 22 Sep 1997 14:58:27 -0400, Jay R. Ashworth wrote: > AT&T on Monday began testing its new ``00'' Info national directory > assistance service in Minneapolis, Seattle, Phoenix, Denver and > Portland, Ore. > Um, does AT&T not realize that "00" is _taken_ as a dialable? They are also offering this from the Atlanta area. I just dialed 00 (I'm PICed to AT&T) to check some rates for intraLATA calls for someone, and I was prompted with the usual options, plus this one: "For double-oh Info US Directory, press or say one" Also, I heard "For international directory assistance, press or say two". We all know how much AT&T charges for international DA ... It seems that AT&T is getting more and more gimmicky with calls to "00" -- every time I call for rates or other information, I'm asked if I want to have a call placed at the operator-HANDLED [high] rates. Then the voice-mail jail (say this, press that), and now this. For the record, I no longer use AT&T for LD DA, and haven't for several months -- I use LCI International on a casual-call basis (101-0432+) instead. Stanley Cline somewhere near Atlanta, GA, USA roamer1(at)pobox.com http://scline.home.mindspring.com/ spam not wanted here! help outlaw spam - see http://www.cauce.org/ ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: Here We Go _Again_ ... AT&T National Directory Assistance Date: 23 Sep 1997 01:53:58 GMT Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Jay R. Ashworth wrote: 'Um, does AT&T not realize that "00" is _taken_ as a dialable?' All this means is that AT&T will now provide DA to callers who reach an AT&T operator by dialing 00. (Personally, I think Bellcore should have standardized 211 for the IXC operator, but who said they had a sense of history?) ------------------------------ From: j-grout@ehsn5.cen.uiuc.edu (John R. Grout) Subject: Re: Here We Go _Again_ ... AT&T National Directory Assistance Date: 22 Sep 1997 20:53:37 -0500 Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Reply-To: john.grout@reasoning.com Jay R. Ashworth writes: > The following article was seen on the AP wire, and is included here for > commentary, under the fair use provision of US Copyright law. > AT&T on Monday began testing its new ``00'' Info national directory > assistance service in Minneapolis, Seattle, Phoenix, Denver and > Portland, Ore. > By dialing ``00'' customers in those areas will be able to obtain > telephone listings for any place in the United States - even if > they don't know the area code or city. > Um, does AT&T not realize that "00" is _taken_ as a dialable? Yes, it is ... it's a way to reach an IXC operator (though probably not one customer in twenty knows that, especially AT&T's customers, whom it has swaddled with catch phrases like "always dial 1-800-CALL-ATT"). Since "00" is already a dialing loophole which allows people to reach the long-distance network (and the possibility of making a billable long-distance call on lines which haven't been designated in advance as unbillable), it should already be blocked by institutions who want to rigidly control or eliminate long-distance calls. My former employer, the University of Illinois, was sensitive enough to the possibility of fraud and unauthorized billing to designate its lines as unbillable (relatively common, I believe) _and_ to limit direct access to the network (via PIC's) to the "big three" IXCs (AT&T, MCI, Sprint), whom it trusted enough to not present it with unwanted charges (either via 10xxx+0+ or 10xxx+00). If AT&T is trying another end-run around these sorts of institutional billing controls, I believe it will be even more quickly stomped than their last effort (an egregious attempt to use a toll-free dialing prefix) ... and I hope it would cost them some angry institutional customers. John R. Grout john.grout@reasoning.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Actually, having 00 available for all users should not pose any real problems as long as billed number screening is in place. The operator may answer without looking closely at the computer screen but as soon as she attempts to forward the call the computer will refuse to do so; the operator will not be able to get rid of the call lacking some acceptable (third number, collect or credit card) billing. And if the caller says 'collect' she won't be able to push the call out if the distant end also has billed number screening in place. Naturally this assumes the long distance carrier subscribes to the database of billing-denied numbers or has one of their own; but is there anyone anywhere whose 00 defaults to Integratel? ... PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 23 Sep 1997 05:53:53 -0000 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Hooking Up Two Computers to a Cable Modem? Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y. > If possible, I would appreciate some detailed direction on what to get > and how to setup for a second computer on a single cable modem. The short answer is "you can't". The cable modem is a modem that plugs into a single PC and gives you a single IP address. The slightly longer answer is that there are systems that let your entire network hide behind a single IP address, doing translation on the fly. (The three-letter acronym is NAT.) Dedicated NAT boxes tend to be expensive but you might be able to find freeware for Linux. If you can get NAT set up, you'd plug the cable modem into the box running NAT, then connect all the other computers to that one using a regular Ethernet separate from the cable modem. If this sounds like it's more trouble than it's worth, you're probably right. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 640 Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl, Finger for PGP key, f'print = 3A 5B D0 3F D9 A0 6A A4 2D AC 1E 9E A6 36 A3 47 ------------------------------ From: leob@best.com (Leonid A. Broukhis) Subject: Re: Hooking Up Two Computers to a Cable Modem? Date: 23 Sep 1997 16:21:54 -0700 Marc Baime writes: > If possible, I would appreciate some detailed direction on what to get > and how to setup for a second computer on a single cable modem. Can > both machines run at the same time? Do I need a multiplexer? A hub? > Where does the cable need to be split? Before coming into the cable > modem? Coming out of the cable modem? The safest way to do it without violating the contract with the ISP is to install the second network interface card in your computer. A hub connected to the cable modem will not do it, because if you connect more than one computer to a hub, you'll have unauthorized nodes in the segment. Leo ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 23:10:50 -0500 From: James Bellaire Subject: Re: Radio Vigilantes Ed Ellers wrote: > There are reports out of Elkhart, Indiana, that two people who have > taken a dislike to the operators of a local amateur radio repeater > have been devising some ingenious ways of jamming it (as opposed to > just transmitting jamming signals from their own location). For one > thing, they put small jammer transmitters inside beach balls and left > them at the beach. In another incident, they bought a new TV set from > Wal-Mart, installed a jammer inside, repacked it and returned it for a > refund; Wal-Mart then resold the TV to an innocent customer who didn't > know that he was "interfering with" emergency communications. > Supposedly one of their jammers even included a seismometer to shut it > down if it detected people walking near it (say, with direction-finding > receivers). The repeater in question is on the tower of a 50kW ERP FM station south of town. The repeater is used for Elkhart County SKYWARN, which provides severe storm spotting and disaster relief. Jammers have been found all over the place, including in the woods across the street from the tower site, floating in the Elkhart River, and hung on one of the AM towers in the array next to the FM. The perpatrators have trespassed on both the transmitter site and on private property near it. And they have been doing this occasional blocking for more than a year, usually using small transmitters in sandwitch sized containers. Local news reports have been sketchy. There has been coverage on South Bend TV Stations as well as in newspapers. But it is not a daily issue. A related report about a CBer in South Bend, who has a large power amp and kills most of his neighbor's TV, Portable Phones, and Radios (not to mention a church PA system) talking to his trucker buddies was aired last month. The local police reported him to the FCC and that was it. No local action has been taken. (He still has all of his equipment.) > The Elkhart police know who these characters are but have no jurisdiction > in the case; there has been no word on any action by the FCC. The repeater is outside of Elkhart City, so I must assume that you mean Elkhart County Police. Both Wal-Marts in Elkhart County are in Goshen, once again a job for County or State police (or Goshen City Police on that one part of the issue). > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The Elkhart police most certainly > would have jurisdiction in some aspects of it. The incident with the > television set which was tampered with and returned constitutes fraud > against Wal-Mart and the re-buyer of the merchandise. The behavior in > general of the individuals involved would also most certainly qualify > as disorderly conduct and the Elkhart police could act on that as > well. Proof is the hard part. They would need to trace the exact television that was bought, returned and resold AND prove that the tampering was done by the people who returned it. Actually seeing these guys place a transmitter would be handy too. Their tampering is spread out enough that most of the leads die off before the next incident. I would love to see these guys caught and punished. But it needs to be proven otherwise they will just walk away. > Furthermore, police are charged with the duty of enforcing *all > laws* whether of a local, state or federal nature, however they would > of course refer a federal matter to federal authorities. PAT] I wonder what level the federal authorities would place this at? James E. Bellaire (JEB6) bellaire@tk.com Telecom Indiana Webpage http://members.iquest.net/~bellaire/telecom/ * Note new server - old URL should still work * [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Back in the 1970's there were a lot of guys with the knowledge and equipment to convert CB radios into ten- meter transceivers. They would buy new radios a dozen or so at a time in stores like Wal-Mart where the clerks had no idea how the radio was supposed to work and didn't care anyway after first ascertaining that the model being sold was using the Motorola 02-A programmable chip for channel selection. They would take these new radios back to their bench and 'do the mods', meaning they would cut a couple traces on the circuit board, add a jumper here and there, tweak a couple of the trim-pots to get the radio to oscillate properly at a greatly expanded coverage range and then sell these units to the general public with something like 80-120 'channels' or frequencies instead of the 40 authorized by the FCC. Guys who were good at it and had decent circuitry to work with and a very steady hand to adjust the trim-pots could get those radios to oscillate all the way up in ten meters, and clear down in many cases to the low 26-megs territory. Illegal as hell, but those modified units sold like hotcakes on the street. Well, accidents would happen now and then; the pirate tech- nician would forget to check his solder maybe, or leave the slightest bit of wire in contact somewhere it should not be and the chip in the radio would get blown to kingdom come ... but not to worry, the pirates had a solution for that also. They would *carefully* remove the parts they wanted from the damaged radio and inventory them for use in *other* radios. Then they would *carefully* put the case back together so it appeared it had never been opened, put it back in the original carton, and take it with their receipt back to the store to get their money back or (more likely) a new radio. At Wal-Mart or K-Mart or wherever, the disinterested and not too bright sixteen year old clerk would just mark the unit 'defective' and toss it in a pile with others and give the customer his money back or a new radio. The pirate techs would not try this too often at Radio Shack; the clerks at Radio Shack after all would hand out xeroxed instructions for the mods about the time the customer was walking out the door with his new radio ("oh here, some customer left this 'hobbyist' guide to radios on the counter in case anyone wanted one ...") which were always anonymously written, etc on typewriters with a couple of crude drawings/sketches showing where the jumpers were to be attached and the traces cut. If you went back to Radio Shack the next day with a unit that 'seems to be defective' you better bet the clerk would stare you right in the face and tell you what you were full of. If the clerk himself was corrupt he'd snicker, toss the radio in the defects pile and give you a new one but some clerks would quickly stamp the phrase "as is, no refunds" on the customer's reciept and tell him that was so he could not go to some other RS store and 'try to hand them the same line of bull you just gave me ...' sending the pirate away with the junky radio. Whatever; a certain number of radios whether via Wal-Mart, Radio Shack or some discount store found their way back to Japan or Hong Kong or China to the one factory where all radios are made despite the brand name on the unit. Stores everywhere would return the 'defective units' for credit. Imagine then quality control inspectors in Japan opening up the radios and looking inside to 'see what was wrong' ... Japanese man takes off the cover, peers inside, flabbergasted, says to his co-workers at the factory, "Holy Chr---! Look at this! How did this peice of junk get passed quality control inspection? No heat sink, no zenner diode, no final, no knobs on the front! " ... Because of course whoever had 'done the mods' on that radio and blew it up in the process had cannibalized what was left on the circuit board to use in other radios he was repairing and then boxed it back up and took it to the teeny-bopper at the customer service counter at the mall to get a refund, and with a straight face yet. Finally the number of pirate radios in service got to be such a joke with people telling others openly 'you got channel 72 on your radio? I'll meet you there ...' that the FCC finally got sore about it. Any attempt to police individual users operating 'out of band' on the pirate frequencies was in vain. The FCC's response was one day to go to Motorola with a formal demand that they cease production of the 02-A chip. They also went to Fort Worth to meet with Radio Shack executives and told them to get their sales clerks to 'can the crap' and quit giving out illegal mod sheets 'under some thinly disguised BS having to do with the First Amendment and free speech.' Both Motorola and Radio Shack were threatened by the FCC with large fines and lots of grief if they did not comply. In Radio Shack's case, within a couple days the word went from Ft. Worth to the stores that there was never again to be any discussion of 'the mods'. The rule was, talk about the mods and you'll get fired. Within a year or so all new CB Radios had their frequency selection/tuning stuff in ROM (read only memory) chips and in the case of Radio Shack, with a checksum kind of thing where you could hack all you wanted, but if the checksum did not match the radio would just remain silent. In those years, I had a Uniden CB with a device called a 'digi-scan' attached with a ribbon connector in place of the usual channel selector knob. The Uniden radios could be expanded to six hundred channels. Those were great days -- or nights perhaps, as I seldom got on the radio much before midnight -- and like today's internet, once the general public found out about CB radio then shortly after that (with Johnny Cash's song) it was ruined for everyone. PAT] ------------------------------ From: jf@oxy.edu Subject: Re: MedicAlert and 209 Split Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 20:45:55 -0800 Organization: Flashnet Communications, http://www.flash.net Reply-To: jf@oxy.edu Why can't MedicAlert just purchase remote-call forwarding or foreign-exchange lines or work out something with the phone company? What am I missing here? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 11:01:33 -0400 From: Harry Bowman Subject: I've Fallen, and I Can't Get Up! There seems to be some confusion about what Medic Alert's product is. The "I've Fallen, and I Can't Get Up" gadget is marketed under the brand name "Lifecall". They appear to be sold in Canada, according to a web search, by VOXCOM Security Systems. The Medic Alert Foundation is a nonprofit, tax exempt corporation and therefore probably doesn't advertize on TV. There is a contact number on their web page (1-800-736-3342) for information. Their Director of Communications has two numbers listed, one of which is (209) 668-3333. I assume that means I have the right people. The page I found is at: http://www.social.com/health/nhic/data/hr0400/hr0494.html. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #258 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Sep 24 22:20:05 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA07221; Wed, 24 Sep 1997 22:20:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 22:20:05 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199709250220.WAA07221@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #259 TELECOM Digest Wed, 24 Sep 97 22:20:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 259 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson AT&T '00' Directory and Other AT&T 'Gimmicks' (Mark J. Cuccia) 559 Announced For 209 Split (John Cropper) Slammed - Fraud? (Charles Beatty) Security Alarm Problem Due to Area Code Change (oldbear@arctos.com) Re: AGIS Pulls Plug on Cyberpromo Due to Ping Attack (Patrick Tufts) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 15:47:01 -0500 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: AT&T '00' Directory and Other AT&T 'Gimmicks' The New Orleans area does _NOT_ yet have this AT&T '00' Directory. When I dial '00' from a line 'PICd' to AT&T (or 10(10)288+0(#/0) from any non-restricted line), I route via the Jackson MS AT&T #5ESS OSPS switch (601-0T, JCSNMSPS06T), where I hear the AT&T 'sparkle' jingle with audio brand/logo. I then hear the recorded instructions to enter the number I wish to call, or for an operator -- to enter '0' or say 'Operator'. (The 'live' operators that I reach can be located anywhere along the southern part of the east coast, from Maryland to Florida -- i.e. BellAtlantic's old C&P territory or BellSouth's old Southern Bell territory). But I understand that the AT&T OSPS switch which serves Minneapolis MN (in the US West territory), 515-0T, in Des Moines IA, is now giving the option to enter/say '1' for Directory Assistance, upon dialing an AT&T '00' Operator. A friend in Minneapolis 'three-wayed' me to his AT&T '00' code, so I could hear the new prompts AT&T is now giving. AND FROM WHAT HE TOLD ME, THIS DIRECTORY OPTION (for lookups of US numbers) is HANDLED BY ***EXCELL-AGENCY***, and is _NOT_ the AT&T OSPS operator initially reached searching a database or verifying listings from the far-end genuine-Bell/LEC 'inward' directory operator! OKAY ... so here is yet ANOTHER gimmick from AT&T! :( BTW, when AT&T's operators connect to directory operators outside of the NANP (i.e. 'international' and overseas countries) it now costs anywhere from $7.00 to $10.00, depending on the country! :( Maybe the ITU should develop a standard number, similar to the NANP's 555-1212, which would work in _any_ participating country's code, for customers around the world to _dial_ to a directory assistance operator in the far-end country's LEC! Stan Cline (roamer1@pobox.com) is CERTAINLY correct that AT&T is getting more and more 'gimmicky' about a lot of things. And IMO, there are a lot of 'bugs' in these new gimmick services. Let's see, there's: "True" (?) Messages International-Redial Directory-Link and others I'm not going to go into any detail on the above three named services, as I've gone into detail on the problems associated with them in past issues of TELECOM Digest. Unfortunately, if one doesn't need or want one of these new features or services to intrude on a call-setup, it can be difficult -- even IMPOSSIBLE to have the prompts turned off for your calling-card or line. I have been successful in having the prompts turned off for Directory-Link from my line (for 1+ calls), however I have not been able to have AT&T turn off the prompts on outgoing calls billed to my AT&T or BellSouth calling card numbers, such as for when placing calls to (Canadian/Caribbean) NPA-555-1212 when I'm not at home. International Redial (on my home line, 1+) could have been a nice AT&T feature, but its prompts came in on (non-suping) calls to numbers being intercepted by the far-end LEC with a new number referral. I finally had to have AT&T turn off International Redial from my home line. Presently, True-Message prompts don't intrude 1+ calls dialed from my home line, but I have not been successful in having it turned off on my outgoing calls billed to my AT&T/LEC calling card numbers, nor having True-Message prompts being disabled on any AT&T-handled incoming calls to my line, since I have forwarding to cellular, as well as voicemail on my line, therefore True-Message prompts to the calling party aren't necessary! While many LECs are offering "if called-line is busy/unanswered you can record-a-message for delayed delivery, for-a-FEE" services/prompts similar to AT&T's True-Messages (on 'direct-dialed' local and intra-LATA calls), the LEC-provided services is usually something that one can turn-off on a per-call or per-line basis from a particular line with an end-office-based *XX/11XX code (I think it is *02/1102 and *03/1103). But AT&T's True-Messages is a bit different, as it is based on the OSPS operator switch, and its prompts intrude on calling card calls when not at home. As for AT&T's choice of routing to directory assistance for (US) NPA-555-1212, I think that AT&T is now routing to Excell-Agency (instead of the genuine called-end Bell/LEC directory operator for calls to _MOST_ (US) NPAs on 555-1212 calls. This now includes AT&T handled calls to Alaska, 907-555-1212. I'm not sure about Hawaii, whether AT&T is routing to Excell (or some other contract agency) or rather continuing to route to GTE-Hawaii; I don't know if AT&T-handled calls to CT's 203 and 860 directory continues to route to SNET directory or if it now routes to Excell; Neither do I know if AT&T continues to route to Cincinnati Bell on AT&T handled calls to 513-555-1212, or if AT&T now routes to Excel. I do know that AT&T does _NOT_ route the following LECs anymore when a customer dials 555-1212 for one of those LEC's NPAs: US West, Pac*Bell/Nevada*Bell and Southwestern Bell, Bell Atlantic and NYNEX, but rather routes to Excel. (However in the case of AT&T-handled calls to 555-1212 for Bell Atlantic's old C&P states/NPAs [MD, DC, VA, WVa], the routing is to CFW, which is a genuine incumbent _independent_ LEC, located in the Virginia area. CFW is supposed to have access to the actual BellAtlantic directory database). I assume that AT&T-handled calls to an Ameritech NPA for 555-1212 is also now routing to Excel, but I don't know for certain. Therefore, while I do place the vast majority of my traffic via AT&T, I am now placing _ALL_ calls to directory (outside of my local Bell South area 1/0-411) via Sprint, as 10(10)333+1+NPA-555-1212 (when dialing from home), or via one of several Sprint 800- access numbers, and billing to my Sprint FON-cards or one of my BellSouth calling-cards. AT&T _DOES_ continue to route calls to the genuine LEC directory operator for Canada's NPAs on 555-1212 (it seems that Excel doesn't even try to (mis)compile Canadian data. And for the Caribbean NPA(s), AT&T routes 555-1212 to either its "AT&T, What Island, Please?" intercept-and-route (and monitor the connection) operator; or they are beginning to route Caribbean NPAs (except for 809 itself) 555-1212 directly to the island's directory operator itself. And AT&T routes 670-555-1212 to the Northern Mariana's own directory operator, and 671-555-1212 to Guam's own directory operator. Other 'gimmicks' of AT&T that I don't like ... When I dial '00' from a line 'PICd' to AT&T, or 10(10)288+0(#/0), I would prefer to go LIVE AND DIRECT to a HUMAN BEING who answers the line. I do NOT like having to hear a litany of menu-prompts (even though I can DTMF enter '0' to cut-thru), nor those _pre-recorded_ generic male and female voices: "AT&T, How may I help you?" "AT&T, What is the number you are calling from?" "AT&T, the overtime charge is ..." "Thank You" etc. Nor do I like the inquiry from the operator (as Stan mentions), "Would you like for me to place a call for you at the OPERATOR-HANDLED rate?" NO! I'm only calling the operator for a nameplace, a rate, an area code or dialing instructions, etc. I am still going to dial the call MYSELF, and SAVE! And if I am having trouble getting through, I would like it to be the way it was up until about five years ago ... _IF_ I explain to the AT&T operator that there is a trouble condition, she would handle the call for me, but at the cheaper customer-dialed rates. But OH NO, they don't seem to want to do it that way anymore! :( Of course, if all of the operator 'teams' are all busy, I can understand a pre-recorded message coming on the line and stating that all operator positions are busy at the moment, and to continue to hold for the next available operator. But _I_ still want '00' (or similar) to route to a live person, and _not_ automated prompts/responses. AT&T operators are _still_ the only operators who can handle certain types of calls which MCI and Sprint don't choose to do. And if AT&T (or any carrier) wants to introduce a new service or function (such as Directory Link, True Messages, International Redial, etc), there SHOULD be some form of industry numbering and dialing standard, as well as operational standard, agreed upon by the industry forums and Bellcore NANPA/TRA/etc. Even if other companies don't choose to introduce the new service, at least there will be a standard out there so as not to cause customer dialing confusion or conflicts whenever other carriers begin to provide the same new service. At least the industry has attempted on a numbering/dialing standard with SAC-NPA 500 (although THAT still isn't 100% perfect!). Most features provided by most LECs SEEM to follow some form of Bellcore or ATIS forum dialing/numbering and network operations/interconnection standard. Is the "voice-with-a-smile" going to be COMPLETELY replaced by a robot? NWORLASKCG0 (BellSouth #1AESS Class-5 Local "Seabrook" 504-24x-) NWORLAIYCM1 (BellSouth-Mobility Hughes-GMH-2000 Cellular-MTSO NOL) NWORLAMA0GT (BellSouth DMS-100/200 fg-B/C/D Accss-Tandem "Main" 504+) NWORLAMA20T (BellSouth DMS-200 TOPS:Opr-Srvcs-Tandem "Main" 504+053+) NWORLAMA04T (AT&T #4ESS Class-2 Toll 060-T / 504-2T "Main" 504+) JCSNMSPS06T (AT&T #5ESS OSPS:Operator-Services-Tandem 601-0T 601+121) MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut-1-2497 WORK:__mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu|4710-Wright-Road|__(+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity-5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New-Orleans-28__|fwds-on-no-answr-to Fax:UNiversity-5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail- ------------------------------ From: John Cropper Subject: 559 Announced For 209 Split Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 17:40:03 -0400 Thanks to Eric once again for this tip: SAN FRANCISCO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Sept. 24, 1997--The California Public Utilities Commission has approved boundaries for the geographic split of Central California's 209 area code, but has also reserved the possibility of modifying that decision pending the outcome of Fresno County's complaint case. The new area code, 559, to be introduced Nov. 14, 1998, will serve Madera, Fresno, Tulare and Kings Counties and small portions of seven other counties in the southern portion of San Joaquin Valley now served by the 209 area code. Needed to meet increasing demand caused by the deregulation of the telephone industry and the explosion of high technology, 559 will be California's 23rd area code. California has more area codes than any other state in the nation. The addition of the new 559 area code will not affect the price of telephone calls. A six-month "get acquainted" period will begin on Nov. 14, 1998 that will allow customers to dial either 209 or 559. During this period, people calling from outside the area can dial either the old 209 or the new 559 to reach customers within the 559 area code. Customers within the two area codes will also be able to call between the two geographical areas using only the seven-digit phone number for the six-month "get acquainted" period. New Area Code Boundaries -- The boundaries for the area code split generally runs along the Madera County line where it borders on Mariposa and Merced counties. The northern region will retain the 209 area code and the southern region will be assigned to the new 559 area code. -- The northern region which will retain the 209 area code includes: Tuolumne, Calaveras and Amador counties, most of Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus and Mariposa counties and very small parts of Madera, Fresno, Sacramento, El Dorado, Alpine, Alameda, Contra Costa and Santa Clara counties. Cities in the northern region include: Lodi, Stockton, Modesto, Turlock, Sonora and Merced. -- The new 559 area code will serve customers in the southern region that contains: most of Fresno, Madera, Tulare, and Kings counties, and very small portions of Merced, Mariposa, Mono, Inyo, San Benito, Monterey and Kern counties. Cities in the southern region include: Fresno, Madera, Hanford, Visalia, Lindsay and Porterville. The estimated life-span of the 559 area code is expected to be 13 to 15 years. According to California Code Administrator Doug Hescox, "It will be a long time before the customers in the south will have to worry about another area code change." Hescox noted that new area code could last up to four years longer than the 209 area code in the north. Public Input Crucial to Finalizing Area Code Boundaries Hescox, who coordinates area code relief planning statewide for the telecommunications industry, recognized the difficulty in determining which area was to retain the 209 area code. "A series of public hearings were held to receive comment specifically about which region should keep the 209 area code," Hescox said. "We received a lot of valuable information at these meetings and through letters that helped us in making our final recommendation." Several key issues were cited in retaining the 209 number in the northern region. Important factors include: a worldwide emergency medical information service and a major military support service are located in the north; the north has more telephone prefixes available and strong ties to its surrounding area codes, including those in the Bay Area. Call Price is Not Impacted by Area Code Split Introduction of the new 559 area code will not affect the price of telephone calls. "What is a local call now will remain a local call regardless of the area code change. Call distance and time determines the price of a call, not whether or not you dial an area code," said Hescox. Confirm Equipment Can Accommodate the New 559 Area Code In 1995, a series of new-style of area codes was introduced in North America, and 559 is part of this new series that can use any three digits from 220 to 999. This new style of area codes has special ramifications for certain types of telecommunications equipment, which must be re-programmed to recognize the new format. "Historically, area codes always had either a '1' or '0' as the middle digit for identification purposes, but by 1995 all of those codes had been assigned," Hescox stated. "Due to this change in format, it's important for customers to know that PBX (private phone) systems, auto-dialers, alarms and other telecommunications equipment may have to be re-programmed to recognize the new-style area codes in order for calls to complete," added Hescox. Customers affected by the area code split should contact their personal vendors to determine if their equipment needs to be updated. Things to Remember During the six-month "get acquainted" period which will enable the customer to use either the 209 or 559 area code, customers are being encouraged to use this period to make important changes. These include: -- Change stationery, business cards and advertising to reflect the new area code; -- Notify friends, relatives, business clients and customers of the new area code; -- Update fax machine group calling lists that have numbers affected by the change; -- Reprogram speed dialers, auto dialers, alarms and PBX (private phone systems) to reflect the change (contact your equipment vendor for assistance); -- Reprogram outdial lists on personal computers that have numbers affected by the change; -- Check with wireless phone and paging service providers to find out if re-programming is required. The 209 area code relief plan was collectively developed by a telecommunications industry group composed of more than 30 companies, including: AirTouch, AT&T, AT&T Wireless, the California Cable Television Association, GTE, MCI, Pacific Bell, Page Net, Sprint and others. Public comment was gathered through a series of public hearings that were held in October 1996, and March and April 1997. The California Code Administration is an independent planning group that coordinates area code relief planning and administers numbering resources on behalf of the California telecommunications industry. Final decisions on area code issues are made by the California Public Utilities Commission. ------------------------------------ John Cropper voice: 888.76.LINCS LINCS fax: 888.57.LINCS P.O. Box 277 mailto:jcropper@lincs.net Pennington, NJ 08534-0277 ICQ: 2670887 FREE areacode information: http://www.lincs.net/areacode/ $17.95 unlimited analog, or $29.95 unlimited ISDN dial-up: http://www.lincs.net/internet/dialup.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 10:51:55 -0400 From: Charles Beatty Subject: Slammed - Fraud? Organization: Genome Database We were recently slammed. The story is a little more unusual and disturbing than simply being slammed though. Last month a service charge from Accutel of Boca Raton, FL showed up on our bill. I finally got through to a vice president at Accutel. She told me that they had purchased the cutomer base of a company called Christian Communications Group of Savannah, GA. The owner of Christian Communications is one Pastor Ralph Davis. He may also be doing business as Least Cost Routing. Now I don't believe for a second that Davis is a pastor, or that Christian Communicatons is anything but a scam. The disturbing part is that they have my wife's social security number. This is apparently sufficient to authorize a switch of LD carriers. Has anyone heard of Christian Communicatons? Least Cost Routing? "Pastor" Ralph Davis? Is there anything we can do to limit the distribution of my wife's SS# ? Do we have any kind of legal recourse? This is particularly upsetting since my wife's mother was just the victim of credit card fraud because someone got her SS#. Thanks in advance for any help or pointers. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 10:52:41 -0400 From: The Old Bear Subject: Security Alarm Problem due to Area Code Change The following item is excerpted from a copyright story which appeared in the {Boston Globe} on September 11, 1997: HOME SECURITY FIRMS SOUND ALARM ON TIMING OF AREA CODE CHANGES By Bruce Mohl The state's area code problems appear to be far from over, as alarm companies warned yesterday that tens of thousands of their customers won't have working alarms if the initial phase-in period for the new area codes is not extended beyond Dec. 1. Executives from four alarm companies told the Legislature's Government Regulations Committee that three months -- the current period when either new or old area codes may be used -- is not enough time to manually reprogram each of their customers' alarms. In most cases, home visits are required. Although they acknowledged their numbers are rough guesses, the executives said as many as 400,000 business and residential customers could be left without alarm service for fire, medical, and burglary emergencies starting Dec. 1. "The stage is set for a firestorm," warned Richard L. Sampson, president of American Alarm & Communications Inc. in Arlington. James W. Lees, chief executive of Sentry Protective Systems in Malden, said alarm companies need six to nine months to convert all the systems. He said 5,200 of his 8,000 customers would go without service temporarily if the initial phase-in period is not extended. Bell Atlantic has already asked the state Department of Public Utilities to extend the period when customers can dial numbers using either the new or old area codes, but only by one month to Jan. 1. Jack Hoey, a spokesman for Bell Atlantic, said the company will work with the alarm companies, but he cautioned that the transition process can only be delayed so long. "They're looking for time that doesn't exist," Hoey said. "In some cases, they may need to hire people to get the job done." Most alarm companies have already started charging their customers more to pay for the reprogramming effort. Sentry is charging customers $25 or $39.95, depending on whether a home visit is required. Plans call for the phase-in period to end Dec. 1, after which callers dialing the wrong area code will hear a recorded message telling them to redial. As of May 1, the new area codes begin full operation, and consumers dialing a number with the wrong area code could be connected to someone who has been given that number. Lawmakers were sympathetic to the alarm company concerns and expressed hope that the so-called permissive dialing period could be extended another three months. Otherwise, the lawmakers said, they may have to force the issue with legislation. "That would be unfortunate. What you're dealing with here is a mathematical and technical problem, not a political problem," Hoey said. Bell Atlantic is also appealing to the DPU to forgo a system that would require callers to dial 10 numbers (the area code and number) when calling people who are in the local calling area but in a different area code. Bell Atlantic says the system is confusing to customers. Lawmakers will also have to deal with a bill filed by Acting Governor Paul Cellucci to boot Belmont and Watertown out of 617 and back to 781 where the communities originally started. Senator Michael Morrissey of Quincy said he supports putting Belmont and Watertown back in 781, but his House counterpart, Representative Daniel Bosley of North Adams, said it may be too late and too costly to make the change now. Senator Warren Tolman of Watertown said reprinting phone books to correct the area code boundaries and distributing them to customers would cost between $3.5 million and $4 million. ------------------------------ From: zippy@cs.brandeis.edu (Patrick Tufts) Subject: Re: AGIS Pulls Plug on Cyberpromo Due to Ping Attack Date: 24 Sep 1997 17:40:49 GMT Organization: Brandeis University, Waltham MA Ray Morian writes: >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What a rotten shame! So is Spamford >> still out of service or has he managed to snooker other ISP's and/or >> networks, etc into handling his nasty traffic? According to news.admin.net-abuse.email, after he lost AGIS, Wallace got hosted on and immediately booted from four other ISPs (including Digex and BBNPlanet) in as many days. >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well now, I certainly cannot condone >> any unlawful activities, which I guess would cover a commando raid on >> Spamford's heaquarters, busting up his computers, tearing down all his >> circuits, etc. I mean, I would not be surprised to see it happen one According to the same newsgroup, Cyberpromo still owes Compuserve $30,000. Also, Cyberpromo promised $10/day for any outage experienced by one of their (spammer) customers. Wallace is probably maxing out his credit cards and fleeing for Mexico. Pat [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Has anyone attempted to contact him at his office (or home or wherever) and get the details on these latest allegations; i.e. money owed to Compuserve and his plans for the future? Is there any activity at his office at all such as phones being answered, a customer service rep on duty, etc, or is his office abandoned? The other day I was helping someone who has a problem with rodent infestation in their basement. I put out lots of 'nice, tasty food' the little guys would be sure to like -- heh! heh! -- and already today the results were obvious. Several bloated and quite dead little carcasses near the food dish I had prepared. This leads me to my final question for this issue: how severe is this rodent infestation on the net? Obviously Spamford was one of their leaders, but how many of the vermin still remain to be exterminated? Any guesstimates? PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #259 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Sep 25 21:06:03 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id VAA22786; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 21:06:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 21:06:03 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199709260106.VAA22786@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #260 TELECOM Digest Thu, 25 Sep 97 21:06:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 260 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Suspense: Sorry, Wrong Number - Yesterday and Today (Mark J. Cuccia) Denver: Home Number Ringing on Mobile Phone (Donald M. Heiberg) 888 Shortage Hits Toll-Free Phone Industry (Monty Solomon) Fun in Elkhart, IN (was Re: Radio Vigilantes) (Bill Levant) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 18:18:20 -0500 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Suspense: Sorry, Wrong Number - Yesterday and Today I am _NOT_ titling this post with "Last Laugh" as part of the subject line. While I do intend some sarcasm/irony further down, the fictitious situation described here is _NOT_ funny. Background: "Suspense" was a dramatic anthology radio series that ran for 20 years on the CBS Radio Network (Columbia Broadcasting System), from 1942 to 1962. An 'anthology' is a series in which each episode is a totally different story/situation (and cast of characters), with no situation 'thread' to any other episode (similar to CBS-TV's "Twilight Zone", 1959-64). Many stories which aired on "Suspense" were, however _re-performed_ by either most or all of the original cast, or a brand new cast of players (voices); however in the later years of the original run of the series, many repeated episodes were actual _reruns_ of tapes (or transcription disks) of an original or earlier episode. One of the most popular and 'spine-tingling' episodes which aired on Suspense was "Sorry, Wrong Number", written by Lucille Fletcher. This story aired eight different times during Suspense's twenty year run on CBS Radio. The airings in the later years of Suspense were actually reruns, rather than re-performances. However, Agnes Morehead (who later played Samantha's mother on "Bewitched" on ABC-TV) always starred as the bed-ridden invalid, who is frightened by a mysterious telephone call that she overheard. The story starts out where she is trying to call her husband at work. He is working late that evening, and she is alone, in her bed. While she does have a telephone next to her on the nightstand, this is the 1940's or 1950's, long before the "Lifecall" autodialing devices first came on the market. Due to the constant busy signals while calling her husband's office number, she finally dials '0' for the operator to 'check' the line. When the operator dials the number, she hears ringing, and then the line is answered by _two_ men. Somehow, she gets cut into someone else's conversation. She can hear both of them, but they cannot hear her. What the two men are discussing is planning ... a MURDER! Obviously, she is quite upset about this, but what she doesn't realize until the end of the episode (and her own life) is that the two men are planning HER murder! Her husband was going to have her killed for the insurance money. After a few minutes, the connection is broken. Agnes gets the operator on the line again, asking her to "misdial" that "wrong" number, but all we hear are busy signals. Agnes demands to speak with a supervisor and even the Chief Operator to see if the numbers of the two men can be traced. The operators and supervisors tell her that she should call the Police, and even place the call for her. Agnes gets a 'run-around' from the Police precinct desk-sergeant. But she is still worried and concerned about hearing the telephone call with a murder being planned. She calls up the operator again, who is unable to help her further with her request. Eventually, Agnes gets a telephone call from Western Union. There is a telegram for her, which Western Union is going to read over the telephone. The telegram is from her husband. He has been trying to call her all evening, but her line has been busy. He needs to go out of town for the evening, and tells her not to worry. The telephone is right next to her bed. This gets Agnes more worried and nervous. She calls information to get the number of a private hospital (Sanitorium) that she had stayed at once before, to either hire a private nurse for the evening, or to even have an ambulance take her to the hospital and check-in. She then notices that her clock has stopped, and she hangs up on the hospital, to call the Time-of-Day recording (MEridien-7-1212) for the correct time. When she heard the two men plotting the murder, they said that the victim would be stabbed at 11:15 pm that night. It is now 11:10pm, and she hears a noise downstairs. NOW she begins to think that SHE is the unnamed murder victim mentioned in the telephone call that she heard earlier that evening. She picks up the handset on the telephone and dials '0' for the Operator. When the operator comes on the line, she says that it is an emergency and needs the Police. The operator connects, and the ringing indication can be heard through her receiver. A train is passing just outside of her room, and the rumbling can be heard. Then, you hear Agnes begin to scream "NO! NO! PLEASE, DON'T COME NEAR ME! NO! HELP!" Just then, the train lets out a loud whistle and horn, and Agnes lets out one high-pitched blood-curdling SHREAK! As she dies, the (metal-housing) telephone clangs to the floor. However, the ringing-tone of the connection to the Police can still be heard. They haven't yet answered. Finally, a voice comes from the receiver, "Police Department, Precinct 43, Sergeant Martin speaking". The voice can be heard repeating it a couple more times. Then a man's voice is heard in the late Agnes' bedroom speaking into the phone: "Police Department??? Sorry, this must be a wrong number. Don't worry, everything is OK, here". (Music up- end of episode) --------------- There are some references in the dialogue that the story takes place in New York City, although for most of its run, Suspense was produced in Hollywood. Therefore, New York Telephone (later NYNEX, now Bell Atlantic) would be the local exchange telephone company. Also, I have described the story as I have heard it on several of its performances by Agnes Morehead on Suspense. A motion picture version of "Sorry, Wrong Number" was also done, starring Miss Barbara Stanwyck. who also starred in the "Lux Radio Theater" recreation of the movie version. I have seen only part of the movie (I think that AMC, American Movie Classics has run the "Sorry, Wrong Number" movie before), and I did once hear a tape of the "Lux Radio Theater" version, which was an expanded story over the "Suspense" radio version. Now, lets flash-forward to a post-divestiture telephone environment. And here is where I will give two different scenarios, with some sarcasm. Also, while 911 is the 'standard' emergency access number in the North American Numbering Plan, one can always call the Operator in the case of an emergency. The operator has (is supposed to have) a special bulletin at her position indicating the emergency reporting numbers (or operator routing codes to such) of various emergency agencies and jurisdictions in the territory where she might receive calls from. Also, not every part of the US and Canada necessarily have the 911 emergency number in operation. The first scenario is the late 1980's or early 1990's. While AT&T and its now-divested local Bell Operating Companies had separated basic operator services, with AT&T retaining the older pre-divestiture TSPS Operator network, and the LECs starting up their own new (usually TOPS although some LECs have OSPS) operator systems for intra-LATA 'only' services. Dialing a '0' would get the intra-LATA 'only' LEC operator (the 'new' operator system in most parts of the US), while dialing '00' would route to the operator services of your primary IXC's operator services, if they offered such. If your chosen primary long-distance carrier didn't have any operator services, '00' would route to either a re-order, a recorded announcement, or in some cases, the operator services of a different long-distance carrier which had contacted with your LD-carrier, to provice operator services. Now, let's assume that Agnes' line is presubscribed to AT&T. Around the late 1980's, for a few years, AT&T operators and TOPS/OSPS would _NOT_ be able to assist on intra-LATA calls. Even calling-card sequence-calls via AT&T could only be to points _outside_ of the LATA you were calling from. That has since changed ... AT&T live operators and the OSPS system can be used for intra-LATA calls (at AT&T's prices which could be lower - or sometimes higher - than what the LEC would charge for the same call), but AT&T's "no inTRA-LATA assistance" was problematic for about a year or two during the timeframe mentioned here. Okay. Agnes dials '0' for the operator to ask for the Police. She forgets that 911 could also be dialed (New York City has had 911 for emergencies, for DECADES, since probably the late 1960's). Now, when one dials '0', there is a three-to-five second delay before connecting with the (LEC) Operator switch. Since there 'could' be digits to follow the (initial) '0', such as in 0+ calls, '00' (i.e., a _second_ '0' after the initial '0'), or IDDD calls 01(1)+country-code-etc., there is this delay before your local end-office times-out and connects you with your LEC '0' TOPS (or OSPS) although you could DTMF a '#' button right after the single '0', which is supposed to time-out right away, cutting through to your LEC TOPS. However, Agnes is in a highly frantic state. When she doesn't hear anything right away after dialing '0', she dials it a second time, before she would have timed-out to the NYNEX TOPS operator. Now, her end-office routes a '00' call over to the operator services of her primary carrier. In this case, it would route to AT&T's TSPS/OSPS. A live AT&T operator comes on the line, "AT&T Operator, how may I help you?". Agnes screams "Get me the POLICE, PLEASE, HURRY!". However, the AT&T operator comes back "I'm sorry, Ma'm, but that call is in your NYNEX LATA. You will have to hang-up and dial your local NYNEX operator with a SINGLE '0'", and then disconnects! Of course, even though the LEC operators aren't (usually) allowed or even capable of handling (most) inTER-LATA calls ... and circa 1990, AT&T's operators weren't supposed to be handling inTRA-LATA calls, there have always been ways to over-ride such blockings at the TOPS or TSPS/OSPS equipment, in case of emergencies. Such inTRA-LATA over-ride by AT&T _would_ have been handled in the above situation. Also, if a county straddled multiple LATAs, and the Sheriff's office was not in your LATA, a LEC single-0 operator would always be able to over-ride and connect to them even though it is 'technically' outside of the LATA of the requesting calling party. Now, lets fast-forward again, to a second scenario, mid-to-late-1990s and onward. Again, Agnes dials '0', followed within five-seconds by a second '0', since the POTENTIAL extra-digits delay is confusing. Again, she routes to the AT&T OSPS, but this time, not to a live human AT&T Operator, but rather the AT&T 'sparkle' jingle and AT&T audio branding logo. Next comes a pre-recorded menu: "This is AT&T. To place a call, please enter the number you are calling. For AT&T 'double-oh' information, please press or say '1'. For all other assistance, please say 'information', 'credit', or 'operator', now". In her frantic state, Agnes begins to scream: "HELP! POLICE! ... EMERGENCY!" Would the automated system then state: "I'm sorry, I did not understand your voice-response. Please say 'information', 'credit', or 'operator', now. OR, please stay on the line, and an operator will answer" ??? Or is the system 'smart' enough to attempt to recognize such words as: 'help', 'police', 'emergency', 'fire', 'ambulance', 'hospital', etc. to connect a live AT&T operator _RIGHT AWAY_ who will assist in such an emergency situation? All of these pre-recorded auto-prompts _could_ delay one in receiving live operator assistance in a bona-fide emergency situation. As I mentioned earlier, not all originating locations have any active 911 service. And whether or not a location has 911 service, the telco operator is always supposed to be available for Emergency assistance. But since single-0 most of the time includes a 3-to-5 second delay before timing out to a LEC operator (due to POSSIBLE additional digits following an initial '0'), some might dial a _second_ '0' within the delay period, thus routing to the operator services of one's primary LD-company. Of course, one could dial '0' followed by (DTMF-ing) a '#' (pound-button) thus cancelling the 3-to-5 second delay, and cutting thru right-away to the LEC operator, but how my people of the 'general public' would even _know_ to use the '#' button!? And what about the many rotary dial phones out there! I do expect that AT&T, MCI and Sprint-LD operators (when a live human operator is finally reached) would be properly trained to know how to handle emergency call situations. But it is going to get more-and-more complicated with local telco competition, and also as AT&T operators begin to receive calls from larger and more varied geographic territory. I mentioned in an earlier post, that when I call an AT&T operator from New Orleans, the AT&T #5ESS OSPS switch that serves me is located in Jackson MS (601-0T, JCSNMSPS06T), however the operators themselves are located on the southern part of the east coast, anywhere from Maryland to Florida - i.e. Bell Atlantic's former C&P Telephone territory (MD, DC, VA, WVa) and Bell South's former Southern Bell territory (NC, SC, GA, FL). And as for A-O-Slime operators serving private "COCOT" payphones, I _have_ read of situations where these operators have COMPLETELY BUNGLED emergency calls. I don't know if anyone actually lost their life due to such A-O-Slime incompetancy on handling emergency calls. However, many of us know that these companies are now using _all kinds_ of automated menus and prompts on "0-" (zero-minus) types of dialed calls. This can delay reaching operator assistance in an emergency, as well as the COCOT (and even telco-owned) 'chip-dialing' payphones will delay for a few seconds on the customer entering '0' into the payphone, which is then followed by the payphone grabbing a loop with the telco central-office, and _then_ dialing out (single) '0', _OR_ in the case of A-O-Slime, dialing out an 800/888/950 number or 10(1X)XXX+0 of the A-O-Slime entity, and _then_ when connected with the A-O-Slime switch, the payphone DTMF's out various identification digits. THEN the customer has to put up with various menu prompts! :( So, as I mentioned in my earlier posting, IMO, AT&T should route '00' and 10(10)288-0(#/0), i.e. calls dialed for AT&T's own 0- (zero-minus) operators, LIVE AND DIRECT to a LIVE HUMAN BEING, rather than menus and prompts. Actually, IMO, all LECs and IXCs _should_ do the same thing for calls to _their_ 0/00 type operators! If I wanted to place a '0+' type of a call, I WOULD HAVE DIALED (10(1X)XXX)+0+ten-digits or (10(1X)XXX)+01+international, or accessed the operator/card services with an access number for the carrier - 800/888/950/etc. If I wanted directory assistance, I would have dialed (10(1X)XXX)+1/0+NPA-KL.5-1212. And with all of these NPA splits (and now overlays), many (though not necessarily all, and not always 'neat and clean' or clearcut) DA systems allow the operator to check multiple/nearby (and soon overlaid) NPAs for directory lookup inquiries. When I dial something 0/00 'zero-minus', I want to go directly to an operator! MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut-1-2497 WORK:__mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu|4710-Wright-Road|__(+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity-5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New-Orleans-28__|fwds-on-no-answr-to Fax:UNiversity-5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail- ------------------------------ From: Donald M. Heiberg Subject: Denver: Home Number Ringing on Mobile Phone Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 14:09:51 -0600 From the "Rocky Mountain News", Denver, September 24, 1997 http://www.denver-rmn.com/business/0924west2.htm US West launches wireless with a twist Home number ringing on mobile phone is a first in U.S., company says By Rebecca Cantwell Rocky Mountain News Staff Writer (C) Rocky Mountain News US West Communications turned up its new wireless service in the Denver area Tuesday with a twist the company says is a national first: A customer's home number can be programmed to ring on the mobile phone. The Denver-based phone giant is the sixth company to enter the wireless phone market in the metro area and the third this year to launch personal communications service, or PCS. US West mounted an elaborate multimedia event at the Denver Museum of Natural History to make its long-anticipated announcement. The company also said it will offer free admission all weekend to the museum and three other cultural attractions to promote the service. Playing on its role as the virtual monopoly local phone service provider, US West will market the Access2 wireless phone service primarily as an add-on to regular service. Customers can choose their existing home or small-business office numbers as their PCS number, and incoming calls to that number can be routed directly to the mobile phone for $4.95 a month. Or customers can use the separate number assigned to the PCS phone. An existing voice mailbox can be used for messages on the PCS phone, and users can get immediate notification of messages left at home or work. Other familiar features such as Caller ID and call waiting are also available. "Access2 gives people their own portable 'one-stop-shop,' putting all the power and convenience of their home or office phone in the palm of their hand,'' said US West Communications President Sol Trujillo. "It's so advanced, it's actually simple to use.'' Trujillo said prices would be competitive. The company's Sony Qualcomm PCS phones sell for $199 with packages ranging from $24.95 a month for one hour to $69.95 a month for five hours. The idea is to provide convenience for customers in an era when "some of us need a poster-sized business card to hold all our phone numbers,'' Trujillo said. Peter Mannetti, general manager of US West Wireless, was introduced on a video screen talking on a PCS phone in the rain in front of sea lions at the Denver Zoo. Trujillo reached Mannetti by dialing his home phone number. After arriving at the museum, Mannetti explained that the technology allowing customers to use one number for both wireless and regular phones was developed at US West's Advanced Technology Center in Boulder. The company spent more than $100 million preparing for its launch, with about 155 towers in metro Denver. US West is launching its service after winning auctions from the federal government later than its PCS rivals. Sprint PCS and Western Wireless, which both launched service earlier this year, paid more than $64 million each for 30 mega hertz of spectrum. US West paid only $5.3 million for a third as much space -- 10 megahertz. Mannetti said that was "more than sufficient spectrum'' to meet its needs. The service launched Tuesday reaches from Longmont to Castle Rock and from Golden to Aurora, with plans to expand. Major rivals were unimpressed. "We applaud them in recognizing the future of this technology but its hard for us to be overwhelmed when in less than a year, we've launched in 65 markets and 500 cities,'' said Bob Kelley of Sprint PCS. US West is launching "a variation on something we've been offering for three years,'' said Mary Ireland of AT&T Wireless. And Craig Cavey of Western Wireless' VoiceStream noted his company's PCS service covers a wider area: from Cheyenne to Pueblo. But Mannetti said the market is growing fast. Predictions are that in five to seven years half the population will have a wireless phone, Mannetti said. "This is the biggest expansion of telephony since Alexander Graham Bell,'' he said. September 24, 1997 Submitted by Don Heiberg, Denver (303) 589-1539 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 18:46:20 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: 888 Shortage Hits Toll-free Phone Industry 888 Shortage Hits Toll-free Phone Industry By Roger Fillion WASHINGTON - The toll-free telephone business is in a crunch -- a numbers crunch, that is. Industry officials warn that demand for 888" and 800" toll-free numbers is so strong they need to conserve the pool of unused numbers. They want to avoid using up toll-free "resources" before a new 877" code is deployed next April. There seems to be sort of a run on toll-free numbers," said Sally Mott Freeman, spokeswoman for the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS), the industry group that monitors the allocation of toll-free numbers. ATIS has asked the Federal Communications Commission for a hand to implement a conservation plan" in the face of booming popularity for toll-free digits among companies and consumers, who clearly like the convenience and price of the product. The use of the numbers in pagers, faxes and other gadgets also has contributed to the squeeze, industry officials said. The toll-free codes let callers dial, free of charge, the party assigned the number. Users, like mail-order companies, airlines and parents of college students, pay a phone company or other toll-free provider a flat fee for use of the number. Availability of 800 numbers essentially dried up in early 1996 after nearly 20 years. The 888 code was introduced in March 1996 and was expected to last through spring 1998. We'll be lucky if it lasts two years," said Freeman. There are roughly eight million numbers available with each toll-free prefix. As of Sept. 20, there were 12.1 million 800 and 888 numbers in use and 2.6 million available, according to Morristown, N.J.- based Bellcore, whose subsidiary operates the database that distributes the numbers. The proposed conservation plan would limit the number of 800/888 numbers that phone companies and other toll-free providers can reserve for use by businesses and consumers. Currently, the roughly 210 companies that assign toll-free numbers face a ceiling of 2,000 a week, or 7.5 percent of all numbers they have available for use -- whichever is larger. Industry officials are proposing the FCC to sharply lower the cap applicable to each company. The cap would vary from company to company, depending on the number of toll-free numbers each company has deployed for actual use. ATIS told the FCC earlier this month that 401,051 new toll- free numbers were assigned in August, up from a monthly average of 344,113 for much of the year. Further increases, the group warned, would exhaust" the available pool before next April's 877 launch. At this point, however, officials don't anticipate the kind of crunch that happened in 1995 with 800 numbers. The FCC at that time crafted a plan to slow the depletion and smooth the deployment of the 888 code. Among other things, the introduction of the 888 code was moved ahead by a month. FCC officials are monitoring the latest situation. The convenience of toll-free numbers helps explain their popularity, especially among mail-order businesses and other companies keen on having customers call them. Industry officials also cite these factors as likely, or possible, contributors to the depletion: -- Greater use of electronic pagers, fax machines and voice mail based on toll-free digits. -- More use of personal toll-free numbers by consumers, such as parents who have a student at college and want to give that person a cheap way to call home. -- The approach of the holiday season, which prompts catalog companies to request more toll-free numbers. -- Next year's launch of 877, which has spurred companies to try and reserve remaining 888 numbers before they dry up. Once it was technically possible for many new categories of customers to use them, the market found a way to use them," Ken Branson, a Bellcore spokesman, said of toll-free numbers. Copyright, Reuters Ltd. All rights reserved ------------------------------ From: Wlevant@aol.com (Bill Levant) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 21:50:30 EDT Subject: Fun in Elkhart, IN (was Re: Radio Vigilantes) Maybe it's me, but my bullshit detector pinned when I read the story about the guys who (allegedly) bought a TV, hacked it to make a ham frequency jammer, and then reboxed it and returned it for resale. C'mon, now. Isn't this a bit much? For starters, how can these guys be sure that the hacked TV will be sold to someone who lives close enough to the repeater to make a difference? Won't the extraneous RF output louse up the PURCHASER'S reception enough to make him/her suspicious right off the bat? Isn't it an enormous amount of trouble to go to, given that there are easier, cheaper and more effective ways to jam a signal? *I* think it's a modern urban legend. For those unfamiliar with the term, I commend you to any of the several books on the subject written by Jan Brunvand, Professor of English at the University of Utah. Two of them, "The Study of American Folklore" and "Readings in American Folklore" are fairly scholarly; the others, "The Mexican Pet", "The Choking Doberman" and "Curses, Broiled Again" are considerably more accessible, and are funny as hell. You'll see that many, many stories that you've probably heard a hundred times before (and accepted as true without question) are actually a form of modern legend. ObTelecom example: Johnny Carson, or Steve McQueen, or Paul Newman, or Sammy Davis, Jr., or Robert Redford, or Burt Reynolds, or (... you get the idea ...) won a gigantic settlement against AT&T (or MCI, or Sprint, or ...) as a result of which Johnny/Steve/Paul/Sammy/Robert/ Burt/etc is giving out his credit card number publicly so that the unwashed masses can help him eat up the settlement money. Completely untrue; allegedly, one iteration of this legend, in 1981, cost the Wabash Telephone Company, of Louisville, IL about $100,000.00 in unrecoverable charges billed to "Burt Reynolds' credit card number", which turned out to be one of theirs. That is, I believe, PAT's neck of the woods (or at least a whole lot closer than Philadelphia is). Source : Curses, Broiled Again, P. 235, by Jan Brunvand (c) 1981 - published by W.W. Norton & Co. (ISBN 0-393-02710-4) Great exercise for the critical thinking muscles. Bill ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #260 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Sep 25 21:44:33 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id VAA25466; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 21:44:33 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 21:44:33 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199709260144.VAA25466@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #261 TELECOM Digest Thu, 25 Sep 97 21:44:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 261 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Security Alarm Problem due to Area Code Change (Bradley Ward Allen) Re: Security Alarm Problem due to Area Code Change (Roger Fajman) Re: AGIS Pulls Plug on Cyberpromo Due to Ping Attack (Louis Raphael) Re: AGIS Pulls Plug on Cyberpromo Due to Ping Attack (Bruce Pennypacker) Re: AGIS Pulls Plug on Cyberpromo Due to Ping Attack (Kevin R. Ray) Re: AGIS Pulls Plug on Cyberpromo Due to Ping Attack (Tom Betz) Re: MedicAlert and 209 Split (Laura Twombly) Re: Hooking Up Two Computers to a Cable Modem? (Shankar Unni) Re: Hooking Up Two Computers to a Cable Modem? (John McGing) Re: 800/888 Problem; Suggestions Welcome (Mark Brukhartz) Its Time to Make a Change (Judith Oppenheimer) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bradley Ward Allen Subject: Re: Security Alarm Problem due to Area Code Change Date: 25 Sep 1997 19:44:00 -0400 Organization: Q My opinions should be obvious, but I think they bear repeating: 1. When I was kid, we were given six months to change. I didn't think it was enough then, for those people that call only once every one or two years, but for just about every other purpose, including printing stationary, changing signs, printing phone books, notifying all your correspondents and relationships, and updating all your equipment, I always regarded six months as magically "just (barely) enough", and therefore acceptable. 2. Therefore, when I read that three months was all that will be given, then I automatically agree with the side that says to raise it to six months. What I do not understand, however, is the alarm company's problem with the three months: since they are large and organized, they can make arrangements with the phone company to convert the customers in the order of which numbers get switched first; with area code splits, often the phone company is able to incrementally effect more and more numbers, allowing certain numbers to go through via the old area code for longer than other numbers. This of course does need coordination between both companies, and is a cost that should be paid by local "RBOC's" that are not organized enough to get their new area codes in time to have a six month permissive period. 3. I point out that overlays would fix this situation, as long as seven digit within-area-code dialing is still permitted, at least as a long grace period (such as one or two years). 4. Finally, I have a question. With full number portability, will area code splits ever be necessary again? I mean, all the "2002, we will need a split in XYZ area code" charts that Bellcore puts out will be of a smaller "doomsday" importance, in that they will only be a chart of places that will have new area codes, but no splits? What I'm saying, is after the numbers in an area code are exhausted (which will not happen for a long time since portability will allow many current companies to use numbers for a long time), a new area code could be overlayed at any time, and suddenly new numbers for all phone companies would come out of the new area code, and it would not matter what area a particular line is in; the portability would decouple the locality concept of phone numbers; anyplace that requires the "older" area codes can be put on a waiting list for new "old" numbers, and then portability those numbers over to the requestors. 5. Because of #3 and #4, I protest the FCC requirement for 10 digit dialing, specifically that it should *never* require ten digit dialing, and only that 1+ dialing always work without being put into long distance companies for the suggestion, and furthermore that within-area-code seven digit dialing should be permitted since there will still be applications where that is useful. 6. I repeat what I already posted earlier, that I finally understand overlays to be anticompetitive, and it took me some time to realize this. Number portability will also fix this. 7. As an aside, in order to keep my home phone number during a short move in NYC, I had to put an order into Bell Atlantic's Business division to change my residential account to a business account for the affected line ($82.05) and subscribe to Business "Remote Call Forwarding" ($19.88/month + business rate usage for the forwarded calls, in this case all local, but long distance I think also would work); because the number I need to keep is the same number used as the accounting structure's "main" number (and line) for my account (and what starts out my account number), and I'm keeping other lines, those other lines need to be seperated in a Residential order before the number can be turned into a business account; because one of the lines that needs to be turned into the new "main line" must be an ISDN line (as there are no other non-ISDN lines), this order needs to be referred to the ISDN department; therefore, to obtain an entirely simple software-controllable in-switch change, it takes at least four to six departments, perhaps a set of twenty competent paper-pushers at Bell Atlantic working quite responsively (in my experience -- not only did they call me back from many different departments and leave lucent messages almost twice a day concerning necessary steps and my able to return those calls and leave messages in response, except for once (oops, where's that #? I think I already did ...)) and I just checked the status and they are doing quite well, and the original order was only placed earlier this week!), and what they predict will be about two weeks! Will this, too, change, with number portability (i.e., I move to Queens/Brooklyn/Bronx, and I can keep my 212# as a side-effect of number portability)? ------------------------------ From: Roger Fajman Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 20:19:46 EDT Subject: Re: Security Alarm Problem due to Area Code Change > Bell Atlantic is also appealing to the DPU to forgo a system that > would require callers to dial 10 numbers (the area code and number) > when calling people who are in the local calling area but in a > different area code. Bell Atlantic says the system is confusing > to customers. That's a rather odd position for Bell Atlantic to take, since we've had 10 digit dialing for local calls for some time now in the Washington, DC area, which is Bell Atlantic territory. Until recently, 10 (or 11) digits were mandatory for local calls to a different area code and optional within the same area code. Now, in Maryland, 10 (or 11) digits are required for all local calls, in preparation for the new area codes to be overlayed on 301 and 410. I believe that in DC itself and in Virginia, 10 (or 11) digits are still required only when a local call is to a different area code. ------------------------------ From: raphael@willy.cs.mcgill.ca (Louis Raphael) Subject: Re: AGIS Pulls Plug on Cyberpromo Due to Ping Attack Date: 25 Sep 1997 02:47:48 GMT Organization: McGill University Computing Centre Judging by my IN.spam box, I'd say that the latest plug-pulling dealt with about 1/2 of the spammers (by volume) out there. There aren't that many spammers -- it's just that they are harmful out of proportion to their numbers. My IN.spam box receives about 2-3/day, compared to about 5-10 before 'Promo went down. Louis ------------------------------ From: Bruce Pennypacker Subject: Re: AGIS Pulls Plug on Cyberpromo Due to Ping Attack Date: 25 Sep 1997 12:40:05 GMT Organization: Applied Language Technologies FYI, the following article was just posted on news.admin.net-abuse.email: Ok - now this will likely be preliminary only. (Nothing big will necessarily happen - dates will be set, etc.) However, from a well written article at: http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,14429,00.html?dtn.head Wallace, AGIS to face judge By Janet Kornblum, Stephanie Miles, and Jeff Pelline September 24, 1997, 5:25 p.m. PT update A federal court judge is set to hear a request tomorrow by Cyber Promotions president Sanford Wallace to make backbone provider AGIS reconnect the mass emailer. The hearing in front of U.S. District Judge Anita Brody comes after Wallace sued AGIS for breach of contract. AGIS disconnected Cyber Promotions, as well as Integrated Media Promotions and New Hampshire-based Quantum Communications sometime last week, according to AGIS spokesman Jason Delker. But Delker declined to detail when or why the spammers were kicked off. "We're going to attempt to get a temporary res- training order to get a connection," he said [Wallace] So there will be argument as well to attempt to get a TSO! ------------------------------ From: Kevin R. Ray Subject: Re: AGIS Pulls Plug on Cyberpromo Due to Ping Attack Date: 25 Sep 1997 13:54:16 GMT Organization: The Windy City TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Patrick Tufts : > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Has anyone attempted to contact him > at his office (or home or wherever) and get the details on these > latest allegations; i.e. money owed to Compuserve and his plans > for the future? Is there any activity at his office at all such > as phones being answered, a customer service rep on duty, etc, or > is his office abandoned? Does anyone have his {current} home number? I just tried their "offices" and all the extensions -- got voice mail on all of them. His technical updates did ask that his customers fax him a statement how much money they are losing, etc, etc, etc. Why don't we all drop a dime and fax him at 1-215-628-9762 or 1-215-628-2523 stating how much money we are SAVING with our systems being idle, users not calling our tech departments, wasting time hitting "d", etc, etc, etc. And if we did fax him with this is it not true that it is not solicitation (ie: illegal) and not harassment if we *ALL* do just one ... not to mention his poor fax machines would die a horrible death and his customers would be able to get through to him. :) > The other day I was helping someone who has a problem with rodent > infestation in their basement. I put out lots of 'nice, tasty food' > the little guys would be sure to like -- heh! heh! -- and already > today the results were obvious. Several bloated and quite dead > little carcasses near the food dish I had prepared. This leads me > to my final question for this issue: how severe is this rodent > infestation on the net? Obviously Spamford was one of their leaders, > but how many of the vermin still remain to be exterminated? Any > guesstimates? PAT] My guess would be around 1,000. There's still a TON of their bulk emailing software in the hands of unknowing people just WAITING to use it -- and to have their personal ISP accounts pulled. My filters have gone from nuking about 100 messages a day (to me personally) to about one every TWO days. I don't miss Spammy ... ------------------------------ From: tbetz@panix.com (Tom Betz) Subject: Re: AGIS Pulls Plug on Cyberpromo Due to Ping Attack Date: 25 Sep 1997 23:58:41 GMT Organization: Society for the Elimination of Junk Unsolicited Bulk Email Reply-To: tbetz@pobox.com Quoth trey@zipcon.net (Trey Valenta) in : > In nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) > writes: >> I suggest simply redirecting any spam you get from anybody, >> especially if it has any forged address information, or any hint of a >> false health claim or other scam, to the new Federal Trade Commmission >> spam reporting point, "uce@ftc.gov". > I suggest you DON'T do this. I can't find the article now, but the FTC > recently put out a statement that the large numbers of people who were > doing this is putting severe strain on the systems. Seems many have set > their procmail scripts to do forwarding on any suspected UCE/spam. > According to the FTC, they don't want to see the messages unless it's > definately fraud related and overall abuse will result in them pulling > the plug on the address or tracking the person down who is flooding > their systms. That was the IRS, not the FTC. The IRS has an address for tax fraud schemes, Ponzi scammers who mention "Tax-free" income, and the like. They complained about being on autoresponders, and want only tax-related spam. The FTC hasn't complained, yet. Last I heard, the FTC was welcoming all UCE to that address. We have tried ignorance | Tom Betz, Generalist for a very long time, and | Want to send me email? First, read this page: it's time we tried education. | | I mock up my reactive mind twice daily. ------------------------------ From: Laura Twombly Subject: Re: MedicAlert and 209 Split Date: 24 Sep 1997 21:15:30 GMT Organization: ESAC jf@oxy.edu wrote in article ... > Why can't MedicAlert just purchase remote-call forwarding or > foreign-exchange lines or work out something with the phone company? > What am I missing here? I'd like to take a crack at this. The first issue is whether or not something could be done so that MedicAlert could keep their 209 number even if Turlock was changed to the new NPA. While this is not technically impossible, it is 1) an administrative nightmare in that this exception would have to be maintained indefinitely and the whole world would have to be notified, and understand, this exception, plus 2) it would be enormously unfair to the rest of the customers in that prefix who would also be forced to stay in the 209 area, even though their city was in the new NPA. The second issue is whether this state of affairs was brought about because of MedicAlert in the first place. My understanding of the NPA split process (which I admit is imperfect), is that there is an attempt made to leave the old NPA with the area that is growing faster, and give the new NPA to the area that is growing slower. The reasoning is that if another NPA split is needed, it should be imposed on the folks that haven't just had one, rather than the folks that just went through an NPA split. I also understand that Turlock, and its surrounding area, appear to be the most rapidly growing part of the 209 area. Which means that Fresno would have gotten the new NPA and Turlock would have been left in the old NPA whether or not MedicAlert existed. Theoretically. Laura T. ------------------------------ From: Shankar Unni Subject: Re: Hooking Up Two Computers to a Cable Modem? Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 10:53:30 -0700 Organization: None John R. Levine wrote: > The slightly longer answer is that there are systems that let your > entire network hide behind a single IP address, doing translation on > the fly. (The three-letter acronym is NAT.) Dedicated NAT boxes tend > to be expensive but you might be able to find freeware for Linux. The Linux term for this is IP Masquerading. It's not 100% transparent, but most network clients work fine with it. You designate one Linux box as a firewall with IP Masquerading, to talk to the outside network on one IP address. Hopefully your cable modem is one that is usable by a Linux box (some cable modems come with required host software that is only available for Windows). The Linux box must have another ethernet card to talk to the local network, and you can put all your other hosts on that network, with some private IP address like 10.* or 172.16.*. The Linux box will act like a router, translating the private address to the public IP address in a way that allows the reply packets to be translated back to the original private IP address. This also means that incoming connections cannot be made to the private network, an added level of security. It takes a little skill and savvy to set this up, but the upside is the cost (free beyond the hardware cost of the PC itself, and even if you have to buy a separate box, you can equip a decent 486 PC these days for under $500, especially if you get it used and upgrade any components yourself; and a 486 w/ 8 or 16MB is all you really need to run a dedicated Linux firewall.) Shankar Unni shankar@webnexus.com Powertel Global, Inc. (408) 378-9745 ------------------------------ From: jmcging@dm.net (John McGing) Subject: Re: Hooking Up Two Computers to a Cable Modem? Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 02:16:02 GMT Organization: @Home Networks On 23 Sep 1997 05:53:53 -0000, johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) wrote: >> If possible, I would appreciate some detailed direction on what to get >> and how to setup for a second computer on a single cable modem. > The short answer is "you can't". The cable modem is a modem that > plugs into a single PC and gives you a single IP address. > The slightly longer answer is that there are systems that let your > entire network hide behind a single IP address, doing translation on > the fly. (The three-letter acronym is NAT.) Dedicated NAT boxes tend > to be expensive but you might be able to find freeware for Linux. > If you can get NAT set up, you'd plug the cable modem into the box > running NAT, then connect all the other computers to that one using a > regular Ethernet separate from the cable modem. If this sounds like > it's more trouble than it's worth, you're probably right. Check out the FireSock software from the makers of Trumpet Winsock. I saw it at TUCOWS, and it looks just like what you are looking for and isn't very expensive. ------------------------------ From: mark_brukhartz@il.us.swissbank.com (Mark Brukhartz) Subject: Re: 800/888 Problem; Suggestions Welcome Organization: Swiss Bank Corporation Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 00:19:39 GMT It would be more elegant to reserve a set of ten area codes for toll-free numbers, such as 880 through 889. That would permit eight-letter words to be used as telephone numbers. ``Call 1-88-BUY-STUFF. Operators are standing by.'' Since 880 (and 881) end with letterless numbers, they would be ideal for pager, personal toll-free and other non-branded telephone numbers. The existing 800 (and 888) numbers would be preserved forever. Everyone would win. Callers to branded numbers would need to remember only the word. Seven letter words would be in area code 800. Eight letter words would be in ``area code'' 88. There'd be about nine times as many branded numbers from which to choose (800 and 882 through 889). Other users would benefit from the large block of non-branded numbers for pager, mobile and personal toll-free use (880 and 881). Mark ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 18:56:54 -0400 From: Judith Oppenheimer Reply-To: joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com Organization: ICB TOLL FREE - 800/888 news... commentary... consulting... Subject: Its Time to Make a Change New York 09/25/97 (ICB TOLL FREE NEWS) Recent industry reports to the FCC indicate that 888 numbers may run out before 877 is scheduled for release in April 98. Indeed, the industry is quietly seeking ways to speed up the introduction of 877. Minutes from a February 97 SNAC (SMS/800 Number Administration Committee) meeting, note that based on the average usage during the prior three months of November, December and January, 888 exhaust would occur sometime in July, 1998. Given the 30-year run of 800, even that 3-year 888 shelf-life is absurd, further strengthening arguments for toll-free SAC partitioning as necessary for resource management, as well as marketplace application, survival. What is accelerating the depletion even beyond industry expectations? Didn't the FCC's April Report and Order set in place mechanisms that were supposed to stem this tide? Wasn't that, after all, its sole purpose? Marketshare Versus Depletion by RespOrg RespOrg Share of Working 800 Numbers as of October 1, 1996 MCI 26.06% AT&T 22.34% WILTEL/LDDS WORLDCOM 13.53% SPRINT 7.97% FRONTIER/ALLNET/RCI 6.07% STENTOR 2.51% LCI 2.25% NYNEX/BELL ATLANTIC 2.05% PAC BELL/SW BELL 1.45% CABLE & WIRELESS 1.20% ALL OTHERS 14.57% INDUSTRY 100.00% In October, 1996, the two largest RespOrgs, AT&T and MCI, had 1.6 and 1.9 million toll-free numbers, respectively. That's combined 800 and 888, business and residential service. Today, AT&T insiders report a slight decrease in toll-free revenue, combined with a growth in toll-free minutes, and a nmarketshare increase who's growth is fairly consistent with the industry as a whole. Bringing their total toll-free number base, as of September 1, 1997, to 2,112,312 -- an increase of a half-a-million toll-free numbers, encompassing both 800 and 888, over the course of past the year. Some other carriers as well, have actually maintained or lowered their share of numbers in recent weeks, whether by attrition or otherwise, but certainly not lining their coffers at this critical time. Those carriers include Allnet, Stentor, Cable & Wireless, and US West. But what of the rest? MCI, according to industry insiders, lost marketshare in minutes, yet increased its toll-free number base during the past year by 1.6 million, to 3,521,538 -- nearly doubling its entire pool. Indeed, during the week of August 23 to September 1 alone, MCI increased its holdings by 25,000 numbers. During that same week, AT&T acquired 10,500, Sprint 22,980, and Wiltel 24,000 toll free numbers. In total, there are now only 2.6 million toll-free numbers left to last through April 98, with 115,000 pulled out in the last week alone. Clearly there are some RespOrgs performing reasonably responsibly, such as Cable & Wireless, and others mentioned above. Similarly, with its huge customer base overall, we do not begrudge AT&T a half-a-million- number increase over a 12 month period. Indeed, AT&T recently told ICB that it intends to shift its focus away from marketshare, to profitability, caring less how many numbers it has in its vast stable, than how much revenue each account is driving. A reasonable business proposition, to be sure, and one that coincidentally does not conflict with resource management as a whole. Additionally, AT&T has publicly supported user-rights measures that would further alleviate depletion and promote a stable number resource foundation -- a stand-up move in a cut-throat business that is forthright, bold, and forward-thinking. Given snowballing depletion, vast statistical discrepancies in a very competitive marketplace, and AT&T's leadership support of some unorthodox, yet very practical solutions, we have to wonder how long it will take the FCC to reconsider its April Report and Order. Because its 'resource management' mechanisms are clearly running 800 into the ground. 800/888 ICB TOLL FREE NEWS 800/888 ...today's regulatory news for tomorrow's marketing decisions. TRY US FREE FOR 15 DAYS !!! http://icbtollfree.com (ph) 212 684-7210. (fx) 212 684-2714. 1 800 THE EXPERT. ICB Headlines Autosponder: mailto:headlines@icbtollfree.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #261 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Sep 27 02:22:11 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id CAA23486; Sat, 27 Sep 1997 02:22:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 02:22:11 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199709270622.CAA23486@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #262 TELECOM Digest Sat, 27 Sep 97 02:22:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 262 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Hooking Up Two Computers to a Cable Modem? (Bill McMilleon) Re: Hooking Up Two Computers to a Cable Modem? (John Lydic) Re: Hooking Up Two Computers to a Cable Modem? (David Abrams) Re: DNS Scheme For All Telephone Numbers in NANP? (Dave Stott) Re: DNS Scheme For All Telephone Numbers in NANP? (Fred R. Goldstein) Re: DNS Scheme For All Telephone Numbers in NANP? (Nils Andersson) Re: Bell Atlantic CDMA Privacy Option (Fred R. Goldstein) Two ISDN Devices on One Line (Stephen B. Kutzer) Can You Say Partitioning? (Judith Oppenheimer) Spamford Leaving Won't Solve the Problem (Eric Florack) Re: 800/888 Problem; Suggestions Welcome (Judith Oppenheimer) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill McMilleon Reply-To: billmc@mtco.com Subject: Re: Hooking Up Two Computers to a Cable Modem? Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 20:33:26 -0500 On Sun, 21 Sep 1997 01:27:05 -0400 Marc Baime wrote: > If possible, I would appreciate some detailed direction on what to > get and how to setup for a second computer on a single cable > modem. Can both machines run at the same time? Do I need a > multiplexer? A hub? Where does the cable need to be split? Before > coming into the cable modem? Coming out of the cable modem? > I have a NEC2000 ethernet card I used to use for a two PC Novell lan > that I had set up in my home ... can I use this card? Are there any > books on this subject? Any literature on the web? All replies > appreciated. Please respond to mbaime1@tampabay.rr.com with any > information on this subject. Probably be nice if you responded to the > group also as I'm sure many inquiring minds would like to know. Should be no problem to do this... Use use WinGate (http://www.wingate.net/) as a proxy server - works on Win95 or NT. There's lots of documentation at their website about how it works. Sounds like you can use the ne2000 compatible cards for your "at home ethernet" too. I use an eight port netgear 10 base T hub and have unshielded twisted pair cable connecting multiple machines at home. The nice thing about WinGate is that its "free" if you only need one active proxy connection at a time. Bill McMilleon LAN Administrator/Applications Developer 360 Communications ------------------------------ From: John Lydic Subject: Re: Hooking Up Two Computers to a Cable Modem? Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 17:43:45 -0400 Organization: Cuttler-Hammer Automation Reply-To: lydicjw@idt.ch.etn.com.etn.com John R. Levine wrote: >> If possible, I would appreciate some detailed direction on what to >> get and how to setup for a second computer on a single cable modem. > The short answer is "you can't". The cable modem is a modem that > plugs into a single PC and gives you a single IP address. > The slightly longer answer is that there are systems that let your > entire network hide behind a single IP address, doing translation on > the fly. (The three-letter acronym is NAT.) Dedicated NAT boxes tend > to be expensive but you might be able to find freeware for Linux. > If you can get NAT set up, you'd plug the cable modem into the box > running NAT, then connect all the other computers to that one using a > regular Ethernet separate from the cable modem. If this sounds like > it's more trouble than it's worth, you're probably right. IP proxy or spoofing is freely available for Linux, (it came with the RedHat distribution) and is relatively easy to setup. I'm in the process of doing that now. The only thing that can't be automatically routed behind the proxy is UDP (RealAudio, etc) which as I understand it may be assigned to a specific local IP address. John lydicjw@idt.ch.etn.com ------------------------------ From: David Abrams Subject: Re: Hooking Up Two Computers to a Cable Modem? Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 07:57:21 -0400 Organization: Galactic Industries Corp Search for a shareware product named "WINGATE" I have not used it but my understanding is it is a win95 internet gateway which allows an internal network to share a single external IP address. A proxy server will do the same thing. We use the MS proxy server and have illegal internal IP addresses. Only the proxy server external net card has a valid IP address. David Abrams Galactic Industries Corp dea@galactic.com www.galactic.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 10:53:34 -0500 From: Dave Stott Subject: Re DNS Scheme For All Telephone Numbers in NANP? In TELECOM Digest #256, J.F. Mezei wrote: > 800 (and 888) numbers are "router" based, right ? When I dial an 800 > number, the telco translates this to a standard telephone number, > right? > Why not do the same for *ALL* NAP numbers? It seems like a good solution, yet I have to wonder about the network load associated with such a plan. Looking up every single number, every time a call is placed would be a massive job. For instance, think about a radio contest, or tickets to a Rolling Stones concert going on sale -- every caller requires a lookup for the exact same number, thousands or tens of thousands of times every minute. This is on top of the normal call volume traffic. Consider, also, that we are looking up every single number to satisfy the desire of a small number of people who are only willing to change phone companies IF they can keep their old number. IF the service they are receiving is so bad today, or IF the new entrant's offer is compelling enough to change, we wouldn't need local number portability, but let's face it -- in most cases the service will be over the same outside plant facilities, maintained by the same technicians with the same level of training and the same level of desire to do a good job and only the switch will be different. Consequently the level service won't change. And the new entrant's offer may be better, but only marginally so. So is the investment in LNP worth the price to provide virtually the same level of service at virtually the same cost? Not in my opinion. And yes, I do have a business that relies on my phone number being accessable and somewhat constant, but I don't make service decisions based on the cost of stationery. If I have to change my number, it's just one more reason to communicate with my clients and remind them that their business is valuable to me. Dave Stott (602) 831-7355 dstott@2help.com http://www.2help.com ------------------------------ From: fgoldstein@bbn.NO$LUNCHMEAT.com (Fred R. Goldstein) Subject: Re: DNS Scheme For All Telephone Numbers in NANP? Date: 26 Sep 1997 15:21:45 GMT Organization: GTE Internetworking - BBN Technologies In article , jfmezei@videotron.ca says ... > 800 (and 888) numbers are "router" based, right ? When I dial an 800 > number, the telco translates this to a standard telephone number, > right ? The originating local exchange looks up the 800 number to determine which IXC owns it. That IXC then presumably does its own lookup to figure out how to handle it, which might map to a standard phone number or to a designated internal address on its own network. All quite fast. > Why not do the same for *ALL* NAP numbers ? You dial any number, > and the telco translates it to an actual "network address" wherever > that phone might be ? > This would remove the need to constantly split area codes since there > wouldn't be "area codes" anymore, just 10 digit telehone numbers. > Need a new line, just grab the next available number. With more and > more cities being split into different area codes, dialing 10 digits > for ALL numbers might become more natural than having to decide > whether one has to dial 7 or 10 digits. That's essentially what the FCC's mandated Local Number Portability will do. As of a phase-in beginning in 1998, once anybody asks to port a number, that prefix must change from today's handoff-to-CO into a database lookup. In other words, all calls to that NPA-NXX prefix must be checked against an LNP database by the "n-1" switch. The LNP database supplies a "location routing number" (LRN), which identifies the specific switch that the number now lives on; that switch then receives the dialed number. The FCC rejected an alternative wherein the terminating switch would say "this number has been ported elsewhere, go look it up". Under that scheme, only ported calls would have caused database lookups, making calls to non-ported numbers faster. The selected scheme slows everyone down, making it "fairer". (I realize that Digest readers could editorialize on endlessly here, and I choose not to belabor the point.) There's stuff about this on the FCC web site. > Also, when one person moves, one could keep the same telephone number > and the telco would simply change the routing tables. If one changes > supplier of dial tone, same would happen. Keep your number, change > routing table. Yes, but remember billing is based on the dialed number, so if you move to a different area, and keep your number, the cost of porting it becomes your responsibility. This opens a can of worms, so it's well into the future. Technically easy, of course. > This would be quite similar to the internet domain name system. But there is no explicit distance-based charging on the Internet. PAT> Also, I have to wonder about database failures as happens PAT> occassionally now with 800. A risk, of course. But there will not be one big fat national LNP database; rather, each ported prefix code will have its own ported numbers, and the telcos can figure out on a local or LATA basis how to sort them out. So a failure in, say, the Chicago database won't block New York. It wouldn't surprise me if, when the database failed, calls defaulted to the ILEC owner of the prefix (pre-portability) so un-ported numbers might still work. I think this will end up with third parties in charge. Fred R. Goldstein k1io fgoldstein"at"bbn.com GTE Internetworking - BBN Technologies, Cambridge MA USA +1 617 873 3850 Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 18:13:01 -0400 From: nilsphone@aol.com (Nils Andersson) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: DNS Scheme For All Telephone Numbers in NANP? In article , J.F. Mezei writes: > 800 (and 888) numbers are "router" based, right ? When I dial an 800 > number, the telco translates this to a standard telephone number, > right? > Why not do the same for *ALL* NAP numbers ? You dial any number, > and the telco translates it to an actual "network address" wherever > that phone might be? There is another issue, albeit of diminshing importance. COST. Both the caller and the PBX or equivalent behind which the caller is sitting might want to know if this is a call across the street (1c/min or so) or to Barbados ( about 50c/min, IIRC). The same is true for e.g. the payphone systems. The proposed plan necessitates a standardized way to carry back this info both in voice coded and machine-readable form, BEFORE the call is finalized. This is not to say that it cannot be done, just that this is a bigger job than the original poster may have realized. Regards, Nils Andersson ------------------------------ From: fgoldstein@bbn.NO$LUNCHMEAT.com (Fred R. Goldstein) Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic CDMA Privacy Option Date: 26 Sep 1997 15:08:38 GMT Organization: GTE Internetworking - BBN Technologies In article , brian@his.com says ... > And the other thing that was not true is the "Privacy" option > on the Qualcomm phone. Basically, it is the encryption in the IS-95 > CDMA standard. She said that I wouldn't like it because it added > about a half second of delay into the audio due to the processing; > however, it would be available "shortly." Well, I have never been > able to get BANM to define "shortly." Last week however, I finally > got a somewhat-knowledgeable customer service agent. She said the > only thing on their service menu remotely like encryption is > 'Transcrypt' and it was on the analog phones, not the digital phones. > So then I send my fourth e-mail to BANM in eight months, hoping to get > a higher-level response. This time, they call me back for the first > time. A lady in Networks says they have no plans to activate the > option. Why? "Dunno." I've never heard of an IS-95 call being particulary tappable at the air interface ... what additional privacy is needed? From my reading of the IS-95 summary at www.cdg.org, it appears that in the "reverse" direction (mobile to base), the phone chooses a spreading code based on among other things its ESN, which of course is never sent in the clear. If you don't have the spreading code, it's probably impossible or nearly-so to decode it. In the forward direction, I'm not so sure about the security, since it's not evident that there are unique codes for each "channel", just separate phases of a common code. But I may be missing something. Anybody know? If this is weak, then wireline-end echo might be enough to make the reverse channel audio audible. The keypad (not ESN) encryption method (CMEA) has been demonstrated to be extremely weak, as it was one of those "NSA secret" developments that left out the crypto community and turned out to be "hahaha" weak encryption. But that doesn't encode the voice or the ESN, and in practice may not be crackable off the air since the cyphertext blocks are so short. Fred R. Goldstein k1io fgoldstein"at"bbn.com GTE Internetworking - BBN Technologies, Cambridge MA USA +1 617 873 3850 Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 13:10:54 -0400 From: Stephen B. Kutzer Subject: Two ISDN Devices on One Line A quick ISDN question: I have ISDN to my house with RJ45 outlets in 4 locations. To date, I've only connected to one of these at a time. That will be changing in the near future when I will be connecting 2 PCs. Can 2 NT-1's be connected to separate outlets? I guess I'm a little confused on the "bonding" that takes place which ends up, from my naive perspective, giving me dial tone on my two SPID numbers. FWIW, I plan on connecting both PCs with external Motorola Bitsurfer "modems". I understand that I can only have a dual-channel connection from one PC at a time. But I'm wondering if (a) I can run one PC across one SPID and the other on the second SPID, and (b) if I can have phones and faxes connected to the external analog ports of each of these modems (in other words, will both locations provide dial-tone to both lines)? Many thanks, Steve ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 11:42:52 -0400 From: Judith Oppenheimer Reply-To: joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com Organization: ICB TOLL FREE - 800/888 news... commentary... consulting... Subject: Can You Say Partitioning? Partitioning - that's FCC-speak for separate domains for different toll-free SACs. The industry originally denied the feasibility of partitioning with 888 because it needed to drain more and more numbers for pager and other data services prior to the provisioning of 888. Now that provisioning can be speeded up, there's no more excuse. The current system is bad for business, bad for customers, bad for consumers - and terrible for resource management. Let's fix this - quick - before it's too broke to fix. Judith Oppenheimer ------------------------------ "888" shortage hits toll-free phone industry By Roger Fillion WASHINGTON, Sept 24 (Reuter) - The toll-free telephone business is in a crunch -- a numbers crunch, that is. Industry officials warn that demand for ``888'' and ``800'' toll-free numbers is so strong they need to conserve the pool of unused numbers. They want to avoid using up toll-free ``resources'' before a new ``877'' code is deployed next April. ``There seems to be sort of a run on toll-free numbers,'' said Sally Mott Freeman, spokeswoman for the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS), the industry group that monitors the allocation of toll-free numbers. ATIS has asked the Federal Communications Commission for a hand to implement a ``conservation plan'' in the face of booming popularity for toll-free digits among companies and consumers, who clearly like the convenience and price of the product. The use of the numbers in pagers, faxes and other gadgets also has contributed to the squeeze, industry officials said. The toll-free codes let callers dial, free of charge, the party assigned the number. Users, like mail-order companies, airlines and parents of college students, pay a phone company or other toll-free provider a flat fee for use of the number. Availability of 800 numbers essentially dried up in early 1996 after nearly 20 years. The 888 code was introduced in March 1996 and was expected to last through spring 1998. ``We'll be lucky if it lasts two years,'' said Freeman. There are roughly 8 million numbers available with each toll-free prefix. As of Sept. 20, there were 12.1 million 800 and 888 numbers in use and 2.6 million available, according to Morristown, N.J.-based Bellcore, whose subsidiary operates the database that distributes the numbers. The proposed conservation plan would limit the number of 800/888 numbers that phone companies and other toll-free providers can reserve for use by businesses and consumers. Currently, the roughly 210 companies that assign toll-free numbers face a ceiling of 2,000 a week, or 7.5 percent of all numbers they have available for use -- whichever is larger. Industry officials are proposing the FCC to sharply lower the cap applicable to each company. The cap would vary from company to company, depending on the number of toll-free numbers each company has deployed for actual use. ATIS told the FCC earlier this month that 401,051 new toll-free numbers were assigned in August, up from a monthly average of 344,113 for much of the year. Further increases, the group warned, would ``exhaust'' the available pool before next April's 877 launch. At this point, however, officials don't anticipate the kind of crunch that happened in 1995 with 800 numbers. The FCC at that time crafted a plan to slow the depletion and smooth the deployment of the 888 code. Among other things, the introduction of the 888 code was moved ahead by a month. FCC officials are monitoring the latest situation. The convenience of toll-free numbers helps explain their popularity, especially among mail-order businesses and other companies keen on having customers call them. Industry officials also cite these factors as likely, or possible, contributors to the depletion: Greater use of electronic pagers, fax machines and voice mail based on toll-free digits. More use of ``personal'' toll-free numbers by consumers, such as parents who have a student at college and want to give that person a cheap way to call home. The approach of the holiday season, which prompts catalog companies to request more toll-free numbers. Next year's launch of 877, which has spurred companies to try and reserve remaining 888 numbers before they dry up. ``Once it was technically possible for many new categories of customers to use them, the market found a way to use them,'' Ken Branson, a Bellcore spokesman, said of toll-free numbers. -------------------- 800/888 ICB TOLL FREE NEWS 800/888 ...today's regulatory news for tomorrow's marketing decisions. TRY US FREE FOR 15 DAYS !!! http://icbtollfree.com (ph) 212 684-7210. (fx) 212 684-2714. 1 800 THE EXPERT. ICB Headlines Autosponder: mailto:headlines@icbtollfree.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 10:34:55 PDT From: Eric Florack Subject: Spamford Leaving Won't Solve the Problem > Obviously Spamford was one of their leaders, > but how many of the vermin still remain to be exterminated? Any > guesstimates? PAT] That's not the issue. The issue should be: "How many will rise to take his place?" Consider: Spamford was merely responding to a market that already existed. The people buying what he was selling, assumed that the reaction to the ads he posted for them would be responded to with purchases of the product advertised ... enough to cover the costs Spamford imposed on those customers. To some large degree, that must be a correct assumption, given the number of repeat customers I gather he had. Him going away under any conditions is certainly something to raise a smile. But will it solve the problem, or will someone else come in to take his place? Seems to me that to cure the problem, we need to get across to the people spending money to have their ads spammed across the net, the idea that it's not a good PR move. /E [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Supposedly, Spamford was going to court to get an order requiring AGIS to reconnect him. Does anyone know the outcome of that? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Judith Oppenheimer Subject: Re: 800/888 Problem; Suggestions Welcome Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 23:55:46 -0400 Organization: ICB TOLL FREE - 800/888 news... commentary... consulting... Reply-To: joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com Pending Rulings, Advocates Urge FCC to Protect Interests Of Toll-Free Vanity Numbers; AT&T Lends Support NEW YORK, Sept. 22 /PRNewswire/ -- Pending rulings by The FCC that will affect how toll-free numbers are assigned and managed, ICB Toll Free, experts in toll-free application and management, urge The Commission to institute regulations that will, specifically, protect the interests of toll-free vanity number users, such as 1-800-FLOWERS, as well as resolve broader issues of toll-free number depletion. While it took 27 years for demand to deplete roughly eight million 800 numbers, experts estimate that the inventory of toll-free service area code (SAC) "888," established in 1996, will be exhausted in less than three years. An April 1997 Report and Order by the FCC cited concerns that RespOrgs, groups comprising predominantly carriers that are responsible for toll-free number assignments, are influencing depletion by "warehousing," toll-free numbers; that users are "hoarding" numbers they have taken, but have no plans to use, and that both groups are "brokering" numbers on the open-market. All three practices are against FCC regulations that demand numbers be allocated on a first-come-first-serve basis, and are rooted in carriers' and end users' desire to protect their investment in toll-free vanity numbers. Industry insiders explain that carriers who market vanity numbers, as well as commercial end-users, who invest money to build equity in their vanity numbers through advertising and marketing campaigns, believe they should be able to protect their interests in specific numbers. Judith Oppenheimer, ICB President, an expert and consultant on the use of toll-free numbers, and a user-group advocate, explains the problem: "Confusion, costly misdials and loss of business can and do occur," Ms. Oppenheimer says, "if for example, 1-888-FLOWERS is assigned to anyone other than the operator of 1-800-FLOWERS. Such end users want the right, therefore, to either replicate their 1-800 number when a new SAC is launched, or to be given right of first refusal." However, "replication" and "first refusal" are, Ms. Oppenheimer admits, only short-term solutions: "The real reason that toll-free numbers are flying out of inventory so quickly," she says, "is largely due to the proliferation of data and personal communications devices, such as pagers, that are devouring SACs almost as quickly as they are created. In a market crowded by personal and commercial toll-free numbers, we believe all numbers should not be treated equally. Possible solutions to the problem are evolving along two lines: First, a system, such as the one that presently exists for creating domains -- website and Email addresses -- on the internet, presents an excellent model for future toll-free number allocation. Notwithstanding its own inherent problems, the benefits of the domain system are that it is open, allowing users, if they wish, to register for and secure the particular address they choose, versus the current toll-free number system that subjects users to carrier-controlled assignment. A second solution involves partitioning, which the FCC is investigating, and which would dedicate the 800 SAC to traditional sales, customer service and marketing applications, and provide other non-branded toll-free SACs such as 888 and 877 for paging, voicemail, and other one-to-one applications that require the utility, but not the brand, of toll-free. This would permit carriers and users to treat 800 numbers, not just as an access code, but as a brand that is readily recognized by consumers, and can be openly promoted." Ms. Oppenheimer points out that, for once, ICB and AT&T are on the same side of the issue. AT&T, in fact, supports a recommendation to continue to resolve toll-free numbering issues, by helping to put an existing toll-free number customer of record in touch with a "number seeker." John Cushman, Director of Toll-Free Services for AT&T also supports ICB's view that specific toll-free numbers have intrinsic value. While he stopped short of supporting a proposal to legalize the private commercial exchange of numbers, Cushman did indicate a desire to pursue this area. "I believe the arguments that ICB makes, relative to toll-free number value, are supported by the history of the toll-free industry, current RespOrg to RespOrg practices, and our customers' positions on vanity number protection," he says, adding, "We are putting our heads in the sand if we believe that number brokering is not taking place in the marketplace today." An advocate for user interests, both carrier and corporate, and visible presence on the toll-free scene, ICB has been advising business owners, corporate marketers and the telecom industries since 1993. ICB publishes ICB TOLL FREE NEWS, the online journal of toll-free marketing, regulatory and political issues. ICB TOLL FREE NEWS web address is http://www.icbtollfree.com. SOURCE ICB Inc. CONTACT: Judith Oppenheimer of ICB Toll Free Consultancy, 212-684-7210, joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com --------------------- 800/888 ICB TOLL FREE NEWS 800/888 ...today's regulatory news for tomorrow's marketing decisions. TRY US FREE FOR 15 DAYS !!! http://icbtollfree.com (ph) 212 684-7210. (fx) 212 684-2714. 1 800 THE EXPERT. ICB Headlines Autosponder: mailto:headlines@icbtollfree.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #262 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Sep 27 20:49:06 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id UAA21351; Sat, 27 Sep 1997 20:49:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 20:49:06 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199709280049.UAA21351@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #263 TELECOM Digest Sat, 27 Sep 97 20:49:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 263 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Spamford Leaving Won't Solve the Problem (Michael P. Deignan) Re: Spamford Leaving Won't Solve the Problem (Mark W. Schumann) Re: Spamford Leaving Won't Solve the Problem (Robb Topolski) Re: Spamford Leaving Won't Solve the Problem (Bill Garfield) Re: Spamford Leaving Won't Solve the Problem (Trey Valenta) Re: Spamford Leaving Won't Solve the Problem (Jim Youll) Re: AGIS Pulls Plug on Cyberpromo Due to Ping Attack (amp@pobox.com) Re: AGIS Pulls Plug on Cyberpromo Due to Ping Attack (Steven Lichter) Spamford Rides Again! (Richard M. Sander) Moron Spammer Provides Toll Free Number (Babu Mengelepouti) Re: DNS Scheme For All Telephone Numbers in NANP? (Derek Balling) Re: DNS Scheme For All Telephone Numbers in NANP? (Barry Margolin) Re: Suspense: Sorry, Wrong Number - Yesterday and Today (Ryan Tucker) Re: Suspense: Sorry, Wrong Number - Yesterday and Today (Bear) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: kd1hz@anomaly.ideamation.com.nospam (Michael P. Deignan) Subject: Re: Spamford Leaving Won't Solve the Problem Date: 27 Sep 1997 17:06:07 -0400 Organization: The Ace Tomato Company In article , Eric Florack wrote: > Seems to me that to cure the problem, we need to get across to the > people spending money to have their ads spammed across the net, the > idea that it's not a good PR move. That sounds like a good idea. Are there any databases on the Internet that list companies who use spam as a marketing tool? For instance, a list of company names, telephone/fax numbers, and addresses would be really helpful. If a sizeable number of Internet users spent a few minutes and a few dollars in postage each week, maybe companies providing Spamford with his business would think twice if they got 25,000 letters that all effectively said "it has come to my attention that your company uses spamming as a marketing tool. For this reason, I have added your company to my list of "never buy from" companies." Or, something to that extent. MD ------------------------------ From: catfood@apk.net (Mark W. Schumann) Subject: Re: Spamford Leaving Won't Solve the Problem Date: 27 Sep 1997 19:07:33 -0400 Organization: Akademia Pana Kleksa, Public Access Uni* Site In article , Eric Florack wrote: > Spamford was merely responding to a market that already existed. The > people buying what he was selling, assumed that the reaction to the > ads he posted for them would be responded to with purchases of the > product advertised ... enough to cover the costs Spamford imposed on > those customers. To some large degree, that must be a correct > assumption, given the number of repeat customers I gather he had. Gather what? I don't know he had ANY repeat customers. Sure, he ran their ads more than once, but that doesn't mean the customer was actually paying for the repeat or even wanted it. Image is everything. Mark W. Schumann | catfood@apk.net Why should I change or hide my return address to deter spammers? I just loop the garbage right back at 'em. ------------------------------ From: rmt@bigfoot.com (Robb Topolski) Subject: Re: Spamford Leaving Won't Solve the Problem Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 23:11:42 GMT Organization: KJ7RL On Thu, 25 Sep 1997 10:34:55 PDT, Eric Florack wrote: > Seems to me that to cure the problem, we need to get across to the > people spending money to have their ads spammed across the net, the > idea that it's not a good PR move. I don't know about you but I'm not getting SPAM from Ford, Intel, or Avon. I'm getting SPAM from RGG at Box 14A in Anytown USA. RGG doesn't care about PR. He's happy with the 0.5% of return on 14 million basically free e-mail ads. Robb Topolski Hillsboro, OR ------------------------------ From: wdg@hal-pc.org (Bill Garfield) Subject: Re: Spamford Leaving Won't Solve the Problem Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 17:01:53 GMT Organization: You only wish you were this organized Reply-To: wdg@hal-pc.org On Thu, 25 Sep 1997 10:34:55 PDT, in comp.dcom.telecom Eric Florack wrote: >> Obviously Spamford was one of their leaders, >> but how many of the vermin still remain to be exterminated? Any >> guesstimates? PAT] > That's not the issue. The issue should be: "How many will rise to take > his place?" Perhaps, but hasn't someone now discovered what ammunition is effective in bringing the offending host network to its knees? Spamford's off the air, right? Seems to me what finally took him down could be used to bring him down again and again, as often as it takes. If it works for one, might it not also work for others? It's pretty hard to defend against a router storm. > Spamford was merely responding to a market that already existed. The > people buying what he was selling, assumed that the reaction to the > ads he posted for them would be responded to with purchases of the > product advertised ... enough to cover the costs Spamford imposed on > those customers. To some large degree, that must be a correct > assumption, given the number of repeat customers I gather he had. > Him going away under any conditions is certainly something to raise a > smile. Grinning from ear to ear. > But will it solve the problem, or will someone else come in to take > his place? Oh I'd bet on there arising from Spamford's ashes -several- to fill his void. Though perhaps AGIS might think twice before hosting this type of operation again (burned child fearing the fire syndrome). > Seems to me that to cure the problem, we need to get across to the > people spending money to have their ads spammed across the net, the > idea that it's not a good PR move. You might as well try shoving soft butter up a wildcat's backside. These advertisers are only going to fold their tents when it ceases to be profitable to operate via UCE and usenet. Boycotting and complaining had only minimal results. ------------------------------ From: trey@zipcon.net (Trey Valenta) Subject: Re: Spamford Leaving Won't Solve the Problem Date: 27 Sep 1997 16:42:57 GMT Organization: Alternate Access Inc. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Supposedly, Spamford was going to court > to get an order requiring AGIS to reconnect him. Does anyone know the > outcome of that? PAT] He did go to court and hearings lasted about all day. The judge has said that she intends to issue her decision on Monday. Trey Valenta trey@zipcon.net Seattle, WA ------------------------------ From: jim@newmediagroup.com (Jim Youll) Subject: Re: Spamford Leaving Won't Solve the Problem Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 10:55:41 -0400 Organization: Agent Zero Communications Eric Florack wrote: >> Obviously Spamford was one of their leaders, >> but how many of the vermin still remain to be exterminated? Any >> guesstimates? PAT] > That's not the issue. The issue should be: "How many will rise to take > his place?" > Consider: > Spamford was merely responding to a market that already existed. The > people buying what he was selling, assumed that the reaction to the > ads he posted for them would be responded to with purchases of the > product advertised ... enough to cover the costs Spamford imposed on > those customers. To some large degree, that must be a correct > assumption, given the number of repeat customers I gather he had. I disagree. He created a segment of that market by inventing demand (i.e. 'willing recipients' and the myth that people WANT to receive get-rich quick scams and pornos in their e-mail). He also built the business on the premise that "selling" means forcing your message on your victims until they submit and buy your ridiculous product. This is not a legitimate premise for business, and cannot be sustained in any market. > Him going away under any conditions is certainly something to raise a > smile. The flow of trash into my systems is slowed considerably, and I am getting more work done. This is good. > But will it solve the problem, or will someone else come in to take > his place? If someone does, they too will be forced off the net. It's untenable. > Seems to me that to cure the problem, we need to get across to the > people spending money to have their ads spammed across the net, the > idea that it's not a good PR move. Companies that understand anything about PR and marketing do not do this. At the worst, they do it a couple of times and realize they really blew it. And companies that haven't even tried it yet (real companies with real products and real customers) are learning from the mistakes of the first misguided pioneers, and will not be included to follow blindly. You will not see Procter and Gamble sending you ten to twenty ads per week through masked points of origin. Legitimate companies know that antagonizing potential customers DURING THE SOLICITATION is not a particularly good way to actually make a sale. Point made, I guess. Real companies don't do a LOT of things because they have nothing to gain by pissing people off. Sanford's customers have nothing, and so have nothing to lose. It's quite different. ------------------------------ From: amp@pobox.com Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 08:23:10 -0500 Subject: Re: AGIS Pulls Plug on Cyberpromo Due to Ping Attack raphael@willy.cs.mcgill.ca (Louis Raphael) wrote: > Judging by my IN.spam box, I'd say that the latest plug-pulling dealt > with about 1/2 of the spammers (by volume) out there. There aren't > that many spammers -- it's just that they are harmful out of proportion > to their numbers. My IN.spam box receives about 2-3/day, compared to > about 5-10 before 'Promo went down. The spam problem had gotten so bad with my mcimail address, that I finally made use of the filtering options provided by mci to automatically reject all email from the internet. Sounds pretty drastic eh? Considering I'd not sent any email of note from this account for over three years, one would think the spam would eventually taper off, but it just kept increasing. Somehow I got on one of those lists a long time ago (most likely from my PGP key), and it hasn't let up because the address was obviously good. It's good to hear that someone is actually doing what needs to be done to shut Spamford down. Like Pat, I would =never= condone violence against spammers. Nor would I tie them to the back of a train by the neck with a nice, sturdy bit of hemp rope. However, human nature being what it is, I'd advise spammers like Wallace to get good bodyguards that don't have email addresses. (If they used email they'd be too likely to do the scum in themselves). Name: amp E-mail: amp at pobox dot com Date: 09/27/97 Time: 08:23:11 Visit me at http://www.pobox.com/~amp Become an International Arms Trafficker! Forward this sig everywhere! -export-a-crypto-system-sig -RSA-3-lines-PERL #!/bin/perl -sp0777i Subject: Re: AGIS Pulls Plug on Cyberpromo Due to Ping Attack Here is an article that should explain what is about to happen. I have noticed that most of the UCE I get has dropped, but there is still a lot. AGIS PULLS THE PLUG ON BULK E-MAILERS DEARBORN, Mich., Sept. 26 /PRNewswire/ -- Apex Global Internet Services, Inc. (AGIS) the nation's fourth-largest carrier of Internet traffic is the hot topic of discussion after disconnecting several unsolicited, bulk e-mailers late last week for security reasons. "The attacks were of a nature which not only threatened portions of our global, public network, but other parts of the Internet as well," said AGIS CEO Phil Lawlor. "Our engineers simply followed AGIS standard security procedures in shutting their service down." Cyberpromotions filed suit against AGIS in a U.S. District Court in Philadelphia for allegedly breaking its distribution contract. Thursday; Judge Anita Brody heard arguments from both sides before she would make her ruling Monday. AGIS would not comment on the pending litigation, however further comments will be made publicly following the proceedings on Monday. AGIS confirmed that all virtual private networks remained secure. The Company plans to announce more stringent acceptable use policies. AGIS ( www.agis.net ), founded in 1994, provides Internet access to millions of users via its extensive customer base of Regional Bell Operating Companies, content providers, large corporations and Internet Service Providers. Always the technology leader, AGIS was the first National Service Provider to offer commercial 155Mbps connections to the Internet, the first to reduce points of failure in a network by using switching technologies and the first to degign a wholesale business model (so as not to compete with customers by selling retail access). AGIS offers Internet connectivity from 56Kbps to 155Mbps. SOURCE Apex Global Internet Services, Inc. 09/26/97 /CONTACT: Jason Delker of AGIS Public Relations, 313-730-1130/ SysOp Apple Elite II and OggNet Hub (909)359-5338 2400/14.4 24 hours, Home of GBBS/LLUCE Support for the Apple II and Macintoch computers. ------------------------------ From: Richard M. Sander Organization: GLOBALnet/The Sandrose Group, Inc. Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 16:13:07 -0500 Subject: Spamford Rides Again! Hi Pat! Here's the text of a fax we received today from Spamford Looks like he's pulling out all the stops --- text of fax follows --- GOOD TODAY ONLY! [note: we received it at 4:00pm EDT] CYBER PROMOTIONS HALF PRICE ** BLOW OUT** SALE! (proceeds will go towards Cyber Promotions' high profile lawsuit against AGIS who single handedly injured thousands of small business people by disconnecting their lifeline with no prior notice!) All of the following packages are now available on CD-ROM and shipped 2nd day air to your door! EMAIL LIST: 500,000 unblocked, deliverable money-making email addresses. Compatible with all popular email programs. Cyber Promotions has carefully selected these names of people who have not asked to be removed from email solicitation lists. Get these lists today, and make big money tomorrow! HALF PRICE --> $249 LIST X: Collect thousands of targeted email addresses every hour with this unbelievable software! Now you can harvest web *surfers* too! You won't believe the features included with this package! HALF PRICE --> $174 STEALTH BOMBER: Send out 50,000 emails an hour while cloaking your account id. This is the ultimate mass mailer! HALF PRICE --> $499 CALL NOW! THIS SALE IS GOOD TODAY ONLY! CALL 215-628-9780 and ask for BRIAN or ALAN! Help support the fight to do business through email! --- end of fax --- Need I say more? GLOBALnet is a division of The Sandrose Group, Inc. 2870 Peachtree Road NW * Atlanta GA 30305-2918 USA +1 770 801-1998 Fax: +1 770 434-7569 http://www.sandrose.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So let's all call 215-628-9780 and talk to Brian or Alan ... in a non-threatening, non-violent way of course. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 23:58:51 -0400 From: Babu Mengelepouti Reply-To: dialtone@vcn.bc.ca Organization: US Secret Service Subject: Moron Spammer Provides Toll Free Number Well, how kind of this spammer to give us not only a toll free number but a valid email address to contact him ... Return-Path: Received: from vcn.bc.ca (root@opus.vcn.bc.ca [207.102.64.2]) by m-net.arbornet.org (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id XAA16637 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 23:34:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from emerald.accessv.com (root@emerald.accessv.com [206.221.248.8]) by vcn.bc.ca (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA17488 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 1997 19:03:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mhady (port091-86.accessv.com [209.50.86.91]) by emerald.accessv.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA17338 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 1997 22:03:35 -0400 Message-ID: <3429F08F.33CE@accessv.com> Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 22:03:11 -0700 X-UIDL: 875300501.001 From: Maher Hady Reply-To: mhady@accessv.com Organization: Trade Gate Co. To: dialtone@vcn.bc.ca Subject: Additional Income helps! Dear Babu, I would Like to introduce Alive International manufacturer and distributer of superior products for The exploding health and nutrition industry. I'm a mechanical Engineer having my own company for Export to the Arabian Gulf. I joined Alive International as an executive Advisor and I started doing this business through the Internet this really helped me to build a steady income online, Have the Internet work for you while you sleep! [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Somehow I 'accidentally' erased most of this message while editing this issue ... so sorry! Oh well, I did save the most important part; his name, address and phone. PAT] For more information Visit my web site: http://www.accessv.com/~mhady/alive/ or - Send me an E-Mail: mhady@accessv.com or - Send a Fax to : (416) 352 5095 or you can call the Toll Free FAX on demand: 1- 800-750-8781 Maher Hady Toronto, Canada ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 10:18:34 -0500 From: Derek Balling Subject: Re: DNS Scheme For All Telephone Numbers in NANP? > It seems like a good solution, yet I have to wonder about the network > load associated with such a plan. Looking up every single number, > every time a call is placed would be a massive job. For instance, > think about a radio contest, or tickets to a Rolling Stones concert > going on sale -- every caller requires a lookup for the exact same > number, thousands or tens of thousands of times every minute. This is > on top of the normal call volume traffic. So you handle it the same way the current DNS system works, with cached versions of the numbers, with say a 12 or 24 hour lifetime before re-lookups are required. > Consider, also, that we are looking up every single number to satisfy > the desire of a small number of people who are only willing to change > phone companies IF they can keep their old number. IF the service > they are receiving is so bad today, or IF the new entrant's offer is > compelling enough to change, we wouldn't need local number > portability, but let's face it -- in most cases the service will be > over the same outside plant facilities, maintained by the same > technicians with the same level of training and the same level of > desire to do a good job and only the switch will be different. > Consequently the level service won't change. And the new entrant's > offer may be better, but only marginally so. True but using national databases of this system as opposed to local ones, you could eliminate the problems caused by small rural areas using 2% of their exchange. (e.g. map the dialed number to a CKT-ID#, and you can spread that underused exchange over a couple different CO's) You could also, if implemented on a national scale, allow TRUE number portability - something like the NPA-500 numbers were. You have your number, and its yours, take it wherever you want, just update the "Database" when you get to your new home, and the calls to your number are now mapped to your NEW house instead of your old, regardless of where you move. Does that require a little "rethinking" in terms of how people think and dial? Yes. But think about it this way -- by mapping a telephone number to a circuit ID using a databasing system like that, the database query could return back all sorts of information -- toll or local, mileage, rate information, and PBX's could be programmed just ONCE how to react. No more dealing with AC splits and having to reprogram your PBX every six months. Your PBX behaves just like it always has -- It queries the number, gets the CKT-ID [and presumably a path of how to connect to it], the rate information, etc. and confirms whether or not to complete the call based on the PBX's programming. For consumers afraid of making accidental long distance calls, the system could simply sound a tone upon completion of the lookup, indicating that the call is free or local, or some other way to be determined. Just a thought. Derek J. Balling dredd@megacity.org http://www.megacity.org/ ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: Re DNS Scheme For All Telephone Numbers in NANP? Date: 27 Sep 1997 12:45:58 -0400 Organization: GTE Internetworking, Cambridge, MA In article , Dave Stott wrote: > think about a radio contest, or tickets to a Rolling Stones concert > going on sale -- every caller requires a lookup for the exact same > number, thousands or tens of thousands of times every minute. This is > on top of the normal call volume traffic. Caching is your friend. That's how the DNS system works. Once a CO looks up a number in the central database, it can keep it in memory for a while. So if thousands of people in the same area are calling the same number it shouldn't require thousands of database lookups. > Consider, also, that we are looking up every single number to satisfy > the desire of a small number of people who are only willing to change > phone companies IF they can keep their old number. Unless they expect ported numbers to be extremely common, it seems to me that a better scheme might be to distribute a list of ported numbers to all the CO's periodically. The CO would check for the dialed number in this list; if it's not found it will route the call based on the prefixes. Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Cambridge, MA Support the anti-spam movement; see Please don't send technical questions directly to me, post them to newsgroups. ------------------------------ From: rtucker@crasher2.ttgcitn.com (Ryan Tucker) Subject: Re: Suspense: Sorry, Wrong Number - Yesterday and Today Date: 26 Sep 1997 22:29:25 GMT Organization: TTGCITN Communications, Des Moines, Iowa (www.ttgcitn.com) On Thu, 25 Sep 1997 18:18:20 -0500, Mark J. Cuccia spewed: > Also, I have described the story as I have heard it on several of its > performances by Agnes Morehead on Suspense. A motion picture version > of "Sorry, Wrong Number" was also done, starring Miss Barbara > Stanwyck. who also starred in the "Lux Radio Theater" recreation of I decided to check on that, and it looks like it's playing on Turner Classic Movies on October 19th at 8:30pm Central: Sorry, Wrong Number (Suspense) A wealthy hypochondriac overhears a murder plot. (B/W) Barbara Stanwyck, Burt Lancaster. (1948) (1 hr. 29 mins.) TCM - 119 Oct 19 (8:30P) If you don't get Turner Classic Movies, then call your local cable or satellite operator, yadda yadda. *grin*... -rt Ryan Tucker http://www.ttgcitn.com/~rtucker/ UIN: 1976881 finger rtucker@ttgcitn.com for PGP pub key/contact info there's something quite bizarre i cannot see.. -Mansun/Wide Open Space Origin address not hidden. Why? http://www.internz.com/SpamBeGone/ ------------------------------ From: Bear Subject: Re: Suspense: Sorry, Wrong Number - Yesterday and Today Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 09:35:43 -0700 Organization: Sherwood Forest. Delete 'army' to reply by email Mark J. Cuccia wrote: > I am _NOT_ titling this post with "Last Laugh" as part of the subject > line. While I do intend some sarcasm/irony further down, the > fictitious situation described here is _NOT_ funny. [snip - to save bandwidth] An excellent parody - masterpiece! Thanks Mark. But BTW, I could swear I saw a TV or movie version of this just in the past couple of years. I recall her being in a pink (or white) penguoir type gown. And I have a flash-back of the husband calling from a wall-mounted payphone in an airport or train station corridor. It was bone-chilling. Was there a movie or TV version? Or just getting senile? Bear please note: my "real" email address: eddyj(at)agcs(dot)com ****************************************************** NOTE: My "From" address in *newsgroup* post headers is munged to foil commercial spambots. To reply by e-mail please remove "army" from my ID. ****************************************************** ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #263 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Sep 28 09:27:24 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA24125; Sun, 28 Sep 1997 09:27:24 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 09:27:24 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199709281327.JAA24125@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #264 TELECOM Digest Sun, 28 Sep 97 08:27:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 264 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Bell Atlantic CDMA Privacy Option (brian@his.com) Re: Two ISDN Devices on One Line (Carl Knoblock) Re: Two ISDN Devices on One Line (junk-2-junkies) Re: Hooking Up Two Computers to a Cable Modem? (Marc Baime) Re: Hooking Up Two Computers to a Cable Modem? (Dave Padgitt) Re: Hooking Up Two Computers to a Cable Modem? (Melvin Klassen) Sprint Billing Disagreement (Sylvia Caras) Help With Line Noise Please (Tony Ward) Re: Denver: Home Number Ringing on Mobile Phone (Gordon S. Hlavenka) US West Hype-O-Matic (was Re: Denver: Home Number ...) (Bill Levant) RBOCs Few at Telephony Conference (Eric Florack) Re: Radio Vigilantes (Paul Schmidt) Re: Radio Vigilantes (Tom Watson) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 15:26:15 -0400 From: brian Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic CDMA Privacy Option fgoldstein@bbn.com (Fred R. Goldstein) replied to me: > In article , brian@his.com says: >> I've never heard of an IS-95 call being particulary tappable at the air >> interface ... what additional privacy is needed? > From my reading of the IS-95 summary at www.cdg.org, it appears that > in the "reverse" direction (mobile to base), the phone chooses a > spreading code based on among other things its ESN, which of course is > never sent in the clear. If you don't have the spreading code, it's > probably impossible or nearly-so to decode it. > In the forward direction, I'm not so sure about the security, since > it's not evident that there are unique codes for each "channel", just > separate phases of a common code. But I may be missing something. > Anybody know? If this is weak, then wireline-end echo might be enough > to make the reverse channel audio audible. > The keypad (not ESN) encryption method (CMEA) has been demonstrated to > be extremely weak, as it was one of those "NSA secret" developments > that left out the crypto community and turned out to be "hahaha" weak > encryption. But that doesn't encode the voice or the ESN, and in > practice may not be crackable off the air since the cyphertext blocks > are so short. Fred, You have missed the point of the thread. I was replying to a message about how Bell Atlantic Nynex Mobile doesn't seem to understand how their CDMA network works in certain regions and thus gives out erroneous information. I was continuing that topic by trying to make the point that BANM promised me one thing and delivered another. I wasn't commenting on the actual privacy option. It's like if when Caller-ID first came out and the phone company told you that they would provide Calling Number only but in a year they'd provide Caller-Name. So you go out and buy the more expensive Caller-ID Delux unit now instead of the Caller-ID unit on the promise that the service would be provided. You ended up wasting money because you didn't need the extra feature. I paid more for a phone with the promise of security now and super security later. Later apparently will never come. Brian And as always, please visit my home page at http://www.his.com/brian Find my PGP keys at http://keys.pgp.com:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=brian@his.com ------------------------------ From: Carl Knoblock Subject: Re: Two ISDN Devices on One Line Organization: Novia Internetworking - Omaha, NE Date: 28 Sep 97 00:07:46 GMT Stephen B. Kutzer wrote: > A quick ISDN question: I have ISDN to my house with RJ45 outlets in 4 > locations. To date, I've only connected to one of these at a > time. That will be changing in the near future when I will be > connecting 2 PCs. Can 2 NT-1's be connected to separate outlets? I > guess I'm a little confused on the "bonding" that takes place which > ends up, from my naive perspective, giving me dial tone on my two SPID > numbers. FWIW, I plan on connecting both PCs with external Motorola > Bitsurfer "modems". I understand that I can only have a dual-channel > connection from one PC at a time. But I'm wondering if (a) I can run > one PC across one SPID and the other on the second SPID, and (b) if I > can have phones and faxes connected to the external analog ports of > each of these modems (in other words, will both locations provide > dial-tone to both lines)? Your NT1 is an interface between the line (U interface) and teminal equipment that runs on the S/T interface. Only one NT1 can be connected to a line at one time. Several (up to 8) S/T devices can be connected to the NT1. As long as your Bitsurfers can use the S/T interface, you can do what you want to do. If they have built-in NT1 interfaces that cannot be bypassed, you'd better look for something else. Carl G. Knoblock Metro Apple Computer Hobbyists cknoblo@oasis.novia.net Follow the Yellow Brick Road to cknoblo@delphi.com KansasFest 10, July 22-26, 1998 ------------------------------ From: junk-2-junkies@sdem1.surplusdirect.com Subject: Re: Two ISDN Devices on One Line Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 10:22:16 -0400 Organization: Erol's Internet Services This will better be answered in the ISDN newsgroup, but here is what I know: Stephen B. Kutzer wrote: > Can 2 NT-1's be connected to separate outlets? No. The U interface (that is the 2-wire ISDN line that comes to the demark box in your house) can only connect to one NT-1. If you want to connect multiple devices, you have to do that on the S/T side of the NT-1. In the USA, most ISDN devices come with builtin NT-1, and no S/T bus interface, that does limit what one can do. > But I'm wondering if (a) I can run one PC across one SPID and the > other on the second SPID, and There are only a few ISDN TAs that let you do that. I think there is an ADTRAN 2x64. The way you describe your setup -- no you can't. > (b) if I can have phones and faxes connected to the external analog > ports of each of these modems (in other words, will both locations > provide dial-tone to both lines)? Again, possible, but you would need a diffrent setup, where you have an NT-1, connected to TAs (or routers, or...) that have an S/T interface on one "side" and analog ports on the "other side" There are some great ISDN web-pages, see www.ccg4isdn.com or www.isdn.ocn.com (and there are more...) ------------------------------ From: Marc Baime Subject: Re: Hooking Up Two Computers to a Cable Modem? Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 12:11:35 -0400 Organization: Road Runner Here's a response I received which wasn't posted here but which, I believe, will work: It is relatively easy to add computer to Cable Modem. You need to buy a 4 port 10BaseT Hub with uplink, another ethernet card for the second computer and 2 pieces of UTP RJ45 cable. I have a 3 com ISA ethernet card in the original computer. I bought a Netgear PCI ethernet card for the second computer. I bought Netgear 4 port hub and a 3 foot UTP and a 50 foot UTP cable. The 10baseT that currently plugs from cable modem to ethernet card gets moved to the uplink port of the hub. Push button in for uplink. I have the short 3 foot cable going from Port 1 of the hub to the first computer. I have the 50 foot cable in port 2 of the hub to the second ethernet card on the second computer. That is all the hook-up. Now you need to configure your account on roadrunner and add a sub account. You assign ID and password. The second user will log in and change his password. You will need to add a line to: in Control Panel/Internet/Connection/Advanced-Exceptions [ams-server;login-server:8080;ftp://;gopher://] without brackets. The master computer will have port 8080 or what ever you have now. The second computer will have 8081. Add the exceptions line to all systems. Change all proxy port numbers on sub-computers. Their, now you have two or more computers that can access Road Runner at the same time with out speed loss. Mine works great. I'll never go back to modem ISP's. ------------------------------ From: Dave Padgitt Subject: Re: Hooking Up Two Computers to a Cable Modem? Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 20:57:29 -0500 Organization: EnterAct L.L.C. Turbo-Elite News Server Reply-To: dp@enteract.com On a related note, I have heard of networks that can distribute info around the house over phone lines instead of coax. Does anyone know where I can find such a product? Any thoughts as to quality, reliability, cost, etc? ------------------------------ From: klassen@UVic.CA (Melvin Klassen) Subject: Re: Hooking Up Two Computers to a Cable Modem? Date: 26 Sep 1997 16:34:30 -0700 Organization: University of Victoria Marc Baime writes: > If possible, I would appreciate some detailed direction on what to get > and how to setup for a second computer on a single cable modem. > Any literature on the web? For the IBM OS/2 Warp environment, see "My Little LAN"; the URL is: http://www.iinet.net.au/~summer/OS2/MyLan.html > Can both machines run at the same time? > Do I need a multiplexer? A hub? > Where does the cable need to be split? > Before coming into the cable modem? > Coming out of the cable modem? Yes. No. No. Not physically, but "electronically" inside the first machine. ------------------------------ From: sylviac@netcom.com (Sylvia Caras) Subject: Sprint Billing Disagreement Organization: Netcom On-Line Services Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 19:19:40 GMT Sprint Unclear on Billing Practices I'd like to show Sprint that I have some who agree with me. I was referred here by one of the members of the spam-l list. Please telephone, in the U S, 1 800 877 4646, and press enough voice mail menu buttons to get to a live operator. I don't know the Canadian service number; it may be the same. Or email, if you know a good address. All I could find that didn't bounce was webmaster@www.sprint.com Please let them know you are calling/writing in reference to Cust # 182448994, 408 426 5335, and that you read about the controversy here on the Internet. And I hope you will suggest to them they should adjust my bill. Sprint changed me to their Sprint Cents plan a few months ago on their own initiative. While I did later find out about the change, I never received any written details. What I thought I knew is that from 7 PM to 7 AM, calls to "1 area code prefix four digits" (1 xxx xxx xxxx) were 10 cents a minute. One evening after 7 PM, I made a call that lasted 73 minutes and was startled yesterday to receive a bill for $73, $1 a minute instead of 10 cents. Sprint told me, when I questioned the charge, that I should have known I was making an international call to Canada, that the international rates applied here and were different and that despite there being no different country code for Canada and despite the number format being the same 10 digits as for within the United States, that it was up to me to have known the charge I was incurring. Are they right? They won't bend and have already billed my credit card (because that was how I had authorized the billing duh!). I've cancelled Sprint and am planning to call the card company and protest. As well, I'd like Sprint to know that I am not alone in thinking what they have done is wrong and hardly furthers relations between the United States and Canada. Goodness - open borders and closed telecommunication! I've been with Sprint for about 15 years. Bills have always been paid timely and average $50 a month. Calls have always been at prudent times. They don't even seem to care that I cancelled. I'd like it if you'd call, and or e mail to webmaster@www.sprint.com Thanks, Sylvia Caras, owner, MADNESS coordinator, the family of mad lists on LISTSERV@maelstrom.stjohns.edu and at www.madnation.org SylviaC@netcom.com 1 408 426 5335 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: No Sylvia, they really don't care that you cancelled after fifteen years. To their way of thinking, a new sucker is born every minute. We've had lots of discussions here in the past about Sprint making changes in their programs without bother- ing to tell anyone, and flat out simply violating their own contracts in the middle of a promotion when they decided it was not to their advantage to continue as it was written. Even if ten cents per minute to Canada was not the established rate, a dollar per minute seems rather excessive, but Sprint has used 'bait and switch' tactics like that for as many years as we have written about them here. Good luck in getting an adjustment. My suggestion is you handle it by telling your credit card company not to pay it rather than by trying to get an adjustment from Sprint. What would you like to wager that if anyone reading the Digest did call, Sprint would either refuse to discuss it or claim that no such customer number existed, etc? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Tony Ward Subject: Help With Line Noise Please Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 18:17:48 -0500 Organization: StarNet Communications, Inc I currently have two phone lines, one for voice and one for my modem. My question is this: I have line noise on both lines (local radio station). I have installed a noise supressor on both lines (close to modem and phone). I currently have a 28,8 modem (connect at 26,4 or 24) and was wondering wether the supressor inhibits modem connection speed (actually I can not connect without the supressor being there). Is there anything else I can realistically do to stop the interference and is it worth my while getting a k56flex modem? Would it be better to put a line supressor where my telco box comes into the house (if so how?). Many MANY thanks for your help. Tony Ward tonyeo@black-hole.com ------------------------------ From: Gordon S. Hlavenka Subject: Re: Denver: Home Number Ringing on Mobile Phone Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 16:42:00 -0500 Organization: Crash Electronics, Inc. Reply-To: gordon@crashelex.com Donald M. Heiberg wrote: > From the "Rocky Mountain News", Denver, September 24, 1997 > http://www.denver-rmn.com/business/0924west2.htm > Customers can choose their existing home or small-business office > numbers as their PCS number, and incoming calls to that number can be > routed directly to the mobile phone for $4.95 a month. Or customers can > use the separate number assigned to the PCS phone. > After arriving at the museum, Mannetti explained that the technology > allowing customers to use one number for both wireless and regular > phones was developed at US West's Advanced Technology Center in Boulder. > Major rivals were unimpressed. And so am I. I've been doing this for a couple of years now, on a plain old analog AMPS cellphone, for $1.20 a month; I just ordered "Busy Line Transfer" and "Alternate Answering" from Ameritech. These services cost 60 cents each, per month. (Actually, it was an Ameritech rep who turned me on to this.) People can call me on the landline number and if I don't answer, after 4 or 5 rings the call goes to the cellphone. If I don't answer _there_, it goes to the cellular voicemail. Having the Busy Transfer feature as well makes the whole thing work as if I had landline voicemail. But I don't bother with voicemail on the landline; I use the cellular voicemail exclusively. Details in the "free advice" section of my website. Gordon S. Hlavenka www.crashelex.com gordon@crashelex.com Grammar and spelling flames welcome. Some of us still think it's important. ------------------------------ From: Wlevant@aol.com (Bill Levant) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 20:49:59 EDT Subject: US West Hype-O-Matic (was Re: Denver: Home Number ...) In issue 260, Donald Heiberg posted an article from the __Rocky Mountain News__ that said, in part ... > ...US West Communications turned up its new wireless service in the Denver > area Tuesday with a twist the company says is a national first: A > customer's home number can be programmed to ring on the mobile phone. The company may SAY it's a "national first", but to this hype-impaired reader, it sure sounds like "call-forwarding variable" on the home number. Period. Now, if they meant to say that incoming calls ring in BOTH places simultaneously, well that's a horse of a different color, but if so, their flacks did a lousy job of getting the word out, because this story DOESN'T SAY THAT ! Bill ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 06:47:33 PDT From: Eric Florack Subject: RBOCs Few at Telephony Conference From TIPWORLD.COM: ** RBOCs few at telephony conference Regional Bell telephone operating companies were conspicuous by their absence at this week's Voice on the Net show at Boston's World Trade Center. Bell Atlantic registered just one representative, U.S. West also sent one, a source told Internet Daily. New media consultant Vin Crosbie said "the telephone companies are here in one-sies and two-sies, while the long distance companies, like AT&T, MCI and Lucent are here with armies." The 30 exhibitors were primarily technology- focused. Show awards went to Selsius Systems, Inc. for a LAN-based PBX system allowing just one network to be used for data and voice Internet transfers, and Voxware, for its VIPSuite software tools designed to improve the speech quality of Internet-carried calls. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 20:42:30 -0500 From: Paul Schmidt Organization: pschmidt at viaduct.custom.net Subject: Re: Radio Vigilantes TELECOM Digest Editor noted: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Back in the 1970's there were a lot of > guys with the knowledge and equipment to convert CB radios into ten- > meter transceivers. Then there were those of us who did it *LEGALLY*. Those boards made by Cybernet (with numbers in the corners like PTBM039AOX) were lots of fun for those of us on limited budgets during the sunspot peak of the late '70s. I remember the thrill of working stations in England and Russia on AM just below 29 MHz; of adding an FM detector chip and tossing some audio onto the VCO to use one on 29.6 MHz FM; of turning on the transmit oscillator to (kind of) demodulate SSB signals ... Sure, I knew how to run them all over the illegal frequencies; but I was in my late teens, with both amateur and commercial FCC licenses, and was going for an EE degree, I saw no reason to risk my future.. (although no doubt it would have probably been very profitable). There are still some of us who believe in right and wrong. I made enough money working on legal CB's when I was in high school, then working in the repair shop for a ham equipment dealer when I was in college. I got the degree a couple of years after that, and now spend my days making computers talk to each other... It's nice to remember some of the low-budget fun of those days -- and I don't regret passing up the opportunity to make some quick (illegal) bucks. Paul Schmidt Bloomfield, IN USA Amateur Radio K9PS http://viaduct.custom.net/pschmidt ARRL Life Member PGP fingerprint: 24 9F D3 BD AE E3 50 72 QCWA Life Member 26711 Linux 2.0.pre-31 23 AB A0 64 BB 9E 2B 8D Cnhy Fpuzvqg : rot13 for SpamBots! ------------------------------ From: tsw@cagent.com (Tom Watson) Subject: Re: Radio Vigilantes Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 18:26:59 -0700 Organization: CagEnt, Inc. In article , James Bellaire wrote: <<>> > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: <<>> > once the general public found out about CB radio then shortly after > that (with Johnny Cash's song) it was ruined for everyone. PAT] It wasn't Johnny Cash, it was "C.W. McCall". "The rubber duck". tsw@cagent.com (Home: tsw@johana.com) Please forward spam to: annagram@hr.house.gov (my Congressman), I do. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thank you, and I stand corrected. But as we have noted here in the past, accuracy of the details is not all that important ... anyway, it was that very popular song in the middle/late 1970's about the convoy of truckers running through the toll-plaza without stopping to pay the toll which caught the ear of so many people and made CB very popular. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #264 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Sep 30 09:03:21 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA25878; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 09:03:21 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 09:03:21 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199709301303.JAA25878@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #265 TELECOM Digest Tue, 30 Sep 97 09:03:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 265 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Toll Free Domains (Greg Monti) Major Phone Cut in Mississauga, Ontario (David Leibold) Spam Analysis (oldbear@arctos.com) Now There is Spam in the Chinese Language (Robert Casey) Cellular Phone Purchase (Lisa Hancock) Just for Fun: The Payphone Project (oldbear@arctos.com) Long Distance Wholesale Club Free Calling Offer (Eli Mantel) Re: Spamford Leaving Won't Solve the Problem (J.F. Mezei) Re: Spamford Leaving Won't Solve the Problem (Perry Quan) Re: Spamford Leaving Won't Solve the Problem (J.D. Baldwin) Re: Spamford Leaving Won't Solve the Problem (Jeremy Radlow) Re: Spamford Rides Again! (Bill Walker) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 00:18:51 -0400 From: Greg Monti Subject: Toll Free Domains I've been reading with interest Judith Oppenheimer's postings to TELECOM Digest advocating a concept of toll-free domains. Correct me if I'm wrong. You advocate that business sales departments and customer service centers should be the only parties allowed to have NANP telephone numbers beginning with the magical digits 1-800. All other users currently having 1-800 numbers shall be summarily booted out into one or more other Special Access Codes, such as 1-888 or 1-877. When a new user requests a toll free number from his or her long distance carrier of choice, he or she will be asked (under penalty of what?) just what the new number will be used for. If it will be for a sales department, the user will get a number beginning with 1-800. If it is for, say, a pocket pager, the user will get one beginning with, say 1-888. If the user *lies* to get a number beginning with 1-800 and routes it to a pocket pager, what happens then? Does the customer go to Telecom Jail and do penance by being strapped to a step-by-step switch until his or her hearing is nonexistent? What new government agency will administer this punishment? Will the taxpayers pay for this enforcement? In spite of its unworkability, doesn't your plan of dividing toll free numbers into groups based on what they are used for simply postpone the inevitable? Even if all cell phones, personal toll free numbers, and pagers are kicked out of 1-800, won't 1-800 fill up eventually anyway with legitimate sales departments and customer service users? What do we do when the 7,900,001st customer calls up and wants a new 1-800 number and all of them are gone? Do we open a new code, say 1-866, and assign them a number there? Suppose the customer chooses 1-866-FLOWERS? Or suppose 1-866-FLOWERS is *chosen randomly* for the customer? Doesn't that put us right back where we are today? What will your solution be then? Actually, I am largely in agreement with you. I say: - Let customers have whatever toll free numbers they want. Customers should have ownership rights in their toll free numbers. - Let 'em hoard as many numbers as they want. - Let 'em pay $100 for two years to reserve a number, same as they do with domain names from InterNIC. The $100 charge would apply to telcos as well as to end user customers. Every time a number is removed from the pool and taken posession of by any entity, it's another $100. No refunds if used less than two years. When it changes hands from telco to end user customer, it's another $100. Every time it changes hands, another $100 to the database administrator. - Let people buy, sell, reserve, lease and trade toll free numbers at will, at any price the market will bear. It's like concert tickets. Scalpers welcome. - Let the owner of 1-800-FLOWERS sue the owner of 1-888-FLOWERS to enforce his property rights, just like they would do with a real estate boundary or a brand name logo. Perhaps in another five years, people will finally get it through their thick heads that toll free numbers are not "free." They are premium-priced long distance, which is marked up and charged back to you, the consumer. By then, maybe the FCC will have come to its senses and dropped the distorted policy of subsidies that is driven by exhorbitant access charges. Domestic long distance calls will be two cents a minute during weekdays. Hell, that's almost free. Greg Monti Jersey City, New Jersey, USA gmonti@mindspring.com http://www.mindspring.com/~gmonti ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 00:18:56 EDT From: David Leibold Reply-To: David Leibold Subject: Major Phone Cut in Mississauga, Ontario A major cable cut occurred in the Mississauga, Ontario phone service over the weekend, affecting the Bell Canada Streetsville exchange (Pearl Street DS0 central office, at least as of a few years ago). Listed NPA 905 NXXes affected are 542, 567, 812, 813, 819, 821, 826, 858. CBC Television news tonight reported that some phones could be out of order until Friday, though most service should resume before that. The reports showed temporary payphone setups in affected neighbourhoods, apparently with free local calls available during the inconvenience. An early report with some of the details was in the Toronto Star, 28 September 1997, which should be web-accessible for about a month: www2.thestar.com/thestar/back_issues/ED19970928/news/970928A04_CI-PHONE28.html (or failing that URL, go through www.thestar.ca into Back Issues...) And the moral of the story ... "Call Before You Dig" (the telco repair/cable locating folks, that is). ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 19:02:54 -0400 From: The Old Bear Subject: Spam Analysis Pat: The following is something I did about two months ago to get a better understanding of the kind of "unsolicitied commercial email" that is being spewed into my mailbox. Readers of TELECOM Digest may find it of interest, particularly the observations about: 1. the *size* of the typical spam email message versus the that of the typical legitimate individual message; 2. the volume of spam compared with legitimate messages (other than subscribed mailing lists and other solicited bulk mail); 3. the apparent evolution of a subset of standard English punctuation which might be called 'spammese'. From: oldbear@arctos.com (The Old Bear) Subject: the case of the telltale exclamation point ! Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 18:48:18 -0400 Since the beginning of the year, rather than deleting email SPAM, I have been filtering it off into a file called "SPAM" for purposes of intellectual curiosity. Well, it being a slow Friday afternoon, I decided to do some analysis. First, let me say that I already filter the 'from:' field to sort mail from subscribed lists and newsletters into appropriate folders. That reduces the mail volume in my general in-box considerably. I also filter mail from about ten individuals from whom I regularly expect to receive mail into a priority folder. That left 2,195 messages as "general" in-box material, or for the 213 days, an average of 10.3 unclassified messages per day. Of these 2,195 messages, I had manually sorted out 715 "spam" messages, or roughly 32% of the total unclassified message traffic. It should be noted that on a 'number of bytes' basis, the percentage of "spam" is much larger, totally 3,385KB of 6,809KB, or 50%. This means that the average "spam" email is 4.74KB compared with the average "real" e-mail being only 2.31KB including headers. A very scary statistic. Having noticed that spammers are not only verbose, but have a propensity to use needless exclamation points in the subject line, I decided to see what would happen if I filtered out any email message from the unclassified message traffic which contained a "!" in the subject line. Of 715 spams, 262 messages were selected -- a detection rate of 37%. Of 1480 "real" messages, 75 were selected -- a false positive rate of only 5%. A further examination of the "false positives" showed that 22 of them related to the contact management software "ACT!" made by Symantec and about which I had been in correspondence with several other users at one point earlier in the year. Obviously, an unfortunate choice of product name. Another 20 messages were replies to subject lines containing "!" which I foolishly had originated myself, such as "Happy birthday!" and "thanks!" -- something I pledge never to do again. That brings random "false positives" to 33, or 2% which may or may not be an acceptable level to any particular email user. In summary, based upon my sample (your mileage may vary), just filtering for exclamation points intercepts 37% of incoming "spam" while erroneously intercepting only 2% of bona fide message traffic. Personally, manually trashing ten messages per day is not so onerous that I would risk losing 2% of my valid unclassified email. But it does provide some indication of how "intelligent" filtering might be possible under current circumstances. Unfortuantely, 'professional' spammers eventually will figure out the filtering algorithms much like professional tax advisors have figured out what provokes an electronic IRS audit flag, or how shrewd job applicants have figured out what will get their resumes flagged by personnel departments which use electronic scanning. Even so, most of the annoying amateur multi-level marketing and chain letter garbage is so stupidly constructed that taking it out of the mailstream should be relatively easy -- even though doing it at the end point remains a tremendously inefficient use of resources. Cheers, The Old Bear ------------------------------ From: wa2ise@netcom.com (Robert Casey) Subject: Now There is Spam in the Chinese Language Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 21:01:56 GMT Yesterday in "rec.audio.tubes" saw a post that was unreadable (not just a language that uses the ASCII character set, but special code to send info to special reader software to write the message in Chinese characters). Figured that some audiophile in Japan or similar posted something related to audio, and just forgot to translate it first into English and ASCII. Dumb move, but I've done dumb things before myself. Posted a followup asking for English. Another person in the newsgroup says that it's just a spam message from Taiwan. Nothing to do with audio. A good friend of mine owns an advertising and PR firm. Talking about the Internet with him, told him "don't ever send mass e-mail (spam) because it will just anger millions of people". He hasen't gotten on the 'net yet, and unsure how to advertise (properly) using it. Told him about SPAM and how hated it is. I wanted to make sure he doesn't get sold a "bill of goods" by some spammer "service" and cause him (and all of us) a lot of grief! AFAIK, a web page is an acceptable method of advertising something. It doesn't get in your face like SPAM does. ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: Cellular Phone Purchase Date: 28 Sep 1997 19:35:50 GMT Organization: Net Access BBS Well, I finally broke down and joined modern civilization. I bought a cellular phone today. On the one hand, it's pretty slick. They gave me the phone and after a few minutes charging, it was ready to use. On the other hand, dealing with them was very frustrating. These phones are very expensive to use, and getting accurate rates from them was hard because I kept getting conflicting information. * One brochure said I was billed from SND to END, regardless if the called party answered. Another brochure said busy/no answer aren't billed. This could mean a BIG difference in cost, esp since they bill by the minute, including fractional minutes. I don't want to waste a $1 on a busy signal. That's ridiculous. * One brochure described a large extended home area of 59c/minute for all calling plans. Another brochure said the Basic Plan didn't offer that. Sales people were also contradictory on this. * Sales people were clueless on how and when "long distance" charges were billed for calls within the home area. The home area is rather large, and it's possible it may be cheaper for me to use my cellular than my regular long distance carrier off peak. Also, they were contradictory if their long distance charges were _in addition to_ or _instead of_ the regular air time fees. * No one could tell me how to use the phone outside its home area, if or when I'd want to switch "A" to "B", or how I'm billed. I received no information on roaming. They said if I were, say in Chicago and had my phone on, someone could dial my number and reach me. I find that surprising. * Per my request, they sold me an auxillary battery. But later I found out there's a lighter yet longer-life one (albeit at higher cost), that I wanted. I assume they'll let me exchange. * One salesperson said I could use the phone while charging off a wall outlet. Another said no. (It appears not, given the design. However, the automobile charger appears to be designed to work that way.) * They couldn't tell me the cost to replace the phone itself it was stolen or destroyed during my "contract year". They said it depended on whatever was on promotion at the time. * One salesperson said there's a $15 charge to switch between plans, another said no charge. * There's a "landline charge" per call. Some said 10c, some said 12c, they all said "sometimes you're charged". By this point I was so confused I didn't bother to ask, other than to ensure it was per call. * The same carrier gave out contradictory brochures at different locations. I bought this phone primarily for use in emergency, I have little need for it otherwise. It appears given the billing system, that's how I'll use it. (Or I guess I should said I won't use it.) Unfortunately, pay phone charges have become just as uncertain, even with a traditional "Bell" payphone. In some cases, even at $1/minute, it may be cheaper to use the cellular for quick calls than a payphone since they hit you with calling card charges up front. (For long calls, the payphone is cheaper.) You know, I wonder if the Bell's are happy to let pay phone service go away, since they'll make more money off cellular. Poor pay phone service (COCOTS, unable to ring back, unpredictable charges) is a big reason I got this phone. Lastly, I didn't see any models with rotary dialing. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think regarding the billing time the clock does run from 'SPEND to END' however if the dialed number is busy or does not answer then you are not charged. If the party does answer then you are billed from when you first started the call, i.e. first pressed the S[P]END button. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 00:07:18 -0400 From: The Old Bear Subject: Just for Fun: The Payphone Project Amazing how people on the internet spend their time. TELECOM Digest readers may be amused by this web site, as announced by its webmaster below: --- Forwarded message follows --- From: sorabji@SPAMLESS.paranoia.com (Mark A. Thomas) Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.announce Subject: The Payphone Project Date: 25 Sep 1997 00:25:07 -0400 Lines: 13 The Payphone Project, on the internet for over two years, has been re-built and re-organized. Use this site to find payphone numbers from throughout the United States and Canada, and add your own payphone numbers to this ever-growing collection. THE PAYPHONE PROJECT http://www.paranoia.com/~sorabji/resources/payphones/ ------------------------------ From: Eli Mantel Subject: Long Distance Wholesale Club Free Calling Offer Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 19:44:01 PDT Several months ago, I got an offer to use the services of Long Distance Wholesale Club (a divsion of Telco Communications) by dialing their 10xxx carrier access code. They offered interstate calls at 9.5 cents a minute, subject to a monthly fee which would be waived the first month. Additionally, they promised 20 minutes of free interstate calls. I made about six hours of calls under their plan in the first month, and as promised, I was billed at 9.5 cents a minute and there was no monthly fee. However, I never got the 20 free minutes, and each time I called, they said they would put in a credit for me, but it would take two months to show up on my Pac Bell bill. It's now six months since that first bill came, and I'm getting the same useless story from Telco Communications. I've called Pac Bell, and they're apparently going to resolve it. Admittedly, there's less than $2 at stake here, but I'm wondering whether this is an isolated incident, or whether they've given anybody the credit without having to demand it, or if they only gave the credit to people who used their service after the first month. I would appreciate hearing from anybody else who took Telco up on this deal. Eli Mantel aka the Cagey Consumer www.geocities.com/wallstreet/5395 ------------------------------ From: J.F. Mezei <[non-spam]jfmezei@videotron.ca> Subject: Re: Spamford Leaving Won't Solve the Problem Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 18:51:05 -0500 Organization: VTL Reply-To: [non-spam]jfmezei@videotron.ca >> Obviously Spamford was one of their leaders, >> but how many of the vermin still remain to be exterminated? Any >> guesstimates? PAT] Isn't SPAMFORD aware of all the hatred against him? If extremely unpopular politicians fear for their lives, shouldn't he? Does anyone know if he has to take extra steps to protect his own security? Or is he so naive to think that he is popular and is doing the world a great service/favour? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 23:59:21 -0400 From: Perry Quan Subject: Re: Spamford Leaving Won't Solve the Problem Michael P. Deignan wrote in article : [snip] > list of company names, telephone/fax numbers, and addresses would be > really helpful. If a sizeable number of Internet users spent a few > minutes and a few dollars in postage each week, maybe companies > providing Spamford with his business would think twice if they got > 25,000 letters that all effectively said "it has come to my attention > that your company uses spamming as a marketing tool. For this reason, > I have added your company to my list of "never buy from" companies." > Or, something to that extent. This would be an excellent idea if the Spamford's customers were reputable outfits. But they aren't. The spam consists of frauds, pyramid schemes, and sex sites. Any form of consumer boycott won't work with these spammers since they don't care how many people they annoy. Since the cost of spamming is low, the spammers need only a very miniscule return to profit. It's not going to stop until the cost of spamming oustrips the return. ------------------------------ From: baldwin@netcom.com (J.D. Baldwin) Subject: Re: Spamford Leaving Won't Solve the Problem Organization: Revealed on a need-to-know basis Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 13:23:02 GMT In article , Jim Youll wrote: >> Seems to me that to cure the problem, we need to get across to the >> people spending money to have their ads spammed across the net, the >> idea that it's not a good PR move. > Companies that understand anything about PR and marketing do not do > this. At the worst, they do it a couple of times and realize they really > blew it. And companies that haven't even tried it yet (real companies > with real products and real customers) are learning from the mistakes of > the first misguided pioneers, and will not be included to follow > blindly. I hope you're right, but the early indications aren't good. Barnes & Noble and amazon.com are "real" companies and engage in spamming. And over the weekend, I got spam from Bell South. Grrrrrrrr. From the catapult of J.D. Baldwin |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I _,_ Finger baldwin@netcom.com |+| say, I am quite prepared not only to _|70|___:::)=}- for PGP public |+| retract it, but also to deny under \ / key information. |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer ***~~~~----------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 22:01:56 -0400 From: Jeremy Radlow Subject: Re: Spamford Leaving Won't Solve the Problem Robb Topolski wrote: > I don't know about you but I'm not getting SPAM from Ford, Intel, or > Avon. I'm getting SPAM from RGG at Box 14A in Anytown USA. RGG > doesn't care about PR. He's happy with the 0.5% of return on 14 > million basically free e-mail ads. But now that nobody in the US will host spamhouses, maybe solutions that were rejected out of hand a year ago can be utilized today. I remember hearing about a plan by ISP's to filter out spam at the source -- mail has to go to TCP port 25, so you can easily prevent your customers from connecting to any SMTP server except your own, and then throttle traffic passing through your SMTP server. I really doubt that a typical user needs to send more than 1,000 mail messages per day, so restricting users to that level of traffic wouldn't get in the way of non-spammers, but would stop spammers before they could get started. 0.5% of 1,000 (and I bet the response rate isn't anywhere near that high) is pretty insignificant. This idea seemed impractical a year ago, because there was no lack of places for Joe Spammer to go if he got kicked off one ISP. With ISP's consolidating, and spam factories being kicked off the net, asking ISP's to keep their users in check seems a lot more reasonable now. Jeremy Radlow radlow@acm.org ------------------------------ From: Bill_Walker@qualcomm.com (Bill Walker) Subject: Re: Spamford Rides Again! Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 14:09:18 -0700 Organization: QUALCOMM, Inc. In article , Richard M. Sander wrote: > Here's the text of a fax we received today from Spamford > Looks like he's pulling out all the stops > --- text of fax follows --- > GOOD TODAY ONLY! [note: we received it at 4:00pm EDT] > CYBER PROMOTIONS HALF PRICE ** BLOW OUT** SALE! > (proceeds will go towards Cyber Promotions' high profile lawsuit > against AGIS who single handedly injured thousands of small business > people by disconnecting their lifeline with no prior notice!) Did you have a business relationship with Spamford? If not, then he just sent you junk fax, and you can take him to court on it under 47 USC Sec. 227. Gee, if every one of these solicitations for money to help fund his lawsuit ended up _costing_ him $500 (plus legal fees), I wonder where that'd leave his suit? Bill Walker, QUALCOMM, Inc., San Diego, CA USA Bill_Walker@qualcomm.com Support the anti-spam amendment. Join at ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #265 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Sep 30 09:47:43 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA28874; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 09:47:43 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 09:47:43 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199709301347.JAA28874@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #266 TELECOM Digest Tue, 30 Sep 97 09:47:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 266 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: DNS Scheme For All Telephone Numbers in NANP? (Dave Stott) Re: DNS Scheme For All Telephone Numbers in NANP? (J.F. Mezei) Re: DNS Scheme For All Telephone Numbers in NANP? (Al Varney) Re: DNS Scheme For All Telephone Numbers in NANP? (Bob Savery) Re: Suspense: Sorry, Wrong Number - Yesterday and Today (Dave Stern) Re: Suspense: Sorry, Wrong Number - Yesterday and Today (Louis Raphael) Re: Sprint Billing Disagreement (Eli Mantel) Re: Sprint Billing Disagreement (Orin Eman) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 09:56:49 -0500 From: Dave Stott Subject: Re: DNS Scheme For All Telephone Numbers in NANP? In TELECOM Digest #263, Derek Balling wrote, in reply to my earlier post: > Does that require a little "rethinking" in terms of how people think > and dial? Yes. Indeed, it requires a massive 'rethinking' of number dialing in the NANP. As you point out, we would no longer know which calls are local and which are toll, and by extension, we no longer know if we are dealing with local or distant businesses. This is very similar to ordering something from an 800/888 number. We don't really care where the call center is located as long as they mail us the right item, and we really don't care if the call is local or not -- since we're not paying the bill, it really doesn't matter. When I look up a lawn rental equipment shop, though, I skip all the ones whose telephone numbers begin with '9', because there are no exchanges near me that begin with the number '9'. Instead, I focus on the 831's, the 820's, the 345's, etc. I don't want to call a 212-621 number because to me that means New York - quite a drive to rent a trencher that has to be back by 5pm today. > the database query could return back all sorts of information -- toll > or local, mileage, rate information. . . That's all well and good, but I can figure most of that out in my head today by looking at the number. If it starts with something other than 602, I have to pay. When we split or overlay 602 next year then I know that 602 or XXX means local (i.e. free). Your plan would also involve 10-digit dialing across the country, even in the areas not affected by it today. Most of the country (geo- graphically, if not by population) does not require 10-digit dialing. Under your plan every call would require both 10-digit dialing and a lookup, just to determine if it was toll or not. > and PBX's could be programmed just ONCE how to react. No more dealing > with AC splits and having to reprogram your PBX every six months. > Your PBX behaves just like it always has -- It queries the number, > gets the CKT-ID [and presumably a path of how to connect to it], > the rate information, etc. and confirms whether or not to complete > the call based on the PBX's programming. Hopefully, it also tells the PBX user why it can't complete the call if its programming won't allow the call to be placed. > For consumers afraid of making accidental long distance calls, the > system could simply sound a tone upon completion of the lookup, > indicating that the call is free or local, or some other way to be > determined. When we already have a pretty good system in place, why are we changing it? Today, whether it's seven or ten digit dialing, we (and most other people, I'd venture) generally know if a call is local or toll. There may be some confusion when ten digit dialing is first encountered, but people learn pretty quickly. If there is no rationale to the assignment of numbers, we lose our capacity to identify local vs toll without trying the number. There is an economic penalty associated with dialing a toll number vs a local number, so there is a large disincentive to put such a plan in place. Once the penalty is removed (either per minute pricing for all calls at the same rate no matter what the location of the number you dial, or by having someone else pay the cost of the call) then we can move to nongeographic numbering. Dave Stott (602) 831-7355 dstott@2help.com http://www.2help.com ------------------------------ From: J.F. Mezei <[non-spam]jfmezei@videotron.ca> Subject: Re: DNS Scheme For All Telephone Numbers in NANP? Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 18:45:49 -0500 Organization: VTL Reply-To: [non-spam]jfmezei@videotron.ca Fred R. Goldstein wrote: > Yes, but remember billing is based on the dialed number, so if you > move to a different area, and keep your number, the cost of porting it > becomes your responsibility. This opens a can of worms, so it's well > into the future. Technically easy, of course. However, I have this *impression* that more and more, long distance companies are going for fixed fee pricing (10 cents a minute anyone?) irrelevant of where it is going in USA. Also, local companies would love to be able to charge for every call and some already do it. Once local calls are charged X amount, and long distance are charged Y amount, and the gap constantly narrowing, I do not think it inconceivable that a lon distance call anywhere in Canada/USA might just cost as much as a local call. At that point, dialing a number would cost the caller the same amount if that person happens to be "rerouted" to another city or be your next door neighbour. Lets take this a few steps further (ok, science fiction mode on). Your telephone number becomes each household's internet domain name and routers route both voice and IP calls to your household. This would make much more efficient use of adress space by sharing voice and data over the same network adresses (voice calls go to port X, email to port 25 etc). It would also make some very interesting competition situations (or lack thereof). ------------------------------ From: varney@ihgp2.ih.lucent.com (Al Varney) Subject: Re: DNS Scheme For All Telephone Numbers in NANP? Date: 28 Sep 1997 13:36:17 GMT Organization: Lucent Technologies, Naperville, IL Reply-To: varney@lucent.com In article , Fred R. Goldstein wrote: > In article , jfmezei@videotron.ca > says ... >> 800 (and 888) numbers are "router" based, right ? When I dial an 800 >> number, the telco translates this to a standard telephone number, >> right ? > The originating local exchange looks up the 800 number to determine > which IXC owns it. That IXC then presumably does its own lookup to > figure out how to handle it, which might map to a standard phone > number or to a designated internal address on its own network. All > quite fast. If the Toll-free number happens to be "supported" by the LEC, then the first lookup will return an intra-LATA geographically-based number, rather than an IXC. > PAT> Also, I have to wonder about database failures as happens > PAT> occassionally now with 800. > A risk, of course. But there will not be one big fat national LNP > database; rather, each ported prefix code will have its own ported > numbers, and the telcos can figure out on a local or LATA basis how to > sort them out. So a failure in, say, the Chicago database won't block > New York. So far, inter-LATA calls route from the originating switch to the IXCs just as they do pre-portability. This includes the intra-LATA Toll cases, if the LEC isn't the pre-subscribed carrier. In general, each LEC will have redundant databases supporting a few LATAs. So a failure of multiple databases of a given LEC will affect only intra-LATA calls FROM that LEC TO the failure area. Calls from other competing LECs (or calls routed to an un-affected IXC via 101XXXX dialing) will terminate normally. (Note that LECs may share databases.) Database failure in an IXC network will affect calls via that IXC terminating in a few LATAs, although some IXCs may initially cover a large number of LATAs with one database pair. Any failure should not affect other IXCs, or LEC-handled calls in that area. (IXCs may also share databases.) > It wouldn't surprise me if, when the database failed, calls > defaulted to the ILEC owner of the prefix (pre-portability) so > un-ported numbers might still work. This is an option in some jurisdictions. What happens on a query failure is that the call is continued TOWARDS the dialed prefix's switch. Each switch in the path may decide to requery (there isn't any indication that a query failure occurred). Ultimately, the switch supporting that prefix could be reached, and it to will attempt to query -- unless the number isn't ported. So a failure in only the originating LECs network may not block any calls, unless the originating & prefix-owning switches are in the same network. Then only calls to ported numbers from that network will fail. > I think this will end up with third parties in charge. I'm not sure I understand what will lead to that scenario. Third parties may (or will) be in charge of coordinating number moves. I can't imagine a reason for a third party to own/control databases that will ultimately offer different services to different LECs. In article , Dave Stott wrote: > In TELECOM Digest #256, J.F. Mezei wrote: >> 800 (and 888) numbers are "router" based, right ? When I dial an 800 >> number, the telco translates this to a standard telephone number, >> right? >> Why not do the same for *ALL* NANP numbers? > Consider, also, that we are looking up every single number to satisfy > the desire of a small number of people who are only willing to change > phone companies IF they can keep their old number. I believe the argument to the state PUCs and the FCC was that the desire of several large LECs to enter the long-distance market required a "level" field in opening up the local-exchange market. Several studies concluded that there were more than a "small number" of people/businesses that were unwilling to change numbers unless the price differential was significant. Long-term, I don't see how there can be a significant price differential. So folks would be "locked" into their original provider. The exact same rationale lead to 800-number portability, and a significant market change occurred as a result (vs. the IXC-ownership of Toll-free prefixes). I don't believe SERVICE dis-satisfaction was considered a big driver in the local exchange market. PRICE dis-satisfaction was, and competition is supposed to fix that. But only if not artificially constrained by the reluctance to change telephone numbers. I'll go on the record as being willing to change local phone companies ONLY if I can keep my old number. After you've had a number for >20 years, you'll feel the same way. (Of course, I'm not sure my $23/month bill will attract a lot of new competitors.) Al Varney ------------------------------ From: bob.savery@hawgwild.com (Bob Savery) Subject: Re: DNS Scheme For All Telephone Numbers in NANP? Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 05:31:00 GMT Organization: HAWG WILD! BBS (402) 597-2666 DD> It seems like a good solution, yet I have to wonder about the DD> network load associated with such a plan. Looking up every single Does anyone have statistics on the number of phone calls placed? Is there a computer system available that could even handle that number of transactions? DD> number, every time a call is placed would be a massive job. For DD> instance, think about a radio contest, or tickets to a Rolling DD> Stones concert going on sale -- every caller requires a lookup for DD> the exact same number, thousands or tens of thousands of times every DD> minute. This is on top of the normal call volume traffic. I would think it would be fairly easy to special route calls to these numbers. Telco's already do this in large market areas. DD> Consider, also, that we are looking up every single number to DD> satisfy the desire of a small number of people who are only willing DD> to change phone companies IF they can keep their old number. IF the Looking at residential areas, this would be true. But business's are the ones really driving for LNP. Some for economic reasons, some not. I work for a large health system. In our case, changing certian phone numbers (ie..ER, the Poison Center, etc...) could have deadly results. Marketing types love magnets and such with phone numbers on them. We own the entire 354 exchange, yet we're forced to maintain about 40 of our old numbers (we completed the conversion about 3 years ago) because people still dial them. At one of our other hospitals, I recently assigned what I thought was a free phone number. It started receiving 10-15 calls a day from people wanting various departments of the hospital. I just happened to mention the problem to one of the operators who'd been there forever (she cut her teeth on a cord board). Turns out this number used to be one of the main hospital phone numbers ... over 15 years ago! DD> service they are receiving is so bad today, or IF the new entrant's DD> offer is compelling enough to change, we wouldn't need local number DD> portability, but let's face it -- in most cases the service will be DD> over the same outside plant facilities, maintained by the same DD> technicians with the same level of training and the same level of DD> desire to do a good job and only the switch will be different. DD> Consequently the level service won't change. And the new entrant's DD> offer may be better, but only marginally so. Again ... this is true in residential areas. But CLEC's (at least here in Omaha) are laying fiber as fast as they can dig trenches. But you won't see a TCG or AT&T truck in a residential area! Over the last couple of months, I've had offers from three different companies to install their fiber directly into our phone rooms if we switch to their service. DD> So is the investment in LNP worth the price to provide virtually the DD> same level of service at virtually the same cost? Not in my DD> opinion. And yes, I do have a business that relies on my phone DD> number being accessable and somewhat constant, but I don't make DD> service decisions based on the cost of stationery. If I have to Neither do we. The decision to convert to the 354 exchange was mandated by the old exchange running out of numbers. Had that not happened, we'd not have changed. And having gone through that, and having to still dealing with the aftermath 3 years later, we will not be changing phone numbers again. DD> change my number, it's just one more reason to communicate with my DD> clients and remind them that their business is valuable to me. If it were only that simple! See Ya! Bob * RM 1.31 3192 * "640K ought to be enough for anybody." - Bill Gates,1981 ------------------------------ From: Dave Stern Subject: Re: Suspense: Sorry, Wrong Number - Yesterday and Today Date: 29 Sep 1997 16:32:46 GMT Organization: Lucent Technologies, Columbus, Ohio According to the internet movie database (http://us.imdb.com) there was a tv movie in 1989 that is described as a remake of the 1948 movie. There was also a hit for a 1977 French movie (Prostite, ne tot nomer...!) aka SWN. Dave Stern dstern@lucent.com ------------------------------ From: raphael@willy.cs.mcgill.ca (Louis Raphael) Subject: Re: Suspense: Sorry, Wrong Number - Yesterday and Today Date: 29 Sep 1997 03:27:13 GMT Organization: McGill University Computing Centre Two summers ago, I was in such a place, and needed the police, at 3am, from a public phone, in a relative hurry. True, the phone number must have been listed in the attached phone book, but I was very happy indeed to have an operator connect me, pronto. In stressful situations, the last thing one wants to be doing is looking up a phone number. 911 is a good thing, and should connect to an operator automatically where 911 service isn't available. I believe that this is done in some places. Louis ------------------------------ From: Eli Mantel Subject: Re: Sprint Billing Disagreement Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 10:08:17 PDT Sylvia Caras (sylviac@netcom.com) wrote: > ...I made a call that lasted 73 minutes and was startled > yesterday to receive a bill for $73, $1 a minute ... Sprint > told me, when I questioned the charge, that I should have > known I was making an international call to Canada, that > the international rates applied here ... When I read this message, I thought you must have been mistaken, and that the calls were to some Caribbean country. I called up Sprint customer service, who transferred me to sales, who seemed to be unable to quote me rates for calls from California to Canada. When I called back, I was told that the rates to Canada on the Sprint Sense California program (without the international option) were 10, 25, or 40 cents a minute, depending on the time of the call. But then I was told that these rates had just gone into effect about three weeks ago, and that before that, they were $1.05 a minute! I don't think these are typical "basic" rates for calls to Canada, so I expect that Sprint simply created artificially high rates for these calls as a way of offsetting their 10 cent a minute rate on weekend calls to Canada. To be sure, it is the customer's responsbility to realize that they are making an international call, notwithstanding the fact that under the North American Numbering Plan, calls to Canada and to the Caribbean use area codes instead of country codes, and that charges for these calls are usually higher than for calls within the U.S. However, the practice of long distance phone companies notifying customers of rate changes by small, incomprehensible ads in the Wall Street Journal (which meets the legal requirements because the rates are technically still regulated) stretches the notion of what constitutes a legally enforceable contract. In fact, rates are not regulated, so why should notice by publication in the Wall Street Journal still be considered sufficient notice? Obviously, it shouldn't. IMO, although it's reasonable to expect that you'll realize you're calling Canada, it's not reasonable to expect you to know about the high rates Sprint charges for such calls, when they never notified you of those rates. Essentially, Sprint has committed "deception by omission", highlighting their lower rates, while failing to mention that their charges are outrageous at other times. By the way, I have a web page of "Sprint Lies". Check my web site under Telecom Scams. Eli Mantel aka the Cagey Consumer www.geocities.com/wallstreet/5395 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note" A web page for Sprint's various lies? Amazing ... was your system administrator willing to allow you that much space on the system? I thought at geocities the amount of space per user was quite limited. ... PAT] ------------------------------ From: orin@wolfenet.COM (Orin Eman) Subject: Re: Sprint Billing Disagreement Date: 29 Sep 1997 18:58:17 GMT Organization: Wolfe Internet Access, L.L.C > advantage to continue as it was written. Even if ten cents per minute > to Canada was not the established rate, a dollar per minute seems > rather excessive, but Sprint has used 'bait and switch' tactics like FYI: I'm on AT&T's 10c a minute plan, but calls to Canada don't count either. I just happened to have an example here - 9:06AM, Everett WA to Vancouver BC - 3 minutes $1.29. Not too bad since GTE will charge over 30c a minute for some intraLATA calls (fortunately AT&T can now carry those at 10c a minute and sendhelp.com help out with the Everett to Seattle calls). Orin ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #266 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Sep 30 21:37:06 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id VAA18871; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 21:37:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 21:37:06 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199710010137.VAA18871@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #267 TELECOM Digest Tue, 30 Sep 97 21:37:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 267 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Toll Free Domains (Judith Oppenheimer) Re: Spamford Leaving Won't Solve the Problem (Bruce Pennypacker) Re: Spamford Leaving Won't Solve the Problem (Jeff Carter) Re: Spam Analysis (mustang@acy.digex.net) Re: Two ISDN Devices on One Line (Lars Poulsen) Re: Two ISDN Devices on One Line (Gordon Croft) Re: Radio Vigilantes (Ed Ellers) Re: Radio Vigilantes (Bill Newkirk) Re: Security Alarm Problem due to Area Code Change (Stanley Cline) Re: Security Alarm Problem due to Area Code Change (Bill Fenner) Kidnap Victim Phoned From Car Trunk (Tad Cook) Silly Me! I Lost the Number ... (TELECOM Digest Editor) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 11:07:31 -0400 From: Judith Oppenheimer Reply-To: joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com Organization: ICB TOLL FREE - 800/888 news... commentary... consulting... Subject: Re: Toll Free Domains Greg Monti wrote: > I've been reading with interest postings in TELECOM Digest advocating > a concept of toll-free domains. Correct me if I'm wrong. You advocate > that business sales departments and customer service centers should be the > only parties allowed to have NANP telephone numbers beginning with the > magical digits 1-800. I'm advocating that, along with your suggestions: > - Customers should have ownership rights in their toll free numbers. > - Let 'em hoard as many numbers as they want. [for the sake of clarity, in RespOrg-speak this is called "reserved numbers." In the rest of the business world it's called "inventory."] > - Let 'em pay $100 for two years to reserve a number, same as they do with > domain names from InterNIC. The $100 charge would apply to telcos as well > as to end user customers. Every time a number is removed from the pool and > taken posession of by any entity, it's another $100. No refunds if used > less than 2 years. When it changes hands from telco to end user customer, > it's another $100. Every time it changes hands, another $100 to the > database administrator. I've no problem with that. > - Let people buy, sell, reserve, lease and trade toll free numbers at will, > at any price the market will bear. That just as 900 is for pay-per-call, and 500 will follow you around, 800 should be for toll-free voice of the commercial variety, whether your commercial entity is a small consulting firm or IBM. The marketplace has defined 800 as toll-free, many-to-one, for purposes of responding to advertising, marketing, customer service, etc. It's worked just fine for 30 years, to everyone's benefit -- telco's that carry the traffic, customers that receive and pay for the calls, and consumers that get the services they need. I call this a win/win/win situation. Pages and other primarily one-to-one toll-free applications, that have every right to the *utility* of toll-free, and have no need for the brand of 800, and indeed often suffer when confused with branded 800 numbers, would be much better served with non-branded toll-free SACs of 888, 877, etc. > All other users currently having 1-800 numbers shall be summarily booted > out into one or more other Special Access Codes, such as 1-888 or 1-877. Yes, pagers can be moved (as I was myself years ago for my pager from 212 to 917.) And as individuals and companies are today, across the country, with all the area code changes. > When a new user requests a toll free number from his or her long distance > carrier of choice, he or she will be asked (under penalty of what?) just > what the new number will be used for. If it will be for a sales > department, the user will get a number beginning with 1-800. If it is for, > say, a pocket pager, the user will get one beginning with, say 1-888. I don't want a 900 or 700 or 500 number for my 800 applications. Similarly, why would I request an 888 or 877? I again remind you here, as stated above, your reference to "sales department" is misguided. I'm neither suggesting, nor would I condone, any discrimination in this regarding small vs. large businesses. It's not size, but application that I'm distinguishing. > If the user *lies* to get a number beginning with 1-800 and routes it to a > pocket pager, what happens then? The benefit to this "liar" would be what? If I'm a home-based business requesting an 800 number for customers to reach me, (a) there's no lie, and (b) I have a good reason to want that number. If, however, I'm a parent seeking a toll-free number for my child to call home from college, why in heavens name would I want a number that is going to be mistaken for an advertised number and cost me in misdials, rather than a number that I'm only giving to my children anyway? The truly residential user (personal use) doesn't WANT a lot of calls. The business-residential user does. I don't see where anyone would benefit from asking for other than what they need. > Does the customer go to Telecom Jail and > do penance by being strapped to a step-by-step switch until his or her > hearing is nonexistent? What new government agency will administer this > punishment? Will the taxpayers pay for this enforcement? Yes, in the cell next to those found guilty of violating the FCC's April Report & Order. ;o) > Doesn't your plan of dividing toll free numbers into groups based on > what they are used for simply postpone the inevitable? Here's where your suggestions kick in. If I want a particular 800 number -- and it's already in the secondary marketplace, as most are -- and I can approach the user of that number and negotiate to transfer it to me -- I've not depleted the resource at all. I'll also remind you that as of only one year ago, the two largest marketshare telco's, AT&T and MCI, had between them only 3.5 million toll-free numbers in service out of 7.8 million possibles, and that included both residential and business, 800 and 888. All the rest are on pagers and other data applications. Separate out pagers alone, and watch the resource replenish demonstrably. > Let the owner of 1-800-FLOWERS sue the owner of 1-888-FLOWERS to enforce > his property rights, just like they would do with a real estate boundary or > a brand name logo. Here I agree with you. BUT, under current law, were 888 FLOWERS to go to some small business as a haphazard assignment, it carries the freight for the misdials, and so is not well served at all. Also under current law, it cannot sell that number to 800 FLOWERS, but must return it to the pool, to be picked up by some other poor fool to go through the same thing. There is no business sense in this, and no one served. What's worse, what happens when a large marketer is assigned an 888 where the matching 800 is already in the marketplace? Aer Lingus recently started advertising 1 888 IRISH AIR, a new number for them. However, the 800 version has been with a financial firm in Wisconsin for years. All of a sudden, this Wisconsin firm started getting the airline's phone calls -- tying up their lines, and costing them plenty in non-revenue-producing dollars. Who benefits here? Not the airline. Not the 800 user. Not the telco's. Certainly no consumers seeking either travel or financial services. So Aer Lingus bought the 800 number from the financial firm, in order to self-correct the misguided call-traffic pattern. Above and beyond unnecessary cost and inconvenience to both companies, they were literally forced to break the law (as did the participating carrier, who facilitated -- aka brokered -- the transfer.) Is anyone suggesting to me that this makes any sense at all? 800/888 ICB TOLL FREE NEWS 800/888 ...today's regulatory news for tomorrow's marketing decisions. TRY US FREE FOR 15 DAYS !!! http://icbtollfree.com (ph) 212 684-7210. (fx) 212 684-2714. 1 800 THE EXPERT. ICB Headlines Autosponder: mailto:headlines@icbtollfree.com ------------------------------ From: Bruce Pennypacker Subject: Re: Spamford Leaving Won't Solve the Problem Date: 30 Sep 1997 16:02:42 GMT Organization: Applied Language Technologies Jeremy Radlow wrote in article ... > Robb Topolski wrote: >> I don't know about you but I'm not getting SPAM from Ford, Intel, or >> Avon. I'm getting SPAM from RGG at Box 14A in Anytown USA. RGG >> doesn't care about PR. He's happy with the 0.5% of return on 14 >> million basically free e-mail ads. > But now that nobody in the US will host spamhouses, maybe solutions > that were rejected out of hand a year ago can be utilized today. Am I being paranoid, or are we all jumping to a big conclusion here? Phil Lawlor, the head of AGIS still thinks that spam can be a good thing and that they can come up with a reasonable way of handling it. About the only thing that we know for certian is that the spammers were kicked off and that AGIS is going to revise their AUP (see the press release at http://www.agis.net). For all we know, AGIS finally decided to strictly enforce the IEMMC guidelines requiring all spammers on AGIS to filter through the IEMMC SMTP server. Since Scamford and others weren't doing this they may have finally pissed off AGIS enough (what with the continuing complaints, etc.) that AGIS finally reacted and canned them. For all we know, AGIS could take Scamford and the others back as long as every single piece of UCE sent out by them and their customers is routed through the IEMMC server. All AGIS would have to do is modify their AUP so that it says something about a single complaint regarding spam that didn't go through IEMMC or that contained forged headers, etc. being grounds for immediate termination of service. Bruce ------------------------------ From: Jeff Carter Subject: Re: Spamford Leaving Won't Solve the Problem Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 12:47:41 -0400 Organization: Interware, Inc. J.D. Baldwin wrote: > I hope you're right, but the early indications aren't good. Barnes & > Noble and amazon.com are "real" companies and engage in spamming. And > over the weekend, I got spam from Bell South. Grrrrrrrr. Well, my reaction to almost any spam from a "real" company is to reply to the source, and explain that due to their spam I will not buy any products from them. Real companies understand that annoying their customers is not a good business strategy (it helps if you are actually a current $$-spending customer and inform tham that you are taking your business elsewhere). I've never gotten a second spam..... Most non-scam spammers are less-than-savvy new Internet users who have heard about the "great bucket o money" to be made on the Internet, and have been duped by SPAMFORD and his ilk. I use the opportunity to educate them. A useful URL is the Internet Black List: http://www-math.uni-paderborn.de/~Eaxel/BL/ ------------------------------ From: mustang@acy.digex.net (Todd) Subject: Re: Spam Analysis Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 15:39:47 GMT On Sun, 28 Sep 1997 19:02:54 -0400, Bear wrote: > Unfortuantely, 'professional' spammers eventually will figure out the > filtering algorithms much like professional tax advisors have figured > out what provokes an electronic IRS audit flag, or how shrewd job > applicants have figured out what will get their resumes flagged by > personnel departments which use electronic scanning. You may be interested in the filter I've been working on. Instead of filtering based on undesirable key words, it filters based on desirable key words. For instance, anyone who sends me a message with my first name "Todd", "mail-key", or "qwer" is automatically added to my "accept list." Once on the accept list all mail from them will not be filtered. It's been extremely effective over the last 2 weeks since I started working on it. There are still some bugs with my implementation, but I think I can get around most of them. If you're interested at all, there's a link to the procmail filter at: http://g27.goes.com/zerospam The neat thing about this reversed method of filtering is that it will make it much harder for spammers to get into my mailbox. Sure, a spammer could read my Usenet posts and realize that all they have to do is type "qwer" in a message to get through the filter. Of course, this is a lot harder to do than having a spam-bot harvest addresses from newsgroups. I am convinced that there is a technological solution to spam. I'm also convinced that a technological solution is the only one that will be completely effective. I think if people start thinking along the lines of a "secure" mailbox system they might be on the right track. I've been trying to envision how such a system would work. If every mailbox had a "welcome message" associated with it, the sender's client could access it to see what "key" is required to send mail to the mailbox. The welcome message would have to be read by a person to determine what the key is. Now, when I receive the e-mail (assuming the sender entered a key,) my e-mail client has a thumbs-up and a thumbs-down button. Thumbs-up, the sender is added to my "accept list" and doesn't have to be concerned with entering keys. Thumbs-down, the sender is added to my "deny list" and all future e-mail from the sender is bounced. One down-side to this is that you'd have to manually add any mailing lists or auto-responders to your accept list. For some people this won't be a bother, for others it could be somewhat annoying. I'd be interested in hearing any ideas on how such an implementation could work. I've already been flamed by plenty of CAUCE activists who seemed irritated by the idea that a technological solution might be more effective than a law. So, please, no flames :) Todd Type "qwer" anywhere in your message if responding by e-mail. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 13:51:11 -0700 From: lars@anchor.RNS.COM (Lars Poulsen) Subject: Re: Two ISDN Devices on One Line Organization: RNS / Meret Communications In article is written: > A quick ISDN question: I have ISDN to my house with RJ45 outlets in 4 > locations. ... Can 2 NT-1's be connected to separate outlets? No. The intended wiring plan is to have the NT1 where the line enters the premises, then have S/T-type devices attach behind that. The S/T bus is designed for attachment of multiple devices. Lars Poulsen Internet E-mail: lars@OSICOM.COM OSICOM Technologies (Internet Business Unit, formerly RNS) 7402 Hollister Avenue Telefax: +1-805-968-8256 Santa Barbara, CA 93117 Telephone: +1-805-562-3158 ------------------------------ From: Gordon Croft Subject: Re: Two ISDN Devices on One Line Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 17:53:31 -0700 Organization: BCTEL Advanced Communications Reply-To: gordon_croft@bc.sympatico.ca Sorry Steve, only one NT1 at the U interface (your RJ45 outlets) at one time. You can connect multi-devices at the S/T interface, but that's not easy. gordon_croft@bc.sympatico.ca Gordon Croft Surrey, British Columbia Canada ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: Radio Vigilantes Date: 30 Sep 1997 21:07:56 GMT Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Our Moderator noted in reply: > Thank you, and I stand corrected. But as we have noted here in the > past, accuracy of the details is not all that important > ... anyway, it was that very popular song in the middle/late 1970's > about the convoy of truckers running through the toll-plaza without > stopping to pay the toll which caught the ear of so many people and > made CB very popular." Actually the CB boom started in 1974 -- a year or so before "Convoy" came out -- apparently touched off by network TV news stories about truckers using CB radios to trade "Smokey reports" so as to evade the new 55 mph speed limit. "C.W. McCall" was a character that first appeared in local commercials for Old Home Bread in Omaha; the song was actually performed by Chip Davis, later known for his Mannheim Steamroller group, though he didn't disclose until 1983 that the two were connected. (Details can be found at American Gramaphone's Web site at http://www.amgram.com.) ------------------------------ From: Bill Newkirk Subject: Re: Radio Vigilantes Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 13:53:36 -0400 Organization: Rockwell Collins, Inc. Reply-To: wenewkir@collins.rockwell.com Tom Watson wrote: >> once the general public found out about CB radio then shortly after >> that (with Johnny Cash's song) it was ruined for everyone. PAT] > It wasn't Johnny Cash, it was "C.W. McCall". > "The rubber duck". AKA Mannheim Steamroller. Bill Newkirk Collins General Aviation Division Publications Department Rockwell Collins, Inc., Melbourne Florida wenewkir@collins.rockwell.com ------------------------------ From: roamer1@pobox.com (Stan Cline) Subject: Re: Security Alarm Problem due to Area Code Change Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 16:43:17 GMT Reply-To: roamer1@pobox.com On Wed, 24 Sep 1997 10:52:41 -0400, The Old Bear wrote: > The state's area code problems appear to be far from over, as=20 > alarm companies warned yesterday that tens of thousands of their=20 > customers won't have working alarms if the initial phase-in=20 > period for the new area codes is not extended beyond Dec. 1. The same arguemnts came up in the Atlanta overlay/split argument, largely because of the requirement for 10-digit dialing. Alarm companies complained that they would not have enough time to fix everyone's alarm systems, for those that needed to be reprogrammed (i.e., any in 770 that were dialing numbers within 770, and any in 404 that were dialing numbers within 404.) What I find strange is: Why were the alarms originally programmed to use 7-digit dialing, even though 10-digit dialing has been allowed permissively from the start of the *404/770* split? If the alarm companies had thought ahead, they would have used 10-digit dialing in the first place, and they would not have a problem now. Or they could have switched to 800/888 or 950 numbers, which are not affected by 7/10/11-digit dialing. (Many large national alarm companies with regional/national dispatch centers already use 800/888/950 numbers; it is the smaller companies that still use normal local numbers and are unhappy.) The Georgia PSC did give a special six(?)-month extension for numbers used to reach alarm companies' central stations -- such numbers, and ONLY such numbers, may STILL be dialed permissively as 7 digits even after January 1 (the date at which 10-digit dialing becomes mandatory in the area.) That will give the alarm companies more time to fix everyone's alarm systems -- not enough time, say the alarm companies. Stanley Cline somewhere near Atlanta, GA, USA roamer1(at)pobox.com http://scline.home.mindspring.com/ spam not wanted here! help outlaw spam - see http://www.cauce.org/ ------------------------------ From: fenner@parc.xerox.com (Bill Fenner) Subject: Re: Security Alarm Problem due to Area Code Change Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 13:02:39 PDT Organization: Xerox Palo Alto Research Center In article , Roger Fajman wrote: > That's a rather odd position for Bell Atlantic to take, since we've > had 10 digit dialing for local calls for some time now in the > Washington, DC area, which is Bell Atlantic territory. Well, Bell Atlantic inherited that system when they acquired C&P Telephone. Changing it to whatever Bell Atlantic thinks is not confusing would have been confusing =) Bill ------------------------------ Subject: Kidnap Victim Phoned From Car Trunk Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 17:57:09 PDT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Kidnap victim saved by the bell GENEVA (Reuter) - Swiss police at the weekend foiled a hijacking attempt after receiving a distress call -- from the trunk of a car. Police in the capital Berne were able to act after a telephone tip-off from the victim himself, a Serbian man who had been bundled into the back of a car by his Macedonian kidnapper. The 21-year-old Serb managed to call the police from inside the trunk using his cellular telephone as his kidnapper drove away, police officials said. Shortly afterwards, he was rescued by a police patrol that chased the car in the back streets of Berne. The victim knew his kidnapper and was able to give the police the necessary information. The motive behind the incident was not known. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 21:10:44 EDT From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: Silly Me! I Lost the Number ... I had the number to NAVOBS modem line in a 'clock program' script on an old DOS 386 machine. It would call that number every day or so to adjust the time on the computer. Somehow it got erased; the file it was in got zapped. Someone give it to me please. Also, what about Fort Collins' modem number? Thanks, PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #267 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Oct 2 20:46:14 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id UAA22972; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 20:46:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 20:46:14 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199710030046.UAA22972@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #268 TELECOM Digest Thu, 02 Oct 97 20:46:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 268 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Spamford Leaving Won't Solve the Problem (Todd) Re: Spamford Leaving Won't Solve the Problem (Anthony Argyriou) Spammer Tollfree Number (Babu Mengelepouti) Re: Slammed - Fraud? (jseder@syntel.com) Re: Slammed - Fraud? (eddyj@agcs.com) TCX128 Help!!! (Derek Uttley) Re: Help With Line Noise Please (Jonathan I. Kamens) Re: Help With Line Noise Please (Brian Elfert) Re: Suspense: Sorry, Wrong Number - Yesterday and Today (Leonid Broukhis) Newbridge 8230/31 Component Source (shickle@concentric.net) Wanted: Power Supply for Vodavi TelPlus 1648 (Gerry Wheeler) Voicemail to E-Mail (W. Hughes) Re: Major Phone Cut in Mississauga, Ontario (David Leibold) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 21:20:38 -0400 From: Todd Subject: Re: Spamford Leaving Won't Solve the Problem J.D. Baldwin wrote: > In article , Jim Youll > wrote: > I hope you're right, but the early indications aren't good. Barnes > & Noble and amazon.com are "real" companies and engage in spamming. > And over the weekend, I got spam from Bell South. Grrrrrrrr. FWIW, I e-mailed Amazon regarding spam and received this canned (no pun intended) response: Subject: Amazon's spam policy? Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 16:14:11 -0700 (PDT) From: info@amazon.com To: Todd Dear Todd, Thanks for writing to us at Amazon.com with your comments. I want to assure you that Amazon.com does not spam. Spamming is bad for the Internet, and it's against our policy (and has been since our inception). We use email to communicate with our customers and subscribers about their orders, new services, and other newsworthy information. We have never obtained email addresses from newsgroups or other sites: we believe that's unethical. We communicate only with Amazon.com customers and Amazon.com visitors who have given us their email addresses of their own accord. In every email we send -- whether it's an Editors mailing to which customers have subscribed or a news update -- we include an unsubscribe option to allow customers to remove themselves from future mailings. We are very sorry if our recent announcement was in any way unwelcome to you. If you would prefer not to receive such announcements from us, please send a blank email message to no-news@amazon.com. We do not want our customers to receive anything from us that is not entirely satisfactory. [ I don't know what the previous paragraph is about--that's why I assume this is a "canned" response. --Todd] Again, please accept our apologies, and thank you for shopping at Amazon.com. Best regards, Richard Berman Amazon.com http://www.amazon.com/ Earth's Biggest Bookstore ========================= >Subject: Amazon's spam policy? >To: info@amazon.com >X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (WinNT; U) >From: Todd >Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 16:32:19 -0400 > >There's been a lot of discussion on news.admin.net-abuse.email >regarding Amazon's spamming policy. Some claim that Amazon used to >spam, some claim that you still do. Please let me know your current >stance on unsolicited commercial e-mail. > >I've used Amazon several times and have been very happy with your >service. I'd hate to have to find another online bookstore--one that >doesn't spam. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 18:25:57 -0700 From: Anthony Argyriou Subject: Re: Spamford Leaving Won't Solve the Problem Jeremy Radlow wrote: > I really doubt that a typical user needs to send more than 1,000 mail > messages per day, so restricting users to that level of traffic > wouldn't get in the way of non-spammers, but would stop spammers > before they could get started. 0.5% of 1,000 (and I bet the response > rate isn't anywhere near that high) is pretty insignificant. Most of us "typical" users won't need to send 1000 e-mails per day, but what about mailing-list maintainers? There may be other users who have _legitimate_ need for mass e-mailing. > This idea seemed impractical a year ago, because there was no lack of > places for Joe Spammer to go if he got kicked off one ISP. With ISP's > consolidating, and spam factories being kicked off the net, asking > ISP's to keep their users in check seems a lot more reasonable now. Whatever happened to the idea of requiring a valid e-mail return address? If forging addresses and headers were made a _crime_ (a subspecies of wire fraud), then even allowing spam factories to exist would not be as bad as it is now, because people would be able to complain to (and retaliate against) the spammer. Also, whatever happened to using reverse DNS for screening? I don't remember any technical objections to the idea, only a complaint that a very popular mailing-list refused to use it. With the spam factories temporarily out of business, ISPs should be able to enforce this on all customers, so that when spammers return, they have to identify themselves, even without criminal sanction. Anthony Argyriou ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 19:07:31 -0400 From: Babu Mengelepouti Reply-To: dialtone@vcn.bc.ca Organization: US Secret Service Subject: Spammer Tollfree Number I got the following spam today in my box: Return-Path: Received: from vcn.bc.ca (root@opus.vcn.bc.ca [207.102.64.2]) by m-net.arbornet.org (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id FAA27749 for ; Sat, 27 Sep 1997 05:14:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Ganda@crushnet.com Received: from mail.crushnet.com (mail.crushnet.com [151.196.87.10]) by vcn.bc.ca (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA12376 for ; Fri, 26 Sep 1997 04:47:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by mail.crushnet.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id PAA12751; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 15:27:32 -0400 Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 15:27:32 -0400 Message-Id: <199709251927.PAA12751@mail.crushnet.com> To: Mail.Delivery@crushnet.com Subject: Test Players/Avid Golfers Wanted (com/msg) Reply-To: Jeffg@crushnet.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Spam deleted, just information on how to contact the 'company'. PAT] For more information visit our web site at: http://www.smartsport.com Or, call TOLL FREE 888-2GOLF-12 MON-FRI 10:00AM-5:30PM PACIFIC and ask for information on our test play program or you may email me at michele@smartsport.com. THANKS. ... more locations scheduled! 1-888-2GOLF 12 Don't forget to bookmark our web site! [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Maybe this should read, "don't forget to pollute our phone lines and mailboxes the way we have done to yours ..." PAT] <><><><><><><><><><><><><> This offer brought to you by Electronic Direct Marketing, Inc. Responsible targeted marketing is an extremely effective method for marketing your products and services. Call us for rates on targeted marketing at 1-888-551-7600 or email us at Ganda@greatoffer.com If you wish to be removed from our email distribution lists, send a removal request to remove@greatoffer.com ------------------------------------------ You'll note that it includes a toll free number to which everyone can call to inquire about their spam services. Maybe inquire several times, to compare rates, or whatever. Maybe just call to talk. They never learn... ------------------------------ From: jseder@remove.this.syntel.com Subject: Re: Slammed - Fraud? Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 11:37:19 -0700 Organization: All USENET -- http://www.Supernews.com Reply-To: jseder@remove.this.syntel.com Complain to Informal Complaints and Public Inquiries Branch Enforcement Division, Common Carrier Bureau Federal Communications Commission Mail Stop 1600A2 Washington DC 205545 Send copies of the documents in the case with a brief statement of facts. Also, write to your local telco and tell them not to switch your long distance carrier without written authorization. It may just have been a goof, or it may be fraud - if it's the latter, the FCC will see it in the large number of complaints (which is why it is _important_ to write to the FCC), and they will act. I got slammed and wrote the appropriate letters (and wasn't the only one to do so). The FCC imposed a $200,000 fine on the slammer, and my state's PUC fined them another several hundred thousand dollars and pulled the plug on them for 40 months! ------------------------------ From: eddyj@agcsarmy.com Subject: Re: Slammed - Fraud? Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 09:39:26 -0700 Organization: Sherwood Forest. Delete 'army' to reply by email Charles Beatty wrote: > We were recently slammed. The story is a little more unusual and > disturbing than simply being slammed though. Last month a service > charge from Accutel of Boca Raton, FL showed up on our bill. I finally > got through to a vice president at Accutel. She told me that they had > purchased the cutomer base of a company called Christian Communications > Group of Savannah, GA. The owner of Christian Communications is one > Pastor Ralph Davis. He may also be doing business as Least Cost > Routing. > Now I don't believe for a second that Davis is a pastor, or that > Christian Communicatons is anything but a scam. The disturbing part is > that they have my wife's social security number. This is apparently > sufficient to authorize a switch of LD carriers. > Has anyone heard of Christian Communicatons? Least Cost Routing? > "Pastor" Ralph Davis? Is there anything we can do to limit the > distribution of my wife's SS# ? Do we have any kind of legal recourse? > This is particularly upsetting since my wife's mother was just the > victim of credit card fraud because someone got her SS#. There's been a lot of heated discussion about SS# abuse in the misc.legal ng recently (if you have access to it.). I don't know if it's winding down or still going full steam, but you could post to the group and see. Bear ------------------------------ From: Derek Uttley Subject: TCX128 Help!!! Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 10:45:58 -0400 Organization: Newbridge Networks Corporation Reply-To: duttley@spamnewbridge.com My church installed a donated TCX128 telephone system by Tie Communications when it was built about 4 years ago. It is working fine. However, programming manuals were not provided and I am having difficulty locating one. I want to inhibit long distance access to some of the extensions, which I am aware can be configured using the dial pad of one of the phones. Without the manual ...? If anyone can help I would appreciate it greatly. Thanks in advance. D. ------------------------------ From: jik@cam.ov.com (Jonathan I. Kamens) Subject: Re: Help With Line Noise Please Date: 02 Oct 1997 15:07:31 GMT Organization: OpenVision Technologies, Inc. Reply-To: jik@kamens.brookline.ma.us My wife and I just bought a house, and in the process of undoing the phone-wiring madness the previous tenants inflicted on it, I've learned a few important tricks for reducing noise on phone lines (I've tried to list them in order from most to least important, as I see them): * If you're using the standard flat "quad" cable, don't use both wire pairs in the same cable when one of them is a modem line. In the days when phone lines were really used for voice, it didn't matter much that there would be a little crosstalk between the two pairs in the cable. However, if you're using one of those pairs for a modem, then you *will* get enough crosstalk from the modem tones on the voice line to be annoying, and you *will* get enough crosstalk from the voice calls on the modem line to interfere with good performance. Either use separate quad cables for your voice and modem lines, or use cable with some sort of crosstalk cancellation. For example, you can use Category-5 network cable for your phone lines with no trouble. Since I'm planning on having our electrician pull network cables into a number of the rooms in our house, I'm going to have him pull extra cables into the rooms we want to have phones in and use those for our phone circuits. * Unwire *every unused wire in the house*. After buying our house, we discovered that there were six phone cables ascending from the basement into various parts of the house, and the wires in those six cables were all twisted together (i.e., all six green wires were twisted together, all six red wires were twisted together, etc.). Worse, some of the jacks at the ends of those six wires had additional cables attached to them with additional jacks at the ends of them. It was a real mess. Any cable segment that is wired into your plant, even if it is currently unused, can cause problems. The more cable you have wired in, the more chance there is that there will be a short or noisy cable somewhere. Furthermore, the more cable you have wired in, the more of an "antenna effect" you're going to see -- your cables will act like an antenna and pick up radio stations, random atmospheric radio noise, or whatever. I unwired both ends of every single cable in the house, and then wired only three jacks -- to with our voice line, and one directly up to my office with our modem line. The voice and modem lines do not share the same cable anywhere. * If the phone cables in your house are old, test them for noise and/or just replace them. Old cable wears down for various reasons (e.g., the sheathing gets worn and the wires end up closer together or even intermittently shorted) and acquires more noise as it gets older, and besides, old phone cable is often crap. Buy some high-quality quad phone cable and replace the old cable with it; if you do it carefully (e.g., don't make any sharp bends in the cable, don't pierce the cable with staples when fastening it down), you will almost certainly reduce noise. * Check all your connections. Make sure that the connections are solid at the junction box and at other locations where wires are twisted together. It wouldn't hurt to undo connections that have been around for a long time, clean off rust and other accumulated coatings, and redo the connections. Also, make sure that there are no exposed connections -- if you've got wires twisted together anywhere, put wire nuts on them. Of course, it goes without saying that you should minimize the number of connections that are necessary. * Make sure your phone cables aren't running parallel to power cables. If they are, you probably want to relay them with a different path or replaced them with cable with noise cancellation (e.g., Category-5 cable). ------------------------------ From: belfert@citilink.com (Brian Elfert) Subject: Re: Help With Line Noise Please Date: 02 Oct 97 17:06:11 GMT Tony Ward writes: > I currently have two phone lines, one for voice and one for my modem. > My question is this: I have line noise on both lines (local radio > station). I have installed a noise supressor on both lines (close to > modem and phone). I currently have a 28,8 modem (connect at 26,4 or > 24) and was wondering wether the supressor inhibits modem connection > speed (actually I can not connect without the supressor being there). > Is there anything else I can realistically do to stop the interference > and is it worth my while getting a k56flex modem? Would it be better > to put a line supressor where my telco box comes into the house (if so > how?). Are you using a line noise suppressor or a RF suppressor? I think they make RF suppressors that should work better for your case. Isn't the phone company required to help in cases like this? Exactly how close are you to the radio transmitter? I am within 1/3 mile of a tower with no phone problems. Brian ------------------------------ From: leob@best.com (Leonid A. Broukhis) Subject: Re: Suspense: Sorry, Wrong Number - Yesterday and Today Date: 02 Oct 1997 15:07:16 -0700 Dave Stern writes: > According to the internet movie database (http://us.imdb.com) there > was a tv movie in 1989 that is described as a remake of the 1948 > movie. There was also a hit for a 1977 French movie (Prostite, ne tot > nomer...!) aka SWN. The phrase "Prostite, ne tot nomer" is in Russian, not French. The movie, judging by the director filmography, is most likely Czechoslovakian-Soviet coproduction. Leo ------------------------------ From: shickle@concentric.net Subject: Newbridge 8230/31 Component Source Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 14:31:17 GMT Organization: Concentric Internet Services Can someone point me to a source for used Newbridge equipment? I'm looking for components for the 8230 and 8231. Thanks, Steve Hickle ------------------------------ From: gwheelerX@gate.net (Gerry Wheeler) Subject: Wanted: Power Supply For Vodavi TelPlus 1648 Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 18:45:40 GMT Organization: SpectraFAX Corp. Reply-To: gwheelerX@gate.net Our key phone system (Vodavi TelPlus 1648) has bitten the dust. There is an external power supply that produces 24VDC, and a supply inside the cabinet that uses this to produce +/- 5VDC. The internal supply has quit. I got an estimate of $850 (!) for a used one, because they're so hard to find. Any ideas on how I can get this beast running again? Gerry Wheeler gwheelerX@gate.net (remove the X) SpectraFAX Corp. Phone: 941-643-8739 Naples, FL Fax: 941-643-5070 ------------------------------ From: W. Hughes Subject: Voicemail to E-Mail Date: 29 Sep 1997 07:59:50 GMT Organization: Devon County Council I run voicemail on my PC at home, and I would like it to attach any messages that come in through the day to an E-Mail and have it sent to my PC in the office automatically. Does anyone know of any software that can do this for me? I am currently running Cheyenne Bitware to manage my voicemail, I have a 33.6 modem and run on Windows95. BiLLY ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 22:10:55 EDT From: David Leibold Subject: Re: Major Phone Cut in Mississauga, Ontario A new report appeared a few days ago (30 September) in the {Toronto Star}, after I posted the original Digest blurb about the Streetsville phone interruption. In that report, a contractor's association insists that the company doing the Mississauga digging called Bell regarding cable locations before making the dig. There will now be words between contractors and Bell. Meanwhile, I retract any suggestion in my post that the contractor did not call Bell. It's just that calling before digging is a wise thing to do in general. Meanwhile, a Toronto radio report today indicated about half of the affected phone customers should have their service restored by now. The repairs continue ... Ref: www.thestar.ca website, back issues to 30 Sept 97, article entitled: "Contractors blame Bell for Streetsville phone woes -- But telephone company insists it acted properly" David Leibold aa070@freenet.toronto.on.ca ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #268 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Oct 3 09:29:05 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA21535; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 09:29:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 09:29:05 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199710031329.JAA21535@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #269 TELECOM Digest Fri, 3 Oct 97 09:29:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 269 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Bell Atlantic Digital Bill - Many Errors (Douglas Reuben) Cell One / Albany Charging For Incomplete Calls (Douglas Reuben) Baltimore's 3-1-1 Service (oldbear@arctos.com) Book Review: "NetResearch: Finding Information Online" (Rob Slade) Bell Atlantic Toll Alerting in Massachusetts (Greg Monti) Perhaps 888 Was a Poor Choice (Linc Madison) Spamford v. Agis (Bill Levant) The Even Hand of the Law (oldbear@arctos.com) WorldCom - MCI Merger? (Chris Moffett) NYS PSC Recommends "Overlay" For New NYC Area Code (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: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Douglas Reuben Subject: Bell Atlantic Digital Bill - Many Errors Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 04:49:12 EDT Well, after weeks of waiting to see if Bell Atlantic's Digital service rates for the New England region are really what they promised, I received my first bill for our new digital account today. I must admit I was expecting a disaster -- high priced roaming charges for markets which they promised would be free (for off peak, as on my account I asked for the free off peak option), local call charges, roaming daily charges, etc. After reviewing the bill, I must same I am pleased that it is not as bad as I had thought, and they got it substantially correct. Bell Atlantic/CT (00119) has offered a weekend off peak plan for over a year now (as do most BAMS properties), as well as the first incoming minute free on certain plans (a very nice feature -- I give out my cell numbers much more liberally now), and more recently, off-peak airtime for free (between 8PM and 7AM, and all day on weekends and select holidays). Although initially they had billing problems with some of these, current bills are flawlessly correct when it comes to the above categories of calls for their analog service, and the digital is no different. All my calls with the digital phone were billed correctly in the CT market. (Note that by "digital" I mean calls placed with my digital account; it makes no difference if you are in digital or analog mode. Additionally, the digital account includes all of Connecticut, even Litchfield, which is serviced by AT&T Wireless. Bell Atlantic has had a series of plans which rated Litchfield/AT&T calls at the same "home" rate as the rest of CT, so the fact that they got this correct on their digital plan bills doesn't suprise me either.) The New England Digital plan also allows for "home airtime" rates over a large section on BAMS's "B" side systems, from Boston/NH/RI (00028), Eastern NH (00428), Vermont (00300), Albany (00078), Valley Cellular/Columbia County/Catskills,NY (01516 - except you can't place or receive calls there, how nice :( ), Poughkeepsie (00486) and Orange County NY (00404). For calls placed in the 00028 system, everything was billed perfectly! All calls appeared as "home" calls, ie, no special roaming charges, peak rates were billed as your peak home airtime rate (40 cents/minute, in my case), off peak was free, local calls were free, and in general, I was billed as if it were one, large seamless system. (Note toll charges ARE incurred if you place or receive calls to/from OUTSIDE of the market you are in, generally, but this is clearly stated in the policy sheet, and is more or less the norm in the industry.) For the Albany 00078, Poughkeepsie 00486 and Orange County NY 00404, this is not the case, and calls were billed at either $.99 per minute (standard roaming, even though there are BAMS properties!), $.59 per minute, or $.49 per minute (discounted "B" roaming on BAMS properties for other BAMS customers.) Local call charges were also incurred, and the free off peak airtime and free incoming minutes were not accounted for. I have yet to receive a bill for the other areas which are included in the Northeast plan. Additionally, the monthly charges are listed in such a Byzantine fashion that it is incomprehensible. There are 2 charges for monthly no answer transfer service, and then 3 credits for it (it is supposed to be free), one charge for voicemail and then a credit and then a prorated charge, credits for service, then charges for compensate for these credits, then more credits. I gave up; I figure this is due to my initiating service in mid-cycle (I have it billed to one of our other accounts which has been in service with them since 1987 when they were Metro Mobile). Hopefully, subsequent itemizations for recurring service will be less confusing! After reviewing the bill, I called BAMS to get the NY system(s) calls credited. I expected the worst -- in the the past when I have called BAMS for credits, I usually received a condescending "We'll give you credits this time just to be nice, but if you do it again, you will have to pay" or "Your home airtime rate doesn't apply outside your home state even though the brochures say 'home airtime rates apply' in Boston, Albany, etc." To my suprise, the rep. at BAMS looked over the bill (which was over $500 due to all the roam calls which were incorrectly billed), and after 30 seconds, said "Oh, I'm terribly sorry, it is obvious that there is some mistake in the billing. I will get a full printout in the morning, get the correct amount fo credits, and also make sure that our billing department corrects this so that you and other digital customers don't have this happen again." I was shocked -- it's rare to hear a cust. service rep. at a cell company not only agree with you, but indicate that something will be immediately done to resolve the problem in my (and their other customers') favor. Most impressive ... I figure either (a) a lot of people called about this already, (b) there are extensive notes on our account with them saying "just do what the customer says or he won't give up" :), or (c) they genuinely want to keep customers of their digital service and prevent churn (I would have cancelled in two seconds had she said "Well, the brochures are wrong, and you have to pay roaming charges et. al. when outside your home state.") As to a separate matter, I posted a few weeks ago regarding voicemail notification (on the phone's display, not the tones you hear when you place a call) not working outside of Connecticut. Well, someone must have done something, because all of a sudden, it is working everywhere! As a matter of fact, it is too much -- if I have a voicemail present, it beeps me whenever I enter into a new system, and perhaps each time I travel to an area covered by a different switch. It can be slightly annoying to receive all those beeps for just one voicemail (ie, if you don't check it, it just keeps beeping and beeping every so often as you hit different switches/systems), but at least it WORKS now, so it is certainly an improvement. No improvement yet with my e-mail paging in most on NYC, RI, and the other markets where it doesn't work, or with the silly 55 character alpha limitation. I guess I'll just have to wait for those ...:) Also, for the careful readers of my posts :), the 01516 system STILL does not allow outgoing calls (for some BAMS customers, mainly those from CT with 860 numbers), and doesn't have ANY incoming calls at all for BAMS customers. This is *supposedly* a BAMS property, yet BAMS customers can't really use it (it is jointly owned by BAMS and some hicks living up in the hills there who don't know how to run a system, and NO, people living in Columbia county aren't hicks, just the people who administer (ha! what a misnomer ...) the 01516 system are). BTW, my GTE Mobilnet/CA phone works fine there, both in terms of placing AND receiving calls. So BAMS has really dropped the ball there, and needs to do something to integrate that system with the rest of its properties. BTW, although I don't encourage it since I think it is a good deal overall, if you want to get out of your BAMS digital [or any] contract, you can tell them "Geez, well, if I can't get calls in the 01516 market, then the phone really isn't that useful to me -- I mainly bought it just to use in my home market any my country home in Columbia County, NY". They may tell you that you can switch to the "A" side to place calls, but this is only true for some BAMS customers, and you can not receive calls on the "A" side (01515) unless you are a CT/00119 "A" customer. Hopefully, they will fix service there so people don't have to get out of contracts and switch carriers just to be able to get calls there. If I can get calls in the 01516 system on my GTE CA 00040 account from 3000 miles away (which utilizes the same switch, the Autoplex, which BAMS does), then I *should* be able to receive and place calls in that market with my BAMS account as well. (BTW, the 01516 is not an Autoplex switch, or at least it has different confirmation tones than do other Autoplex switches. But if GTE can deliver calls to it, I think BAMS should be able to as well.) Overall, though, I am becoming increasingly impressed with the totality of th BAMS digital service in the Northeast. From the coverage areas and "extended" home airtime areas, to the free features, voicemail notification now working in most places, increasing alpha messaging territory, and (hopefully improving) billing, the service is well worth the money. I still think the sound quality of digital and audio delay is nothing to write home about, but overall, it is an attractive service, which will grow increasingly so as they increase the alpha messaging footprint and fix up systems like the 01516 which despite it being a semi-BAMS property does not really support any BAMS customers. Finally, I am planning on setting up a WWW site (www.wirelessnotes.org) on Interpage's server to host (modestly :) ) my posts, but more importantly, I'd like to have a regularly updated, system by system list of known problems, issues, interesting facts, billing and roaming billing practices, etc. It will be free, of course, and serve a repository for any problems in a given market which will be updated as they are corrected, etc. I invite anyone with any such information or problems of a systemic nature in a given cellular, PCS, etc. system to submit messages to wirlessnotes@interpage.net (I didn't set up the .org mailing addresses yet) for inclusion, now or at any time in the future. In a submission, please have the Cellular Operator's name (ie, Cell One/Boston), the SID number if available (00007 for Boston, or if you don't have the SID then indicate if it is A or B, PCS, etc.), the nature of the problem or issue, how long it has been going on, and other information along those lines. Paging notes and observations dealing with paging systems are also gladly welcomed. I'd like to stay away from individual issues such as "I asked for credits on my bills and they never gave it to me" or "My phone broke and now there is no backlighting and XYZ Cell co. doesn't want to pay for a new one", etc., and instead have a system by system listing of general problems, issues, or interesting facts which would be of benefit to the entire wireless community. Thanks in advance for any submissions! Regards, Doug dreuben@interpage.net / +1 (510) 254-0133 / www.interpage.net Interpage Network Services Inc. ------------------------------ From: Douglas Reuben Subject: Cell One / Albany Charging For Incomplete Calls Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 03:32:55 EDT I recently reviewed a series of bills for our company detailing roaming charges in the Cellular One/Albany, NY (00063) system. It seems that for ALL of our accounts, EVERY call, even unanswered calls of a few seconds, are being billed! We have accounts with a number of "A" carriers from Boston, NYC, Connecticut, Vermont, California, New Orleans, and New Jersey. All of them reflected both incoming and outgoing calls which no one answered and were significantly less than 45 seconds. Additionally, I was billed a $3 (daily charge) and $.99 on our Boston (CO/Boston, 00007 account, not to mention their "Pizza Fund" rip-off $4 "roamer administration charge" -- I've already cancelled two accounts with them as a result of this outrageous charge and moved them over to Bell Atlantic and AT&T), and $.99 on our Bell Atlantic/CT 00119 bill, for the privilege of entering "*350" to turn on call delivery! (I had called Cell One/Albany about two years ago to ask them if they billed for incompletes, both incoming and outgoing (incoming incompletes are sometimes refered to as "ringtime"). There were similar problems back then, and after a series of calls, CO/Albany took care of it. They also told me that they do not bill for incoming/outgoing calls which are not answered as long as they are shorter than 45 seconds.) After a few months of just figuring that these bills were correct, I decided to do some tests, since it recently seems to have happened over and over. I called non-working numbers from a variety of our accounts while roaming in the Albany 00063 system. I also placed calls from the "B" side (Bell Atlantic/Albany, 00078, which, like most responsible "B" carriers, does not charge for incomplete calls) to the various "A" side carriers I utilized while roaming on the 00063 system. EVERY call to a non-working number, even ones where I hung up right after I pressed SEND, was billed airtime, taxes etc. It was not, however, billed a toll charge, since the dialed number was not in service, and thus not a billable call (Wow, they managed to get that part right ... miraculous! ;) ) EVERY incoming call, even if I let it ring just once, was billed, but again, there was no toll-delivery charge. Thus, by way of example, if I were using our Cell One/VT 00313 account, which was set to roam on the Albany/A 00063 system, when a call was placed to the Cell One/VT number, and the phone rang in Albany, the call was billed airtime by Cell One/Albany, but CO/VT did NOT bill me the toll charge to "deliver" the call from the 802 number which was dialed to my (temporary, automatically assigned, "TDN" number) phone in the Albany system. This is a clear indication that the Albany system is charging airtime for "ringtime", in violation of their own stated policy. I am in the process of addressing this issue with our carriers who charged us (or passed along the charges) for roaming in the Albany system. I am insisting on complete credits, and an investigation as to why we were charged when we were told a number fo times by Albany that we would not be charged for incompletes, especially after bringing this problem a few years ago. When I told ATT/NY (00025) about it, the first rep I spoke with gave me a rather hard time (ie, "Oh, they are allowed to do that, there is nothing we can do"; wrong, the NY system is billing us for the calls, they are Albany's agent in effect, if Albany promised us not to bill for calls less than 45 seconds and they did then the NY system should either take it up with Albany or credit the calls and have Albany try to collect from us directly. Then I got the usual "Why did you call numbers which you knew were not working?" (because neither you nor Albany bother to check these things yourself and someone else, unfortunately, needs to test these things), "Why did you place so many incoming calls, that seems odd?" (Because I didn't want to give you misinformation and needed to be sure by performing a grand total of 6 calls), etc.) Eventually, after pointing out the fact that I was billed airtime charges but not toll charges, I convinced him, and he issued a credit. More importantly, AT&T/NY later said that (at least as far as AT&T/NY goes), the problem was fixed, and incomplete incoming/outgoing calls while in the Albany/00063 system will not appear on subsequent bills. I hope so, AT&T is usually very quick to fix these things, even if their front-end help can use some better training. (I dunno, something about being drilled about my calling patterns just to show them that they may have a problem is a bit disconcerting :( ). I am still pursuing the matter with the other carriers, and will insist that Cell One/Albany either correct the billing, or give roamers correct information if they do indeed bill for incomplete calls of less than 45 seconds. Cell One/Boston should be fun -- they fight tooth and nail just to keep the $4 roamer fee, $3 daily charge, and $.99 per minute roam rate. Unbelieveable -- $7.99 just to press *350! That's why I am slowly dumping them as our accounts pass the contract period in favor of Bell Atlantic (Nynex) -- the offer a wider coverage area from Rhode Island to New Hampshire, no local call charge on most plans, unlimited off-peak, no airtime charge for voicemail deposition, and no petty, cheap "roamer admin" charges for giving you the "privilege" of roaming. Additionally, I believe that the Cellular One organization does not allow carriers to charge for feature activations, such as enabling call delivery via *350. (I may be wrong, but I will check with them.) If I find out this is correct, and CO/Albany insists that it may charge for hitting *350 and other features, I will bring this to the attention of the Cellular One organization for them to deal with. If you roam in the Albany A system, or have in the past few months, you may want to check your bill(s) for incomplete/unanswered calls and contact your local carrier if you feel you were incorrectly charged. Regards, Doug dreuben@interpage.net / +1 (510) 254-0133 / www.interpage.net Interpage Network Services Inc. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 23:35:12 -0400 From: The Old Bear Subject: Baltimore's 3-1-1 Service This came to me from Robert Vroman who particiaptes in an Emergency Services Discussion List. He says original source was the {New York Times} web site on 10/2/97. I personally find this a worrysome idea. It would seem that the 911 staff should be able to better triage incoming calls. I wonder what will happens when someone calls 3-1-1 because they only have a "small fire" or didn't want to call the regular 9-1-1 number because they were not absolutely sure they were having a heart attack. The fact that Baltimore was dispatching emergency personnel to non-emergency situations sounds more like a staff training problem in their dispatch center than any kind of technological issue. 311 Takes Pressure Off Overburdened Emergency Phone System By Michael Janofsky BALTIMORE -- Until a year ago, the owner of a cat stuck in a tree and the spouse of a shooting victim would likely call the same number for help: 911. But under a pilot federal program that is likely to expand quickly around the country and beyond, Baltimore is using a different telephone number for non-emergencies, 311, a change that has reduced the number of 911 calls to local police by nearly 25 percent, enabling operators to handle life-threatening situations more efficiently and giving officers more time to patrol the streets. In announcing the results of the program on its first anniversary, local, state and federal officials said the 311 experiment has been so successful that more than 100 other jurisdictions, including bigger cities like Chicago and Philadelphia, are eager to try it. "The results here have exceeded my expectations," said Joseph E. Brann, the director of the Office of Community Oriented Policing in the Justice Department. "The importance to the rest of the country is that this was a community willing to use a new strategy to solve an old problem." Most regions have used 911 as an emergency alternative to a seven-digit number for the local police station since the early 1970s. But here in Baltimore, Thomas C. Frazier, the police commissioner, said the steady increase of calls to 911, an average of 5 percent a year in recent years, was forcing many officers to spend their entire eight-hour shifts responding to calls -- many of which were not true emergencies -- at the expense of department efforts to increase the time officers patrol neighborhoods by car and foot. "We are trying to create more discretionary time for officers." Frazier said at a news conference, "and this enhances our ability. It has freed up an amount of time for them to be proactive, rather than reactive." As part of the Clinton administraton's comprehensive 1994 crime act, the Justice Department last year had a small grant -- $349,787 -- available to test a program that would combine new technology and a city's willingness to wean residents from 911 for non-emergency needs. Baltimore jumped at the chance. After a year, Frazier pronounced the program "a huge success," with 24.8 percent fewer calls to 911 and better service for those who still needed it. A department analysis of calls made after 311 was implemented showed that 911 operators now answer within an average of two seconds, rather than six seconds; that 78.5 percent fewer callers get a busy signal, and that 82.2 percent fewer get a recorded message asking them to not to hang up. In addition, a police survey of people who called 311 found that 98.2 percent of them were satisfied with the response even after learning that an officer would not be immediately dispatched. For example, someone returning from vacation to discover a burglary had taken place would probably be told by a 311 operator that police would respond, but not necessarily right away. More significant, Frazier said, the availability of 311 to solve non-emergency problems led to an immediate decrease in the frequency with which the police were dispatched. After 311 was introduced, Frazier said, the number of times police were dispatched fell enough to give an officer an additional hour a day for community policing. Frazier added that the overall crime rate in Baltimore has fallen 15 percent in 1997, compared with an 11 percent drop in 1996. The success of the 311 option here probably will lead to its implementation in other cities. Lt. Gov. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, who helped lobby for the federal grant, said Maryland's other populous regions, including Montgomery County and Prince George's County, which surround Washington, would soon get 311 systems. And John F. Reintzell, a spokesman for the Baltimore police department, said that the department has received inquiries from 150 police departments in the United States, Great Britain, Canada and South Korea. Brann of the Justice Department said that the federal government did not intend to offer further financial support for 311 but that several current studies the government was monitoring could help localities decide how they might amend the way they handle emergency calls. Dallas is offering a 311 line for access to all city agencies, and Buffalo, N.Y., is beginning a public awareness campaign to familiarize residents with seven-digit police station numbers. "Agencies all over the country are interested," Brann said. "But we're not trying to shove anything down anyone's throat. It should be a local agency determination." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 10:40:53 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "NetResearch: Finding Information Online" BKNTRSCH.RVW 970327 "NetResearch: Finding Information Online", Daniel J. Barrett, 1997, 1-56592-245-X, U$24.95/C$35.95 %A Daniel J. Barrett %C 103 Morris Street, Suite A, Sebastopol, CA 95472 %D 1997 %G 1-56592-245-X %I O'Reilly & Associates, Inc. %O U$24.95/C$35.95 800-998-9938 707-829-0515 fax: 707-829-0104 nuts@ora.com %P 240 %T "NetResearch: Finding Information Online" In a way, all use of the Internet involves a search for information. The search may be informal, or even completely serendipitous, but it exists, nonetheless. In that regard, the title of this book is appropriate. What is provided here is a fairly generic, brief Internet guide. There is an emphasis on search tools related to various net applications. An emphasis, but not terribly detailed or specific. Tools are listed, and sometimes explanations of use or even tips are included. The finer points of searching, though, are hardly ever touched on. Nor are there particulars of the advantages of one system over another. Barrett starts out by saying that the book will concentrate on graphical client software, but, in fact, almost no details of any interface are given. The content leans very heavily on the use of Web search engines, and relies on Web interfaces even where telnet or email options exist. For the rank novice, only just starting to explore the net, this does provide an accessible source of search tools, as well as explanations of the construction of domain names and URLs (Uniform Resource Locators). In addition, Barrett, while emphasizing Web tools, does provide some information on Usenet, mailing lists, and email addresses. (Veronica only gets a mention, and WAIS doesn't even get that.) In comparison to Gilster's "Finding it on the Internet" (cf. BKFNDINT.RVW), "NetResearch" is more up to date, but only a beginner's primer. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKNTRSCH.RVW 970327 roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca Ceterum censeo CNA Financial Services delendam esse Please note the Peterson story - http://www.netmind.com/~padgett/trial.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 00:12:45 -0400 From: Greg Monti Subject: Bell Atlantic Toll Alerting in Massachusetts On 30 Sep 97, fenner@parc.xerox.com (Bill Fenner) wrote: > In article , Roger Fajman > wrote: >> That's a rather odd position for Bell Atlantic to take, since we've >> had 10 digit dialing for local calls for some time now in the >> Washington, DC area, which is Bell Atlantic territory. I think this topic is missing a key item buried in a Bell Atlantic press release. Background: Massachusetts was recently (and may still be) a "partial toll alerting" state. Calls within the same area code are alerted as to whether they are toll by a 7-digit vs. 11-digit dialing plan. Calls which cross area code boundaries, even if they are local, are all dialed with 11 digits. I assume there is some historical or technical reason for this. Perhaps some switching equipment could not comprehend a 10 digit string that was not prepended with a "1". The story now: I think that the technical reason no longer exists, so the Mass. DPU is intending to force Bell Atlantic to go back to "full toll alerting" in which cross area code local calls may be dialed with 10 digits, while cross area code toll calls must be dialed with 11 digits. The trouble is, they want BA to implement this in a "general way" so the people who have the most common type of unlimited local service get the toll alerting correctly. People who buy the "extended area" local calling service (which increases the number of prefixes in your local calling area for an additional monthly fee) would still be required to dial 11 digits to reach those additional prefixes, even of the call is local and free, and even if it is in the same area code as the caller. *This* is what Bell Atlantic is saying is confusing. That toll alerting is correct for some people, but not for others. They're going through all this trouble to re-implement full toll alerting, but it won't be correct for everybody. BA's position is "why have toll alerting at all?" They want Massachusets to go to 7 digits for within area code, 11 digits for outside, both regardless of toll. Just another reason why toll alerting through dialing plans is a bad idea. Why not have the recorded sound of a cash register play just after the last digit is dialed to indicate toll? > Well, Bell Atlantic inherited that system when they acquired C&P > Telephone. Changing it to whatever Bell Atlantic thinks is not > confusing would have been confusing =) Not true. Bell Atlantic already owned C&P Telephone from Bell Atlantic's moment of birth on January 1, 1984. The 10-digit dialing plan (for cross area code local calls) in the Washington Metropolitan area was not implemented until October 1, 1990. When I moved into the Washington Metro area in late 1979, 10-digit dialing on local calls was specifically disallowed. From 301, you'd get a fast busy immediately after dialing "202". Obviously, that restriction was lifted sometime between 1979 and 1990. Greg Monti Jersey City, New Jersey, USA gmonti@mindspring.com http://www.mindspring.com/~gmonti ------------------------------ From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: Perhaps 888 Was a Poor Choice Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 03:42:27 -0700 Organization: No unsolicited commercial e-mail! I was having a discussion with a neighbor whose business has an 800 number that is getting a large number of wrong-number calls for the company that now has the same number in 888. It occurs to me (with 20/20 hindsight) that 888 was a poor choice for the second toll-free SAC. It just doesn't jolt the average Joe enough as being distinct from 800. A different choice -- maybe 822 -- would have been more distinctive, and might have resulted in fewer problems. There could've been ads with the jingle "8-2-2 is toll-free, too!" Of course, I think that the root of the problem is that there seems to have been no coherent attempt at a public education campaign for 888. Too many phone books still refer to 800 without mentioning 888. ** Do not spam e-mail me! ** Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best-com >> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must change "NOSPAM" to "com" << ------------------------------ From: Wlevant@aol.com (Bill Levant) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 22:17:25 EDT Subject: Spamford v. Agis According to this morning's __Philadelphia Inquirer__, (10/1/97), U.S. District Court Judge Anita Brody granted Spammy a temporary injunction against AGIS, which forces AGIS to reconnect Cyberpromo for the next fifteen days. Evidently, Spammy's contract with AGIS required thirty days' notice before cancellation; since AGIS didn't give thirty days' notice, they have to reconnect him (why only 15 days wasn't made clear in the article, but the judge probably counted the initial disconnect as "notice", and that was about 15 blissfully-spam-free days ago; 15 + 15 is, of course, 30). Spamford is reportedly looking to purchase a backbone provider, so as not to be at the mercy of an upstream provider ever again (assuming any would still host him); AGIS is considering an appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Bill ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 17:45:58 -0400 From: The Old Bear Subject: The Even Hand of the Law Pat: From what I can tell from this wire-service story, it looks like the court made the correct legal decision -- my personal feelings notwithstanding. I place more blame on AGIS and its counsel for not having prepared and negotiated a document with better protection of AGIS under these circumstances. Now, if the denial-of-service attacks (and/or UDP) on AGIS resume, AGIS could find itself in a position where it would be unable to deliver services to any of its customers -- placing it in default of its obligations under its other contracts. While there is an important lesson here concerning the need for some legislative action on spam, the bigger lesson of this particular skirmish may be the poorly drafted and administered contractual used by virtually all internet providers -- and the superficial level of understanding of the internet by the lawyers who are providing legal advice to internet providers. If one plans to contract with the Devil, one should first be sure one has a damn good lawyer to review the documents. Cheers, The Old Bear ------------- Junk E-mail Company to get Internet Access Services Restored {Associated Press} PHILADELPHIA (AP) 01-OCT-97 - Cyberspace's leading junk e-mailer must have its Internet access restored, at least temporarily, a federal judge ruled Tuesday. U.S. District Judge Anita Brody ordered Apex Global Internet Services Inc., also known as AGIS, to reconnect service for Cyber Promotions Inc. through Oct. 16 or until the company secures comparable Internet service. Cyber Promotions, of Philadelphia, sued the Dearborn, Mich.-based Internet provider for terminating its Internet account Sept. 16. Cyber Promotions was dropped by its secondary provider, WorldCom Inc., in June. Brody, while noting her `"strong personal distaste for Cyber's business," prevented the termination of its service without 30 days notice, as stipulated by contract. Cyber Promotions has been targeted by Internet users for sending an estimated 80 percent of all unsolicited bulk e-mail, also known as spam. About 10,000 customers pay Cyber Promotions to send 18 million to 20 million junk e-mail messages each day. AGIS terminated Cyber Promotions followed a massive "ping attack" on AGIS's network, which disables computers attached to the Internet by flooding them with repeated information requests, the judge said in her memorandum. AGIS maintains the attack was directed at Cyber Promotions. "Many computer users find the receipt of bulk e-mail annoying and intrusive," Brody wrote. "However, the fact that Cyber is an unpopular citizen of the Internet does not mean that Cyber is not entitled to have its contracts enforced in a court of law or that Cyber is not entitled to such injunction relief as any similarly situated business." ------------------------------ From: Chris Moffett Subject: WorldCom - MCI Merger? Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 15:38:00 -0400 NEW YORK (CNNfn) - Wall Street stocks moved higher at the opening bell Wednesday as traders focused on telecommunications issues in light of a surprise suitor for MCI Communications. [snip] The biggest news on Wall Street Wednesday was long-distance provider WorldCom's surprise offer to buy MCI Communications for $30 billion, or $41.50 a share. The bid jumps right in the middle of British Telecommunications' planned $18 billion acquisition of MCI. Shares of MCI (MCIC) jumped 5-7/8 to 35-1/4, while BT (BTY) rose 5-1/2 to 72-1/8. WorldCom (WCOM) was off 7/8 to 34-1/2. Merrill Lynch stirred the punch bowl a bit more when it raised its rating on WorldCom to "accumulate" from "neutral." WorldCom, which has been on a takeover frenzy that includes purchases of MFS Communications and CompuServe, also said it will spend $2.4 billion to acquire Brooks Fiber Properties. Brooks' (BFPT) stock soared 8-5/16 to 55. [snip] Full story at www.cnnfn.com This is a clip from the CNNfn web page and I was looking for comments on this offer from other readers. Do you think this will be allowed (FCC or Justice Dept.)? Will this make WorldCom an unbeatable force in the telecom world? Any thoughts would be appreciated. Chris ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 21:08:14 EDT From: Danny Burstein Subject: NYS PSC Recommends "Overlay" For New NYC Area Code As an FYI, I testified at one of the public hearings, in favor of an overlay (as opposed to to a geographic split). I added two suggestions to the overlay concept: a) I suggested that given some recent Federal court decisions, the FCC may have acted ultra-vires in their refusal to allow anyone new area codes which were exclusive to wireless, and I therefore recommended that another one be set aside in the NYC area for specifically thet group. (Currently the "917" code is the only one in the nation which is exclusive to pagers/cellulars [1] b) I also requested that instead of using the plebian area code of "6-4-6" which is kind of a throw-away, that they adopt the "6-9-2" one and overlay it citywide. I felt this would be particularly fitting for NYC and might even generate its own demand... [1] 917 is also used by some voicemail groups and some specilized other purposes. ************* STATE OF NEW YORK Public Service Commission John F. OMara, Chairman Three Empire State Plaza, Albany, NY 12223 Further Details: (518) 474-7080 http://www.dps.state.ny.us FOR RELEASE: IMMEDIATELY 97076/96C1158 PSC FAVORS USE OF NEW "646" AREA CODE FOR MANHATTAN AS AN OVERLAY Albany, September 30 -- The New York State Public Service Commission today began its consideration of methods for providing a long term supply of phone numbers for Manhattan and indicated that an overlay of a new 646 area code over the current 212 code appeared preferable to splitti ng Manhattan into two area codes. Similarly, the Commission indicated its preference for using an overlay when necessary in the near future to provide new local numbers in the 718 area code serving the other boro ughs of New York City. However, before making a final decision, the Commission directed its staff and the parties to provide additional information on an outstanding competitive issue by the end of October. The overlay approach has significant advantages because it avoids forced number changes, it will not impose unnecessary expenses on existing businesses for reprinting advertising a nd other material, and it prevents potentially controversial geographic divisions, noted Public Service C ommission Chairman John F. OMara. However, it is critical that the overlay be implemented in a competitively neutral manner. During the course of the Commissions proceeding, two main alternatives for addressing the imminent exhaustion of local phone numbers in Manhattan were developed: the use of an overlay and the separation of Manhattan into two area codes at 23rd Street. Either proposal would use 646 as a new area code -- the one designated for use in Manhattan by the national North American Numbering Plan. Staff determined that the advantages of the overlay outweighed the disadvantages raised in the case and that the overlay was preferable to the geographic split of Manhattan into two area codes. In addition, the weight of public comment solicited by the Commission from throughout New York City favored using overlays, with strong support coming from senior citizens, the handicapped and businesses. An overlay in Manhattan would superimpose 646 over the existing 212 area code. In doing so, it would allow all current customers to retain their existing phone numbers and their cu rrent area code, thereby eliminating the expense and inconvenience of changing phone numbers. Further, it would provide the longest period of relief, estimated to be about 6.5 years. By contrast, a geographic split of Manhattan into two area codes at 23rd Street would force over one million customers to change their area code, with thousands of them also forced to change their local 7-digit telephone number as well. These changes could be confusing, especially to the elderly and visually-impaired, and expensive for business customers who would have to change part or all of th eir telephone numbers. The Commission postponed final action today on adopting the overlay approach pending the outcome of a special staff/industry task force examination of number pooling, an outstanding competitive issue. Number pooling refers to the process of pooling all remaining, unassigned local numbers in the 212 area code and assigning them to customers on an as-needed basis without regard to the company serving the customer. The Commission today endorsed staffs belief that resolution of this issue, in conjunction with the scheduled implementation of permanent number portability, will alleviate competitors concerns about the overlay. The Commission directed staff to lead a task force in developing a plan to implement number pooling as soon as possible. Staff will report back to the Commission on its progress by the end of October. The Commission also expressed concern about the existing Federal Communication s Commission (FCC) requirement that all calls throughout the area covered must be completed using 11-digit dialing (1+area code+local number) when an overlay is implemented. According to the FCC, this requirement is designed to ensure that competing local phone companies are not disadvantaged by a system that may result in calls by or to their customers being more likely to entail dialing 11 digits because the company was assigned more 646 numbers. While Manhattan customers are accustomed to 11-digit local dialing for calls to other boroughs, the Commission believes that the FCC requirement for 11-digit dialing for all calls within Manhattan would be inconvenient, confusing and would be unnecessary if number pooling and permanen t number portability are implemented as envisioned by the Commission. As such, the Chairman directed counsel to take all necessary steps to avoid the imposition of mandatory 11-digit dialing. In developing its proposal to use an overlay to address the exhaustion of local phone numbers in Manhattan, Commission staff worked collaboratively with industry and consumer representatives and considered comments from six public statement hearings held throughout New York City. In addition, staff made more than 15 presentations to residential and business organizations in Manhattan and the other boroughs. Staff also participated in eight meetings of community and small bus iness leaders, observed focus group meetings sponsored by NYNEX (now Bell Atlantic), and provided information at two large expositions in New York City (the Getting Down to Business Fair and the Black Expo). In announcing it also favored the use of an overlay for the current 718 area code, the Commission recognized that, although estimates vary, that area code could run out of local numbers as early as 1999. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #269 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Oct 4 00:19:44 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id AAA16750; Sat, 4 Oct 1997 00:19:44 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 00:19:44 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199710040419.AAA16750@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #270 TELECOM Digest Sat, 4 Oct 97 00:19:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 270 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson The NANP (and Area Codes), Fifty Years Ago, Oct 1947 (Mark J. Cuccia) 100,000 Protest PR Telco Sale (Tad Cook) 206/425/253 Split, Usual Problems (Tad Cook) Book Review: "Community Networks" by Cohill/Kavanaugh (Rob Slade) FCC Toll-Free Conservation (aka Rationing) Plan (Judith Oppenheimer) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 18:30:26 -0500 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: The NANP (and Area Codes), Fifty Years Ago, Oct 1947 As we now begin the month of October 1997, it was sometime during October fifty years ago (in 1947), that the original area code format was 'finalized' by AT&T. Thus, the North American Numbering Plan was born. There _were_ two preliminary plans of assigning area codes. There was a plan indicated as a map of the US in 1945 in issues of both {Bell Laboratories Record} and {Bell System Technical Journal} magazines, in articles on future automated toll dialing and switching - first to be dialed by operators and later by customers. The 1945 map indicated the (continental) US only, and indicated some 60 individual regions. No codes were shown in the regions in the map -- only the possible boundaries. Canada wasn't even indicated on the 1945 map in the Bell magazine articles, although one of the articles did indicate 7-digit (2L-5N) dialing across NPA boundaries with 'protected' central office digits where a metro area straddled an NPA boundary, and an example cited in the article indicated that Windsor ON (Canada), across the river from Detroit MI (USA) could be such a 'protected' 7-digit (2L-5N) dialing situation. Another proposal was from 1946/47 would have all of the area codes in a particular state be from a range of consecutive codes: i.e. New York state would have used area codes 212, 213, 214, 215. However, at some point in 1947, Bell Labs and AT&T decided to change that plan, and instead issued the 'final' plan which has been built-on for the past half-century. I only know that this final plan was issued in October 1947, but I don't know which particular date in October that a possible memo was released by AT&T regarding the nationwide US/Canada numbering plan. I had posted two articles to TELECOM Digest in 1996 on the preliminary but never adopted area code plans. In April 1996 I posted a brief article on the 1946/47 plan where a state with multiple NPA codes would have had all of its codes from a range of consecutive codes. And then in mid-December 1996, I posted a longer article on the development of Operator Toll Dialing and its extension into customer DDD (Direct Distance Dialing), and included a list of the 60 possible regions (states, groups-of-states, portions of states) from the 1945 map of possible future area codes. As for the 'final' plan issued in October 1947, here are the charts showing the assignments. Linc Madison's website also has a map of the US/Canada showing the 1947 assignments: http://www.best.com/~eureka/telecom/map_1947.html N0X Form (States/Provinces with only ONE code assigned) (40 codes assigned) 201 NJ 301 MD 401 RI 501 AR 601 MS 701 ND 801 UT 901 TN 202 DC 302 DE 402 NE 502 KY 602 AZ 702 NV 802 VT 902 mrtm.prv. 203 CT 303 CO 403 AB 503 OR 603 NH 703 VA 803 SC 204 MB 304 WV 404 GA 504 LA 604 BC 704 NC 205 AL 305 FL 405 OK 505 NM 605 SD 206 WA 306 SK 406 MT 207 ME 307 WY 208 ID N1N Form (States/Provinces with several codes assigned) (46 codes assigned) 212 NY 312 IL 412 PA 512 TX 612 MN 712 IA 812 IN 213 CA 313 MI 413 MA 513 OH 613 ON 713 TX 913 KS 214 TX 314 MO 414 WI 514 PQ 614 OH 814 PA 914 NY 215 PA 315 NY 415 CA 515 IA 715 WI 815 IL 915 TX 216 OH 316 KS 416 ON 616 MI 716 NY 816 MO 916 CA 217 IL 317 IN 517 MI 617 MA 717 PA 218 MN 418 PQ 518 NY 618 IL 319 IA 419 OH Note that in 1947, there were _no_ area codes assigned from the N09, N00, N10, nor N11 ranges. The N11 range is still unavailable for NPA assignments, since the eight N11 codes are reserved or used for local 3-digit service codes. The N09 range of area codes were first assigned in 1957. The N10 range of area codes were assigned to automated/dial TWX (Teletypewriter) service beginning in 1962, and continuing through circa 1982. Although AT&T turned (US) TWX service over to WUTCO in the early 1970's, it wasn't until the early 1980's when WUTCO began to switch and route (US) TWX on its _own_ network instead of over the Bell-System's DDD Telephone Network. And although TWX still exists (WUTCO transferred it back to AT&T circa 1990/91), it is handled via a separate network, not 'directly' associated with the AT&T regular telephone long-distance network, and still uses numbers of the N10 form. Therefore, beginning around 1991, the N10 format as area codes were assigned for regular (POTS) telephone services. The N00 format was first assigned for SACs (Special Area Codes) around the mid-1960's, with 800 being the first N00, used for InWATS (Inward Wide-Area Telephone Service), aka "Toll-Free" called-party pays. Note that there were 86 codes assigned to the (at that time) 48 states of the US, including Washington (DC), as well as the ten provinces of Canada. Alaska and Hawaii weren't even states of the US at that time, nor were they even indicated as even being (or intended to be) a part of the US/Canada area code format. Canada's two northern territories, Yukon and the Northwest Territories, weren't indicated as being a part of the area code format, neither. And while Mexico had been 'pseudo' NANP at one time (access to Mexico City from the US was dialable 'as-if' it really were part of the NANP switching/routing network) ... and for some time, certain towns along the extreme northwestern border of Mexico were numbered and dialed _and_ switched/routed as a part of the NANP/DDD network ... Mexico was _not_ shown in 1947 to be intended as part of the NANP. None of the Caribbean was indicated to be a part of the NANP in 1947. Area Code 809 was first reserved/assigned to the Caribbean/Bermuda area in 1958. Customer dialing between the Caribbean and the US/Canada began to be introduced in the mid-to-late-1960's, and continuing through the 1970's and 80's. Newfoundland wasn't yet politically part of Canada in October 1947, but it does seem possible that the original NPA 902 (which at that time also served New Brunswick, in addition to Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island) also served Newfoundland/Labrador. In the mid-1950's, NB and NF/LB split from 902 (which was retained for NS/PEI), into their own 506; and then in 1962, NF/LB split off from 506 (which was retained for NB), into its own 709. Also note the original intent was that N0X format codes (N01 through N08) were assigned to states/provinces which needed only one area code, and that N1N format codes (N12 through N19) were assigned to states and provinces which needed two or more area codes. That original assignment plan was abandoned in the early 1950's, when assignments of new area codes were beginning to increase. And, note that short 'dial-pull' (lower numerical) area codes were assigned to the more populated areas, due to the number of dialpulse (rotary dial) CPE and switching equipment in existance in 1947. Such shorter dial-pull area codes have fewer dial-pulses, and had been desirable for assignment to such populated areas which would have more incoming traffic than less populated areas. New York City with 212 Los Angeles with 213 Dallas with 214 Philadelphia with 215 Chicago with 312 Detroit with 313 St.Louis with 314 Pittsburgh with 412 etc. As for the 'single-NPA' states, they had N0X format codes. And even though the middle-digit '0' is longer to dial with ten dialpulses, the N0X area codes were assigned such that populated areas had shorter-pull, fewer-dialpulse digits for the first and third digits (even though the middle-digit '0' has ten total dialpulses): 201 for New Jersey 202 for DC 203 for Connecticut 301 for Maryland 302 for Delaware 401 for Rhode Island These are all locations in the northeast or mid-Atlantic area, with rather large metro areas, suburbs, etc., and thus a larger incoming traffic volume. Note that rural Idaho has 208, a longer-pull code. Also note the large number of codes which were unassigned in 1947, which are from the longer dial-pull ranges. While the area code format was 'finalized' in October 1947, customer (and even operator) use of area-codes for long-distance dialing was _QUITE_ limited. The area code format was a planning for the future, so that every telephone line in the US and Canada would have its own unique and distinct telephone number, for easy dialing and routing, first by operators, and later by customers, at later dates, as new automated toll switching (and ticketing) equipment was placed into service, throughout the US/Canada telephone network. Over the past fifty years, the NANP has had more codes assigned. First there were many codes assigned throughout the 1950's and early 1960's, due to the postwar economic and suburban 'boom', as well as the introduction of automated customer long-distance dialing (DDD) in addition to conversions of many manual local exchanges into dial central offices. More customers and lines means more central office codes. And as more central office codes are assigned, eventually new area codes need to be created, usually by a split. Sometimes, new area codes were created in the 1950's and early 1960's due to more efficient trunking requirements as customer DDD was being introduced. In the early 1960's, various conservation plans were being developed to allow N0X/N1X format codes for local central office codes (to be needed in some large populated areas, sometime by the mid-1970's), and for NNX format codes to be used as area codes, sometime by the mid-to- late-1990's. So-called 'interchangeable' NPA codes (NNX format) have indeed been introduced beginning in 1995, and have been assigned at rates never previously seen, surpassing the early rush of area code assignments in the 1950's and early 1960's. Our ten-digit numbering scheme (NXX-NXX-xxxx) in the NANP is expected to exhaust all available (POTS) area codes sometime in the first-half of the 21st Century. At first it was estimated to happen by 2050, but because of the current rate of assignment of NPA codes, some have pushed that date earlier to 2010. However, if local number portability amongst the competitive local telcos is properly introduced over the next ten years, or if central-office-code sharing takes place among the various competitive telcos, it may be possible to reduce the rate of area code assignments. There are frequently questions as to why so many countries or territories are included in a single numbering plan (CCITT/ITU Country Code +1), rather than the US, Canada, and each individual Caribbean island each having unique/distinct country-codes. In 1947, much of Canada's telephone industry was directly associated with the US telephone industry. AT&T did own a portion of Bell Canada; and AT&T's Western Electric, along with Bell Canada, owned Northern Electric (later known as Northern Telecom, now known as Nortel). The Caribbean was intended to be added in 1958. Plans to incorporate Mexico into the DDD network also existed since the late 1950's, and were first introduced around the early-to-mid-1960's. The CCITT/ITU plans for country-codes for each telephone country/network in the world wasn't really introduced until around 1964 (although there was a preliminary 1960 plan for country codes for Europe, North Africa, and nearby Asian countries). In closing, while there were 86 area codes assigned for the NANP in October 1947, fifty years later, on 1-October-1997, I am counting at least 212 active "POTS" (non-SAC) area codes in the NANP, even if only in permissive dialing. And the increase in new NPA codes is far from over or even slowing down. NWORLASKCG0 (BellSouth #1AESS Class-5 Local "Seabrook" 504-24x-) NWORLAIYCM1 (BellSouth-Mobility Hughes-GMH-2000 Cellular-MTSO NOL) NWORLAMA0GT (BellSouth DMS-100/200 fg-B/C/D Accss-Tandem "Main" 504+) NWORLAMA20T (BellSouth DMS-200 TOPS:Opr-Srvcs-Tandem "Main" 504+053+) NWORLAMA04T (AT&T #4ESS Class-2 Toll 060-T / 504-2T "Main" 504+) JCSNMSPS06T (AT&T #5ESS OSPS:Operator-Services-Tandem 601-0T 601+121) MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut-1-2497 WORK:__mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu|4710-Wright-Road|__(+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity-5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New-Orleans-28__|fwds-on-no-answr-to Fax:UNiversity-5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail- ------------------------------ Subject: 100,000 Protest PR Telco Sale Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 18:18:42 PDT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Saboteurs cut governor's phone, 100,000 protest telephone company sale By Marion Lloyd Associated Press Writer SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (AP) -- Saboteurs cut telephone service to the governor's office and other government facilities, throwing down the gauntlet Wednesday before 100,000 demonstrators marched to protest the sale of the Puerto Rico Telephone Co. Federico Torres Montalvo, leader of the public sector union, said they didn't expect to change the mind of Gov. Pedro Rossello but hoped to intimidate possible buyers by showing the depth of workers' hostility. The leader of one of the two telephone company unions, Alfonso Benitez Rosa, called on Rossello to hold a referendum, and gave the governor a week to respond. "Strike! Strike!" thousands of people yelled in response, calling for another strike to push the issue. Unions and some civil, religious and political groups had called for a general strike Wednesday, but shops and other private businesses operated as usual. It appeared the protest was confined mainly to government workers, the bastion of embattled unions losing ground under an ambitious privatization program. About a quarter of Puerto Rico's 1.2 million-strong workforce is employed by the government. The unions "are fighting a battle for their survival," said management professor Elias Gutierrez of the University of Puerto Rico. Bomb threats were reported at the governor's mansion, the Capitol building and the Muniz U.S. Air Force, but police found no explosives. Telephone company spokesman Nestor Concepcion said unidentified saboteurs cut a fiber optic line overnight, causing $200,000 in damage and halting telephone service to a leading hotel and several government offices. Jose Martinez, a telephone company technician, said the company had restricted access to the major telephone cables and locked manholes since Monday. "Legislators have to take a look, and decide how many votes they've got here and how many they stand to lose," he said from atop a church overlooking more than 100,000 demonstrators on two avenues flanking the seaside Capitol. The phone company makes $100 million a year and employs 8,000 people in what some economists say is a management-heavy bureaucracy. Few government schools opened in San Juan, indicating teachers heeded union calls to strike and ignored government threats to dock their pay. Of the electricity utility's 10,400 employees, only 2,700 managers and executives came to work, said spokesman Freddie Marrero. Air traffic and cargo ships operated normally, as did hospitals. Around the Capitol, protesters danced to blaring merengue music and waved Puerto Rican flags. Riot police in bulletproof vests lined the streets alongside vendors selling codfish and plantain fritters, hot dogs and hamburgers. The governor says the telephone company sale would improve efficiency and lower rates. Rossello has refused to guarantee that there will be no layoffs in a takeover. The unions claim the government is grasping for ways to bankroll exorbitant building projects. Rossello says sale profits would help a $5 billion shortfall in the state retirement fund, repair a leaking water system and ensure continued benefits to telephone workers. ------------------------------ Subject: 206/425/253 Split, Usual Problems Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 22:22:06 PDT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Puget Sound Business Are Frustrated with Temperamental New Area Codes By Cynthia Flash, The News Tribune, Tacoma, Wash. Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News TACOMA, Wash.--Oct. 3--Time is running out to fix any bugs associated with the Puget Sound's new 253 and 425 area codes. And with just six weeks before the new codes become the only option around, some glitches do still exist. The folks at Information Technologies Corp. in Puyallup report that some of their customers from around the United States still can't get through using 253. "If you use 253, you may or may not get your calls. If you use 206, you may or may not get your calls," said a frustrated employee of the company, which offers courses on such topics as how to collect judicial judgments and child support. The employee, who did not want his name used, estimates that Information Technologies Corp. has lost $20,000 in sales since the region switched to new area codes April 27. The 206 area code was broken into three different codes. Seattle and Vashon, Mercer and Bainbridge islands remain in 206; most of South King and Pierce counties are in 253. The eastern and northern parts of King County and the southern part of Snohomish County are in 425. Officials with US West and the state Utilities and Transportation Commission said they have received a few complaints like that of the Puyallup business. But, they say, the problems don't seem to be widespread. "We haven't received very many complaints," US West spokeswoman Dana Smith said Thursday. "The complaints we do receive, the vast majority of them are related to equipment problems." Smith explained that every time a region gets a new area code, it's up to the hundreds of individual telephone companies throughout the country (and tens of thousands of businesses with complex phone systems) to reprogram their telephone equipment to make sure it recognizes the new codes. Bellcore, the regulator of numbers for the nation's telephone industry, notifies all telephone vendors monthly of new area codes and prefixes. It's possible some vendors who maintain business telephone systems didn't program the Puget Sound's new codes into their customers' telephone systems, Smith said. Steve King, a spokesman for the state utilities commission, said he's received far fewer calls this time than he did when the region began using the 360 area code two years ago. Before the split into 360, all area codes had a 0 or 1 as the middle digit. The change to a new number in the middle of the area code sent the nation's telephone systems into a frenzy. Thousands of companies lost money because callers were unable to get through. With this latest code change, up until Nov. 15 callers can use the new codes or continue to call 206 and still get through. King said he expects to hear about more problems come Nov. 16, when callers will have to use the new codes. Until then, Smith and King urge businesses in this area to continue to tell their out-of-town customers about the new area codes. "Businesses here should be communicating with their customers, telling them their phone number is changing and reminding them if they have automatic-call equipment that it will need to be reprogrammed," King said. THERE ARE TEST NUMBERS to call to determine if a phone system can access the new area codes. If callers are able to get through to the test numbers, they know their phones are working. The numbers are: 1-253-627-0062 and 1-425-452-0009. If telephone users have problems, they may call the US West customer service line at 1-800-441-5516, or the telephone industry's area code hot line at 1-888-97SPLIT. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 11:14:08 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Community Networks" by Cohill/Kavanaugh BKCNLFBV.RVW 970320 "Community Networks", Andrew Michael Cohill/Andrea Lee Kavanaugh, 1997, 0-89006-896-8, U$39.00 %E Andrew Michael Cohill http://www.bev.net/project/people/cohill %E Andrea Lee Kavanaugh %C 685 Canton St., Norwood, MA 02062 %D 1997 %G 0-89006-896-8 %I Artech House/Horizon %O U$39.00 617-769-9750 800-225-9977 fax: +1-617-769-6334 %O artech@world.std.com bookco@artech.demon.co.uk %P 334 %T "Community Networks: Lessons from Blacksburg, Virginia" In the last chapter, analyzing success factors of the Blacksburg Electronic Village (BEV), one of the points is to "Show, do not tell, community members how to use the technology as a way of increasing use of the network in the community." This same point applies to the book itself. It succeeds, where many other books on similar topics failed, primarily because it shows the actual workings of a functional, and functioning, electronic village. This puts it far ahead of blue-sky proposals of what might (or might not) become possible in the future. An introduction and historical background leads into discussion of architecture, evaluation, democracy, education, business, technology, information management, history database, and the aforementioned success factors. Economics are touched on in various articles, but it is a pity that an overview treatment is not included. Still, any such flaws are far outweighed by the value of the reality and experience that the various authors bring to the task. Blacksburg has validated certain promises of the information age -- and challenged others. Planners of information infrastructures, national or otherwise, ignore it at their peril. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKCNLFBV.RVW 970320 roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 11:28:58 -0400 From: Judith Oppenheimer Reply-To: joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com Organization: ICB TOLL FREE - 800/888 news... commentary... consulting... Subject: FCC Toll Free Conservation (aka Rationing) Plan New York, NY October 3, 1997 (ICB TOLL FREE NEWS) On September 29, 1997, the FCC directed DSMI to implement the toll free conservation plan as of 12:01 a.m., Eastern Daylight Time, Saturday, October 4, 1997. The plan implemented by the FCC is the one developed and submitted by industry-forum SNAC (SMS Number Administration Committee). Of unusual note is the suggestion, and the FCC's approval, for a 'banking' system, to give each RespOrg a credit for the unused portion of its weekly allocation on the conservation plan. The FCC letter states, 'We believe such a plan could be beneficial, because it would minimize any incentive to reserve numbers unnecessarily. We would, however, encourage SNAC to develop a proposal that would limit the amount of numbers that could be 'banked' from week to week.' The Actual Allotment The FCC directed as follows: 1. For purposes of this conservation plan, 'work status' refers to a toll free number that has been loaded in the Service Control Points and is being utilized to complete toll free service calls. 2. A RespOrg with fewer than 1,000 numbers in working status as of August 23, 1997 may reserve up to 200 numbers each week. 3. A RespOrg with between 1,000 and 30,000 numbers in working status as of August 23, 1997 may reserve up to 250 numbers each week. 4. A RespOrg with more than 30,000 numbers in working status as of August 23, 1997 may reserve up to 0.95 percent of the numbers the RespOrg had in working status on August 23, 1997. 5. RespOrgs are reminded that under the Commission's regulations, 47 C.F.R. 52.105, RespOrgs may not reserve toll free numbers without having an actual toll free subscriber for whom those numbers are being reserved. New RespOrg Certifications The FCC ordered that DSMI can process and grant, 'where appropriate', applications that it has received in its office as of September 29, 1997. RespOrgs certified as a result of that procedure may reserve up to 200 numbers per week during the period of the conservation plan. DSMI can also process and grant 'where appropriate', applications that it receives after September 29, 1997, but RespOrgs certified as a result of that process may not reserve toll free numbers until 877 is opened up. 'Appropriate' RespOrg applications is not defined. Reporting Procedures Finally, DSMI is to file weekly reports with the FCC's Network Services Division of the Common Carrier Bureau as well as SNAC, containing the following: 1. The quantity of numbers in the spare pool. 2. The quantity of numbers being returned to the spare pool of available numbers each week by category (for example, numbers that have been disconnected and whose aging period has expired; numbers that were reserved but not assigned and are automatically returned after 45 days; etc.) 3. The quantity of numbers actually served from Sunday to Saturday, each week, beginning Sunday, October 5, 1997. 800/888 ICB TOLL FREE NEWS 800/888 ...today's regulatory news for tomorrow's marketing decisions. ICB FAX EDITION NOW AVAILABLE. EMAIL mailto:joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com FOR COMPLEMENTARY ISSUE AND ORDER FORM (ph) 212 684-7210. (fx) 212 684-2714. 1 800 THE EXPERT. ICB Headlines Autosponder: mailto:headlines@icbtollfree.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #270 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Oct 4 01:49:18 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id BAA21073; Sat, 4 Oct 1997 01:49:18 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 01:49:18 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199710040549.BAA21073@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #271 TELECOM Digest Sat, 4 Oct 97 01:49:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 271 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson 303 and Overlay of 720 (Donald M. Heiberg) Local Number Portability and Interconnecting Services (M. Castano-Gonzalez) California AT&T Outage (Tad Cook) Anti-Spam Spam? (Anthony Argyriou) Re: WorldCom - MCI Merger? (Linc Madison) Re: WorldCom - MCI Merger? (Michael R. Ward) Re: WorldCom - MCI Merger? (Dennis.-.MCI.Stockholder@zippo.com) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Donald M. Heiberg Subject: 303 and Overlay of 720 Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 15:54:03 -0600 Colorado Public Utilities Commission http://www.puc.state.co.us/docket/97m329t/min925a.html Colorado Numbering Task Force Minutes September 25-26, 1997 Members Present Bruce Armstrong - Colorado PUC Mike Whaley - U S West Jack Ott - Numbering Plan Administrator Mike Sheridan - AT&T Mike Lachman - Pagenet Karen Mulberry - MCI Dennis McClure - TCG Joe Klein - ICG Dian Callaghan - OCC Jeff Swan - PTI Members Absent Cathy Handley - PCIA Tom Wilkinson - 9-1-1 (USWC) Non-Members Present Becky Quintana - Colorado PUC P.B. Schechter - OCC Pete Tanna - U S West Bruce Bennett - Lockheed Martin Steve Denman - Counsel for Numbering Administrator Letty Friesen - TCG Counsel Rhonda Marshall - AT&T John Andrews - PTI Tommy Thompson - U S West Barry Hjort - CTA This is the first meeting of the Colorado Numbering Task Force as required by Colorado Commission decision; therefore no minutes are to be approved. All persons present identified themselves and a sign-up sheet was passed around. Copies of the sign-up sheet were distributed to all present. The chair provided a general overview of the short-term and long-term objectives of the Task Force. According to the Commission order establishing the Task Force, its original purpose was twofold: to develop long term solutions for the efficient management of telephone numbers in the State of Colorado and to develop a timeline for accomplishing this objective. Because of the immediate desire of the Commission to conserve the current central office codes in the 303 area code, the Commission consolidated the Application of the Numbering Administrator to implement conservation measures with the Task Force docket and directed the first meeting of the Task Force to discuss procedures for implementing decisions of the Task Force. There was discussion regarding the forwarding of the recommendations of the Task Force to the Commission and the use of emergency rulemaking as a means to implement the desires of the Task Force. For cases where consensus cannot be reached, the use of majority and minority positions in either paper or oral form to the Commission for decision was discussed. No decision was reached as to the most appropriate way to handle non-consensus situations. Although the Commission does not have regulatory jurisdiction over the services and rates of certain central office code holders (e.g., wireless providers), the Commission has indicated that it believes it has jurisdiction over the telephone numbers and therefore will exert its jurisdiction over telephone numbers of all holders. The idea of emergency rulemaking did not seem to have much support by the group. Jack Ott reminded the group that the selection of a neutral third party administrator will happen shortly and there will be a transition from the current administrator to a new administrator. There was a discussion of the use of consensus as proposed by the Commission in its order. There were two differing views of consensus. The chair suggested the use of unanimity. It was suggested that the current industry use of consensus only requires that all parties be heard, a large majority of the parties agree and that not more than one party on a single industry segment disagrees with the result. No final decision was reached on how to deal specifically with non-consensus results. There was some discussion on the problems associated with E-911 services in a number pooling/rate center consolidation environment. (More discussion later). There was some general discussion of selecting a date certain for the turning up of the 720 area code for the purpose of establishing a specific customer education program. This would involve the requirement to establish a date for mandatory ten digit dialing. A comment was made regarding the pushing back the date for mandatory ten-digit dialing that it might negatively affect CLECs who are supposed to receive remaining 303 codes. The Commission order has told the Task Force to determine if the conservation measures can forestall the implementation of the 720 code. We are not running out of numbers; we are running out of central office codes. Is there any remedy to this situation? There was a discussion by Mike Lachman regarding the availability of 1+ local calling on a permissive basis. Although no question was called, this issue did not seem to have any negative response by the group. Some specific facts were raised regarding the 303 Area code. 43 rate centers today. LNP is to be implemented in the majority of the 303 area by June 30, 1998. 56 % of numbers have been assigned in the 303 code but only 77 codes remain available. The Administrator estimates that only approximately 20 codes will remain by January 1. U S WEST is reclaiming some unused central office codes; but September, 1998 projected exhaust includes this reclamation. The numbering administrator has declared a jeopardy situation in the 303 code. February 1, 1998 is the date for the beginning of permissive 10-digit dialing in the 303 area. The Task Force reviewed the Commission's order for a list of suggested conservation methods. The list includes recapturing unused NXX codes, thousand block integrity, code sharing, rate center consolidation and, generically, number pooling. Each item was discussed individually as to its merits. Regarding the recapture of unused NXX codes, Jack Ott informed the group that he has already taken steps to perform this task and that the forecasted exhaust date of September, 1998 includes the recapture of all unused NXX codes. Thousand block integrity is the process whereby central office code holders would be required to manage the numbers in the block of 10,000 numbers assigned for each central office code such that each successive block of one thousand numbers (e.g., 1000-1999) prior to opening up the next thousand block of numbers. Regarding thousand block integrity, several parties conclude that any effort on thousand block integrity will not have any effect on the exhaust of the 303 code. The rationale is that any utilization of spare thousand blocks will require the implementation of number pooling. Also, there is a problem with assignment of numbers to certain PBXs wherein certain thousand blocks might not work (0XXX, 8XXX, 9XXX) and the assignment of "vanity" numbers. Since number pooling is predicted to take a long time to implement, or at least until after the implementation of LNP in second quarter of 1998. This issue was not resolved by the group. Code sharing is the current practice of sharing an NXX code in two different switches. U S West utilizes this technology in instances where an analog switch is serving an area wherein digital features are required. U S West places a digital switching unit that is remoting off of a digital host in another wire center. A block of numbers (possibly a thousand block) in the analog switch is dedicated to the digital remote switch. U S West is concerned that this technology uses significant amounts of memory in the SCPs and it is not effectively deployable on a ubiquitous basis. This functionality requires seven digit routing where it is deployed. There was a large amount of discussion regarding the possibility of rate center consolidation within the 303 area. Jack Ott had proposed a specific rate center consolidation proposal in his application to the Commission. If rate center consolidation could be accomplished, gains could be made in the provision of central office codes to new facilities based providers. There is also the possibility of reclaiming codes from existing providers if those providers have not activated those codes, but we do not have data at the current time to determine this. Concerns about rate center consolidation centered on requirements for modifications of local calling areas and E911 problems. Regarding local calling area modifications, it is apparent that collapsing rate centers would affect the local calling areas of many areas. For example, Longmont can only call Boulder and Lafayette in the Denver local calling area. If the Denver local calling area were collapsed into one rate center as proposed by Mr. Ott, any LEC receiving a new NXX code theoretically could serve all customers in the Denver local calling area with the one NXX. The question then arises that the new NXX code serves areas accessible and inaccessible to the existing Longmont local calling area. Since there are numerous local calling areas that overlap like this, this is a problem that would need to be addressed prior to performing a rate center consolidation. It was also pointed out that any change in local calling areas will require a formal rate filing by all ILECs involved and public hearings to follow. This will undoubtedly be a request for an increase in the local rates for Colorado basic telephone service customers. This will require customer notifications and will likely take several months to complete. No decision was reached on an exact time period for such a change. Regarding E911, the issue is that any consolidation of rate centers needs to consider the problems that arise in the current E911 system. The problem is when a 911 call gets to the 911 PSAP without appropriate Automatic Number Identification (ANI) information to identify the customer for lookup in the Automatic Location Identification (ALI) database. Since the Denver calling area has multiple jurisdictions (i.e., counties), 911 calls must be able to route to the appropriate default PSAP in these ANI failure situations. The group decided that it would be advantageous to get input from the 911 community on the specifics of 911 problems. Dian Callaghan offered to try to get an appropriate person to our meeting on Friday (9/26). On Friday, the group continued the discussion on the possibilities of rate center consolidation as basically the only short term solution to number conservation in the 303 area that has not already been accomplished or planned. It was noted that both Minnesota and Arizona ad accomplished rate center consolidations. The 602 area code in Arizona e Commission offices. Action items (see below) we discussed. We developed a preliminary timeline for estimating dates: February 1, 1998 - Permissive dialing begins (Commission order) June 1, 1998 - Earliest date for beginning of mandatory ten-digit dialing June 30, 1998 - Date for implementation of LNP in Denver MSA July 1, 1998 - Date for opening of 720 code (Assuming 9/1/98 303 exhaust date) September 1, 1998 - Tentative date for 303 exhaust (from Number Administrator). This date might be affected in either direction depending upon other factors (e.g., rate center consolidation, changes in estimated growth rates) The Task Force adjourned to the Commission's weekly meeting to hear the discussion on the number administrator's utilization report. Action Items: 1. Jack Ott will provide a complete list of all NXX code holders in the 303 area and which NXXs they hold. Bruce Armstrong already has data from an information request provided by U S WEST. However, if there are any updates, Jack needs to provide that to Bruce. 2. Bruce will make a data request to U S West (and all other companies providing toll services) to provide a complete analysis of toll revenues (including messages and minutes) within the 303 area. This should be provided in as disaggregate a manner as possible to be able to test all scenarios for potential effects to ILECs for rate center consolidation. (Data was requested by Commission Staff on 9/30/97.) 3. Bruce will issue a data request to all NXX code holders to request specific utilization data from all code holders. This data should be the same data that was used to assemble the data for the September 15 utilization report to the Commission by the Number Administrator. The Commission in its regular weekly meeting expressed its interest in receiving this data from all code holders in an expeditious manner. (Bruce/Becky sent requests to all code holders via FAX on 9/30/97 allowing for five business days turnaround.) 4. A meeting with the Denver area 911 experts (members of the 911 Task Force) will meet on October 14 at 1 p.m. at the Commission. The purpose of the meeting is to understand the issues surrounding the 911 system, LNP and rate center consolidation and to attempt resolution of problems. 5. Jack Ott will review the code application records for the 303 area and check for outstanding Part 4 forms. 6. Jack Ott will provide a description of the Part 4 process at the next meeting of the Task Force. 7.Jack Ott will draw up details of an audit process for consideration by the Task Force at the next meeting. This audit process will be used to track the utilization of numbers by any code holders. 8.The next meeting of the Task Force will be on October 22-23, 1997. 9.The tentative agenda for the next meeting includes discussion of the previous action items as well as selection of a date for the beginning of mandatory ten digit dialing. Respectfully submitted, Bruce Armstrong Chair of the Task Force October 2, 1997 ------------------------------ From: Mario A. Castano-Gonzalez Subject: Local Number Portability and Interconnecting Network Services Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 10:18:10 -0500 Hello ... We at CINTEL (Centro de Investigacion de las Telecomunicaciones de Colombia) are analyzing the problem of implementing the national-wide interconnection of the intelligent network services provided by the several local telcos (with special interest in how to provide local number portability LNP). Here in Colombia we have in this moment more than 30 local service providers and one long distance provider, but many more are entering the local and long distance markets. Thus why we are interested in knowing how these problems are being faced in USA, and the products the IN providers are currently offering. Regards, Mario A. Castano-Gonzalez Chief Planning Officer Centro de Investigacion de las Telecomunicaciones - CINTEL Av 9 118-85 Bogota Colombia Tels: +57 1 620 8307 Fax: +57 1 214 4121 Email: m.a.castano@ieee.org http://www.colciencias.gov.co/cintel/ CINTEL (Centro de Investigacion de las Telecomunicaciones, Telecommunications Research Center, established 1993) is a private, non-profit organization with 43 shareholders that represent the most important companies related with the telecommunications business in Colombia, including 23 local and long distance telephone service providers, universities, telecomms equipment providers and governmental institutions. We provide R&D, standardization, certification, consulting and training services to the whole telecommunications sector in our country. Our objective is to collaborate in the technological development of the telecommunications companies and services in Colombia. ------------------------------ Subject: California AT&T Outage Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 18:36:26 PDT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Temporary telephone service outage in Chico-Redding area CHIC0, Calif. (AP) -- Long-distance telephone service in the northern Sacramento Valley was interrupted for several hours Friday, and the cause of it was not immediately known. An AT&T spokesman said the outage began shortly after 6:30 a.m. in the Redding-Chico area and lasted until about 10:15 a.m. "There was an impact on calls in and out of the 916 area code," said Dave Johnson, a spokesman at AT&T's network headquarters in Bedminister, N.J. Toll calls within some areas of the 916 zone also were affected. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 18:29:43 -0700 From: Anthony Argyriou Subject: Anti-Spam Spam? Pat - I've received several copies of a very interesting spam: > Subject: Win95 CancelBot Lets ANYONE Delete Spam WORLDWIDE! > Reply-To: dougb@adram.com > A Windows 95 Cancel-bot? Finally *WE* can control the Usenet, and > spammers once and for all ... With this incredible creation SPAM WILL BE > HISTORY BY THANKSGIVING! > I read about it in a newsgroup, got it and it works like a champ! > Using this incredible well designed CancelBot, we can kill all the > Spam on UseNet, and in our favorite newsgroups, protect our domain > names, email addresses, etc., from being forged and misused by > spammers. > All you have to do is scan the UseNet, using key-word searches, and > the program will run in automatic mode issuing cancels even while > you're asleep. This is the beginning of the END of spam forever - > thanks to CrisLewis, Inc, and their developers. Anyone know anything about this? What is their benefit? Anthony Argyriou [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Chris Lewis (at least I think there is an 'H' in his name) has long been a spam fighter, going back to what seems now to be an eternity ago when everyone's favorite villian was King Spam I (what was his name?) down in Albuquerque, NM. Ah yes, Jeff Slaton. Probably King Spam II is much worse; far more of a tyrant than Slaton ever dreamed of being. Chris Lewis used to issue cancels by the boat load in those days which generally were well-recieved by Usenet denizens. It happened now and then -- at least in my opinion -- that he got over-enthusiastic at times, and the scripts he used some- times had the effect of making even legitimate discussion of Slaton and his tactics difficult to carry on without those messages also getting cancelled. I remember several messages about Slaton which I had passed along to the Digest (and comp.dcom.telecom) getting can- celled for no apparent reason until Lewis told me his 'criteria' and I was able to avoid those certain strings, etc in future messages. Chris Lewis certainly is honest and dedicated to his cause, which seems to be the total eradication of spam during our lifetime (do you remember when they used to say that about cancer research?). I would have no hesitation in ordering and using his software. Now whether or not he had to spam in order to make his product known is another story ... you see, it is spam when you do it and I don't like the product or 'service' being offered; on the other hand it is an 'important net-wide broadcast announcement' when I do it and think everyone needs to know about it. That is, I guess, one unfortunate side affect of spam: to combat it requires splashing the cure all over the net in the same way the chain letters and other worthless crap gets splashed everywhere. In his case, I think I can tolerate it; if he and others making a concerted effort to take back the net are successful, we will owe them a big debt of gratitude. One problem I see with his solution though is that key words/phrases, even those vocabularies developed by highly sophisticated scripts written by experienced programmer/developers are bound to miss some spam which is probably not as bad as the fact that it will take down some valid messages at the same time. Having everyone and his brother running the cancelbot indiscriminatly -- and you know some people will try to 'improve' on the script -- is going to cause some havoc. I would much rather see a restricted distribution of the software to a few of the guys who really know what they are doing but if the intent is to sell the software and make a little money from the miserable condition of the newsgroups these days, then obviously a restricted distribution is not in the best interest of the guy(s) who put it together. ... in other words, they sent out spam. Are we going around in circles here? If you are asking my opinion, I'd say take a chance on his product, and try to ignore the inconsistencies here. But now you see, the guys who say, "I will never buy anything which is presented to me as a UCE or lunchmeat" are in a bind. Do they make an exception to their own rule in this case? I guess there are exceptions to all rules, including the rule that there are exceptions to all rules. Let's call it an important net-wide broadcast announcement. If anyone contacts Chris and gets a copy, please check it out and let us all know if it does the job. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: WorldCom - MCI Merger? Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 12:14:34 -0700 Organization: No unsolicited commercial e-mail! In article , Chris Moffett wrote: > [summary: WorldCom (WCOM) has announced a bid to buy MCI (MCIC), which > has been in the process of acquisition by British Telecom (BTY). Also, > WorldCom has been acquiring MFS Communications, CompuServe, and Brooks > Fiber Properties (BFPT).] > Full story at www.cnnfn.com > > This is a clip from the CNNfn web page and I was looking for comments > on this offer from other readers. Do you think this will be allowed > (FCC or Justice Dept.)? Will this make WorldCom an unbeatable force > in the telecom world? First of all, it is important to note that there are two angles on this deal that will require review. First is the basic long-distance business, in which this would be the merger of the #4 and #2 players. Second is the Internet business; one analysis I saw suggested that the combined company would control over 60% of the backbone in the U.S., and a majority worldwide. All the same, the combined long-distance holdings of WorldCom and MCI would still be smaller than AT&T, and 60+% of the Internet is probably not sufficient to trigger antitrust intervention, at least not without other factors coming into play. However, there is concern in the Internet community because some of the upper management of WorldCom have been outspoken critics of flat-rate pricing for individual Internet access. ** Do not spam e-mail me! ** Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best-com >> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must change "NOSPAM" to "com" << ------------------------------ From: Michael R. Ward Subject: Re: WorldCom - MCI Merger? Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 15:02:16 -0500 Organization: University of Illinois The antitrust folks at DOJ will do a first cut by calculating market shares and HHI and the change in HHI that the merger implies (HHI 10,000 times sum of squared market shares). Bigger HHIs come from more concentrated industies which are, presumably, less compatitve. Mergers in industries with HHI < 1000 or in which HHI changes by < 50 get approved. Likewise, mergers in industries with HHI < 1800 AND change in HHI < 100 get approved. If the merger does not pass these tests, it will usually get a more thorough review. The long distance currently has an HHI in the 2200 to 2500 range depending on what how you define market share. This merger would yield a change in HHI of between 200 and 350. Therefore, we should expect the DOJ to conduct a more thorough investigation. However, after similar reviews, both the FTC and the DOJ have been approving mergers in which the HHI was around 3000 or the change in HHI is around 400. If I had to bet, I would expect the DOJ to eventually approve the merger. Michael R. Ward (217) 244-5667 Dept. of Ag. and Consumer Econ. ward1@uiuc.edu University of Illinois http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/ward1 ------------------------------ From: Dennis.-.MCI.Stockholder@zippo.com Subject: Re: WorldCom - MCI Merger? Date: 3 Oct 1997 13:09:10 -0700 Organization: None In article , Chris says: > Do you think this will be allowed by > (FCC or Justice Dept.)? Will this make WorldCom an unbeatable force > in the telecom world? > Any thoughts would be appreciated. As a stockholder and former MCI employee, I would be very surprised if this ever takes place. The current borad of MCI has a very cozy relationship with BT. They will all be keeping their jobs, they will receive tremendous stock options, etc, if the merger with BT goes through. Why do you think they caved in and agreed to sell out the stockholders by accepting an undervalued offer for MCI from BT? They were not looking out for the stockholder's interests, they were seeking to increase their own personal wealth at our expense. I do not believe the stockholders would have approved the revised BT/MCI merger. That is why WorldCom has made this move. However, the stockholders of both BT and MCI have approved the original merger. My guess is that MCI and BT will merge under the orignal, approved terms to thwart the Worldcom bid. Dennis PS: Any MCI stockholder that would vote to merge with MCI under the revised plan needs to have their head examined. It stinks if you are a stockholder. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #271 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Oct 5 09:32:03 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA09553; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 09:32:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 09:32:03 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199710051332.JAA09553@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #272 TELECOM Digest Sun, 5 Oct 97 09:31:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 272 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson I Fell For it Also (TELECOM Digest Editor) Re: Anti-Spam Spam? (Jack Hamilton) Re: Anti-Spam Spam? (John R. Levine) Re: Anti-Spam Spam? (Tom Betz) Re: Anti-Spam Spam? (Ryan Tucker) Re: WorldCom - MCI Merger? (NetNut) Re: Worldcom - MCI merger? (Doug Dalton) Re: WorldCom - MCI Merger? (Jeremy Rogers) MCI Will Consider WorldCom Offer (Eric Florack) Re: Major Phone Cut in Mississauga, Ontario (Bruce Wilson) Re: Help With Line Noise Please (Jack Decker) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 08:22:39 EDT From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: I Fell For it Also After running the message yesterday about the new anti-spam script developed and being distributed by 'CrisLewis' I got a few messages saying the person doing this was an imposter, using Chris Lewis' name to make it seem more authentic. It now appears the `anti-spam' product is just another in a long line of scams and frauds being distributed on the net these days. I've included several messages in this issue telling about it. PAT ------------------------------ From: jfh@mail.org.uk (Jack Hamilton) Subject: Re: Anti-Spam Spam? Date: Sat, 04 Oct 1997 22:11:21 GMT Organization: Copyright (c) 1997 by Jack Hamilton On Fri, 03 Oct 1997 18:29:43 -0700, TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Anthony Argyriou : > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Chris Lewis (at least I think there > is an 'H' in his name) has long been a spam fighter, Another well-know spam fighter was CancelMoose, an entity who appeared out of nowhere to cancel spam. He (or she) conducted business through the late, lamented anonymous mail service at anon.penet.fi (now closed, apparently as the result of attacks by the Church of Scientology). CancelMoose is now retired, but left behind at least two legacies: NoCeM, a method of identifying and deleting spam; and PGPMoose, a set of programs to cancel messages with forged approvals in moderated newsgroup. These new programs are maintained by known people, but we never found out who the original CancelMoose was. I bet Chris Lewis knows, though... This new spam cancellation program you mention, from "Crislewis, Inc.", is *not* associated with the Chris Lewis of spam-fighting fame. It surprised me that he would be charging for such a product, and advertising it in such a fashion, so I looked through Yahoo and found this: > Subject: Re: Usenet Cancel Engine--Some Questions > From: clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) > Date: 1997/10/03 > Message-Id: <6138m2$pom@bcarh8ab.bnr.ca> > Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.usenet,alt.stop.spamming > In article <60taha$ups$1@orthanc.reference.com>, > wrote: >> It is now over - and I give to you - The Windows95/NT UseNet Cancel >> Engine - in honor and recognition of the outstanding contributions >> given to the UseNet community by Chris Lewis and his sacrificial >> contributions, diligent, and conscientious efforts to save what would >> certainly be a *dead* UseNet if it weren't for his work. That sir, is >> why the company was named CrisLewis, Inc. by its owners, we are the >> marketing arm of that entity under contract but in my own personal >> opinion he definitely deserves the credit for the resolve of the >> greatest problem, and most controversial issue in Internet history. > Dear Mr. Enlow, > I should formally state that you are clearly attempting to use my name > and reputation as an endorsement of your software (your message stands as > proof of this), and that I very strongly object to you doing so. I hereby > demand that you remove my name from any and all advertising or other > material that attempts to associate me in any way with your software, > services, or business identity. > Furthermore, the misspelling in "CrisLewis, Inc" is clearly not > sufficient to disconnect me from association with your services, because > I have on file several email messages from people who believe that > "CrisLewis, Inc" is referring to me - hence the misspelling is clearly > inadequate to prevent people from believing I am somehow involved or > endorsing your product - but as you said above, it's clear that the > association is deliberate. > Without prejudice, I should point out that there is plenty of legal > precedent in the US (and Canada) to award heavy penalties for the use > of people's names (or likenesses in some cases) to endorse products or > services against their wishes. It certainly can also be considered > false advertising. > I would appreciate your immediate attention to this issue, and > immediate removal of my name or clear variations thereof from any and > all further communications or legal documents related to you, your > products, and your business entities. > Regards, > Chris Lewis > Box 124, Dunrobin, Ontario > Canada K0A 1T0 > The rumours of my demise are greatly exaggerated. > Support the anti-Spam amendment. Join at http://www.cauce.org/ > Anti-spam resources: http://spam.abuse.net -------------------- This product is being promoted in a misleading way, and has potential for doing great damage if it works as advertised. Someone could easily cancel every approved article in comp.dcom.telecom, by accident or deliberately. It's hard to tell, from looking at the product's web page at , just how much this program costs for individual use, but it has a multilevel distribution plan, which raises my suspicions, and the advertising relies heavily on emotional manipulation. Avoid it. Jack Hamilton Sacramento, California jfh @ alumni . stanford . org PGP ID: 79E07035 FP:156BBDDC 77FAB77F D1CAC4BA 70765C63 ------------------------------ Date: 4 Oct 1997 14:28:04 -0000 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Anti-Spam Spam? Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y. >> All you have to do is scan the UseNet, using key-word searches, and >> the program will run in automatic mode issuing cancels even while >> you're asleep. This is the beginning of the END of spam forever - >> thanks to CrisLewis, Inc, and their developers. This is actually a piece of junk sold by chronic spammer Mike Enlow. Chris Lewis is, to put it mildly, not pleased to have his name associated with it and is apparently prepared to sue to get Enlow to stop using his name. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 640 Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl, Finger for PGP key, f'print = 3A 5B D0 3F D9 A0 6A A4 2D AC 1E 9E A6 36 A3 47 ------------------------------ From: tbetz@panix.com (Tom Betz) Subject: Re: Anti-Spam Spam? Date: 5 Oct 1997 01:33:13 GMT Organization: Society for the Elimination of Junk Unsolicited Bulk Email Reply-To: tbetz@pobox.com Quoth Anthony Argyriou in : > I've received several copies of a very interesting spam: > Subject: Win95 CancelBot Lets ANYONE Delete Spam WORLDWIDE! > Reply-To: dougb@adram.com >> A Windows 95 Cancel-bot? Finally *WE* can control the Usenet, and >> All you have to do is scan the UseNet, using key-word searches, and >> the program will run in automatic mode issuing cancels even while >> you're asleep. This is the beginning of the END of spam forever - >> thanks to CrisLewis, Inc, and their developers. > Anyone know anything about this? What is their benefit? > Anthony Argyriou > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Chris Lewis (at least I think there > is an 'H' in his name) has long been a spam fighter, going back to > what seems now to be an eternity ago when everyone's favorite villian > was King Spam I (what was his name?) down in Albuquerque, NM. Ah yes, > Jeff Slaton. Probably King Spam II is much worse; far more of a tyrant > than Slaton ever dreamed of being. Word among the anti-spam community is that this Cancelbot is the product of one Mike Enlow, spammer and PI scammer. You can entertain yourself by browsing my Mike Enlow Parody Page Mirror Site at , or you can do a Dejanews search on his name for more recent information. > Chris Lewis certainly is honest and dedicated to his cause, which > seems to be the total eradication of spam during our lifetime (do > you remember when they used to say that about cancer research?). I > would have no hesitation in ordering and using his software. It's not Chris' software; it's a feeble attempt at defamation by Mike Enlow, whose many Usenet spams Chris and others have cancelled. We have tried ignorance | Tom Betz, Generalist | for a very long time, and | Want to send me email? First, read this page: | it's time we tried education. | | | I mock up my reactive mind twice daily. | [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well that goes to show how little I knew about it ... I wonder why he simply did not use his own name -- or if his own name is too badly besmirched in the community -- some other name where now he would not be so likely to get sued by the real owner of the name. PAT] ------------------------------ From: rtucker+19971004@crasher2.ttgcitn.com (Ryan Tucker) Subject: Re: Anti-Spam Spam? Date: 4 Oct 1997 07:43:41 GMT Organization: My other news server has *two* gerbils and a hamster. On Fri, 03 Oct 1997 18:29:43 -0700, Anthony Argyriou spewed: >> Reply-To: dougb@adram.com ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> All you have to do is scan the UseNet, using key-word searches, and >> the program will run in automatic mode issuing cancels even while >> you're asleep. This is the beginning of the END of spam forever - >> thanks to CrisLewis, Inc, and their developers. ^^^^^^^^^ > call it an important net-wide broadcast announcement. If anyone > contacts Chris and gets a copy, please check it out and let us > all know if it does the job. PAT] ... or, it could be an attempt by some pondscum to try to make the cancels less effective by dilution (if EVERY post gets cancelled, more news servers will ignore them), and tarnish Chris Lewis's reputation at the same time. The program makes it very impossible to properly cancel legitimate spam -- there's no way to verify whether or not it's spam, and there's nearly no way to configure it to put the right identifiers on it to make them proper spam cancels. Its intended purpose is to disrupt Usenet by giving everyone the power to say "I don't like that post" and then get rid of it ... definately a scary proposition. -rt Ryan Tucker http://www.ttgcitn.com/~rtucker/ UIN: 1976881 finger rtucker@ttgcitn.com for PGP pub key/contact info there's something quite bizarre i cannot see.. -Mansun/Wide Open Space [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Something else which occurred to me was a sophisticated person could put together an 'anti-spam' script which really was just the opposite: a 'pro-spam' script which attempted to kill everything but spam. I guess someone could put together a rather obtuse and difficult to understand binary; package it all up nicely; tar it and leave it in a directory somewhere. They'd then announce on the net: "New, guarenteed to work anti-spam software. All you need to do is come to our web site and get your free copy. You then take it back to your site, untar it, type 'install' and wait while it configures itself and starts in operation. It will then run silently and almost invisibly in the background 24 hours per day killing spam ..." Lots of folks would rush to get a copy -- especially since it was being given free, underwritten by a grant from some major corporation as a public service to the net -- and they would install it and go off to bed. The next day the Usenet would be *nothing but* spam, all the legitimate messages having been cancelled during the night. Really, I think all you would need to do is reverse the existing parameters now in place, i.e. looking for dollar signs, exclamation points and certain phrases. If those were *not* in the message, then cancel it. Ho,Ho Ho! Now what a mess we have. Not content to merely flood the net with spam, the spammers teach the innocent netizens how to kill off each other's messages to make more room for the lunchmeat. Sounds like a plan to me! PAT] ------------------------------ From: netnut@aol.com (NetNut) Subject: Re: WorldCom - MCI Merger? Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 04:26:48 GMT Organization: CampusMCI Reply-To: netnut@aol.com On 3 Oct 1997 13:09:10 -0700, Dennis.-.MCI.Stockholder@zippo.com wrote: > As a stockholder and former MCI employee, I would be very surprised if > this ever takes place. Not sure how it can be stopped. BT is already taking heat from their institutional shareholders for buying MCI in the first place. So BT won't come up with the money to match the WorldCom bid. The only way the deal with WorldCom won't take place is if the shareholders vote against it. > I do not believe the stockholders would have approved the revised > BT/MCI merger. That is why WorldCom has made this move. However, the > stockholders of both BT and MCI have approved the original merger. My > guess is that MCI and BT will merge under the orignal, approved terms > to thwart the Worldcom bid. Won't happen. In order to go back to the original terms BT will have to match the WorldCom offer. Remember: BT cut their offer price because of the losses MCI will suffer in order to enter the local market. When BT revised the bid their holders loved the new terms. From the MCI side it stunk for those folks who were in it just for quick buck, but for long term gain it was the better way to go. (The MCI losses would not have hurt Concert since the buying price was lower.) > PS: Any MCI stockholder that would vote to merge with MCI under the > revised plan needs to have their head examined. It stinks if you are a > stockholder. Agree and disagree. For the long term the revised merger is a good plan. Short term ... it kinda stinks. You would not see a return on the investment for a couple of years. Bottom line ... BT will retain their current 20% with MCI, WorldComm will buy the rest. This will keep the Concert alignment in tact and give BT what it needs the most: an America presence. (AT&T is unattainable and Sprint is already partially owned by the French and Germans for the Global One alliance.) MCI's local losses would greatly diminish since WorldCom already has local services in 96 markets (compared to about 40 or 50 for MCI). Nope, its gonna happen. In two years you probably won't even hear the name MCI, just Concert and WorldCom. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You think a return on the investment could happen in two years? I think that is unrealistic. I suspect five or six years is more likely. I mean, there is an awful lot of money involved here, and some very difficult technical details. If they see a nickle in two years I will be suprised. Like you though, I am sure it is going to happen, pretty much the way you say. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 04 Oct 1997 07:22:45 -0700 From: ddalton@netscape.com (Doug Dalton) Organization: Netscape Subject: Re:Worldcom - MCI merger? Other side on this merger is that BT has been running a smear campaign against MCI, BT contends that MCI is a struggling company that made itself look better than it was actually performing and was providing misinformation during merger discussions. I don't know how much of this is propaganda, I don't think BT is trying to get out of the merger, but they sure make it seem that way, the UUNet offer must be stressing BT's protests. Doug Dalton - Network Manager - Netscape Communications ddalton@netscape.com - http://people.netscape.com/ddalton [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If past history is any indicator, under Bill McGowan's reign at MCI in the company's very early days there was indeed a concerted effort by MCI to apply a lot of cosmetics and to use a lot of 'creative accounting' to make things look good. I do not know about the current management except to say many of them learned their trade under McGowan's leadership. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Jeremy Rogers Subject: Re: WorldCom - MCI Merger? Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 08:10:53 +0100 The message from Dennis.-.MCI.Stockholder@zippo.com contains these words: > PS: Any MCI stockholder that would vote to merge with MCI under the > revised plan needs to have their head examined. It stinks if you are a > stockholder. But the original deal stinks if you are a BT shareholder, so there seems a problem there. Indeed it is by no means certain that BT shareholders would approve the revised plan either. BT shares have risen substantially because it has been seen as getting out of a bad deal. Jez ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 05:33:33 PDT From: Eric Florack Subject: MCI Will Consider WorldCom Offer Internet Daily says: /E ** MCI will consider WorldCom offer MCI Communications Corp. said late Wednesday that the company's board would meet "in due course" to consider the historic $30 billion buyout offer from WorldCom Inc. Analysts have been scratching their heads all day trying to figure out what such an acquisition could mean for the Internet. Look for a clue in the company's statement following its deal to acquire CompuServe. WorldCom chief Bernard Ebbers said the purchase will "further distance us from all of the traditional carriers, as we continue to build a different kind of communications company." WorldCom's UUNet is already the world's largest Internet service provider, according to InfoWorld magazine. MCI has been transporting Internet traffic since 1987 and has connections in 70 countries. Such a deal between MCI and WorldCom "is the worst nightmare come true for AT&T and the RBOCs (region Bell companies)," said Tom Nolle, president of network consultant CIMI, in Vorhees, N.J. "WorldCom is a shark swimming with goldfish," he told InfoWorld. "It's showing that it knows how to put together a 21st century network ... with voice, data, local and long-distance services." All of which, of course, can be moved on the Net. MCI, which has agreed to be acquired by British Telecommunications, WorldCom shares fell about 3 percent, shares of AT&T were off half a percent. Among Internet service providers, PSINet was unchanged, while Netcom was up 4 percent. See DBC Report. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 19:31:21 -0400 From: blw1540@aol.com (Bruce Wilson) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Major Phone Cut in Mississauga, Ontario In article , David Leibold writes: > Meanwhile, a Toronto radio report today indicated about half of the > affected phone customers should have their service restored by > now. The repairs continue ... A little over 30 years ago, I don't know how many pairs went out when a big chunk of the old bridge carrying the cables (buried under the paving) dropped into the river in Des Moines, Iowa; and the cable was old enough it wasn't color-coded, so *every* pair had to be traced from each end to be matched with the corresponding pair at the other end. I don't recall now how long it took (then) NW Bell to restore service to everyone. And as I recall, the way they strung the temporary replacement cable was to get a dog with a light line to walk across what was left of the bridge then used that line to pull ever heavier line until they had something strong enough going across the bridge to pull the cable. Bruce Wilson ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 00:13:32 -0400 From: Jack Decker Subject: Re: Help With Line Noise Please Tony Ward writes: > I currently have two phone lines, one for voice and one for my modem. > My question is this: I have line noise on both lines (local radio > station). I have installed a noise supressor on both lines (close to > modem and phone). I currently have a 28,8 modem (connect at 26,4 or > 24) and was wondering wether the supressor inhibits modem connection > speed (actually I can not connect without the supressor being there). > Is there anything else I can realistically do to stop the interference > and is it worth my while getting a k56flex modem? Would it be better > to put a line supressor where my telco box comes into the house (if so > how?). I can tell you what the solution to this problem was in the old "Bell System" days (having lived most of my early years across the street from an AM radio transmitter that seemed to come in on just about everything but the fillings in my teeth!). The most usual course of action was to use an inexpensive electronic component called a capacitor... in particular, they used to use capacitors made of mylar, because these are small and tend to outlast many other types of capacitors, and also they are better at filtering out high frequencies. The usual rating for the capacitor was .02 microfarad at 600 volts. Typically they would first try installing one inside the phone, wired so that it would connect across the line only when the receiver was off-hook. Since most people don't want to open up their phones, I'd go with their second choice, which was to install two of them at the protector block (now the network interface usually located outside your home) - one connected between each side of the phone line and ground. Now, you have to understand that a capacitor works in this application by acting as a near-dead short for high (radio) frequencies (shorting them to ground), while still offering a high resistance at lower (audio) frequencies. But if the value is too high, it can also start to affect audio frequencies. What I am saying is that the value of the capacitor is important. The 600 volts isn't as critical; in a pinch you could probably get by with as low as a 400 volt rating (but it might fail in a voltage surge situation, shorting out your phone line) and if you can get a higher voltage than 600 that is great - the higher the voltage, the more protection against damage by voltage surges. But on a voice line, I'd stick pretty close to the .02 microfarad rating. On a high speed modem line, you might want to see if you can get by with an even lower value (I'd start with .001 microfarad and if that didn't work I'd try .005, .01, and finally .02 in that order - use the lowest value that seems to eliminate the interference). You should be able to find mylar capacitors in these values at anyplace that sells electronic components, including Radio Shack. If you can't find a mylar capacitor with the proper ratings, any other type of non-polarized capacitor with the proper ratings might work, but may not attenuate the radio frequencies quite as well. Don't use a polarized capacitor (one with + and - markings) in this application. If a pair of .02 microfarad capacitors doesn't work, it may mean that you have a problem with a bad connection, either on the wires inside your home or the wires leading to your home. Plug a phone into the network interface outside your home (make sure that phone has very good cords on it!) and see if you get the interference. If so, call the phone company and tell them you need them to check any junctions or splices in the pair leading to your home, to see if perhaps there is a poor connection that is acting as a detector for radio signals (much like the old-time crystal radio sets that your grandparents may have used). In any case, check your inside wiring and disconnect any unused pairs, and clean up all connections (replace any corroded terminals, etc.). When things got really rough, the Bell service techs used a filter that internally consisted of a pair of choke coils, one each in series with each leg of the phone line. This replaced the terminal block that the phone was connected to (remember, this was prior to the days of modular plugs and jacks). These were VERY effective in blocking radio interference (one of the phone guys gave me one to use on an intercom line between our house and garage, and it knocked out the radio interference cold where nothing else had worked). Nowadays, I suspect that there may be more effective ways than choke coils to impede radio frequencies, and if you have any friends that are ham radio operators they could probably tell you about them. Virtually any ham radio swap meet will have one or more vendors selling radio frequency supression devicies; the same devices that are used to keep RF from moving down an AC power line might also work well enough on a phone line, but you'd probably have to experiment to find out what works without knocking out the audio frequencies that you want to keep. But in most cases, a pair of capacitors will be adequate. Interestingly enough, a service tech used essentially this same recipe to eliminate RF interference (that showed up as diagonal lines) in a new TV we had purchased ... he connected a capacitor between each leg of the incoming power line and the chassis ground inside the TV set. Ah, the joys of living in the shadow of an AM radio station! Jack [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This very topic of interference from radio stations was discussed in great detail several years ago in this Digest. See Volume 9, Issue 208 (Friday, June 23, 1989) for an article entitled 'Praise the Lord and Pass the RF Filters' for an account of radio station WYCA in Hammond, Indiana. The folowup messages continued over the next several issues. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #272 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Oct 5 20:55:05 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id UAA16018; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 20:55:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 20:55:05 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199710060055.UAA16018@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #273 TELECOM Digest Sun, 5 Oct 97 20:55:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 273 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Bell Atlantic Toll Alerting in Massachusetts (oldbear@arctos.com) Re: Bell Atlantic Toll Alerting in Massachusetts (Leonard Erickson) Re: Cell One / Albany Charging For Incomplete Calls (William H. Bowen) Re: NYS PSC Recommends "Overlay" For New NYC Area Code (Linc Madison) Re: Baltimore's 3-1-1 Service (Nils Andersson) Re: Help With Line Noise Please (Thomas Johnson) Re: 206/425/253 Split, Usual Problems (John David Galt) Re: Toll Free Domains (Judith Oppenheimer) Thanks for the Number (TELECOM Digest Editor) Re: The Even Hand of the Law (J.D. Baldwin) Last laugh! Cyberpromo Aquires MCI (Babu Mengelepouti) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 11:23:56 -0400 From: The Old Bear Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic Toll Alerting in Massachusetts In TELECOM Digest, Greg Monti wrote: > ... The trouble is, they want BA to implement this in a "general way" > so the people who have the most common type of unlimited local service > get the toll alerting correctly. People who buy the "extended area" > local calling service (which increases the number of prefixes in your > local calling area for an additional monthly fee) would still be > required to dial 11 digits to reach those additional prefixes, even of > the call is local and free, and even if it is in the same area code as > the caller. > *This* is what Bell Atlantic is saying is confusing. That toll > alerting is correct for some people, but not for others. They're > going through all this trouble to re-implement full toll alerting, but > it won't be correct for everybody. BA's position is "why have toll > alerting at all?" They want Massachusets to go to 7 digits for within > area code, 11 digits for outside, both regardless of toll. > Just another reason why toll alerting through dialing plans is a bad > idea. Why not have the recorded sound of a cash register play just > after the last digit is dialed to indicate toll? ... Something is going on with the Bell Atlantic/NYNEX consolidation of billing functions where customers on 'unlimited' dialing plans are suddenly finding themselves improperly billed for calls which should be included in their dialing area. This may be exacerbated by the number of new exchanges being created by the new entrant LECs which are not always located where the LEC indicates that they are. (For example, the LEC may tell a subscriber located in "Smallville" that his new LEC number is a Smallville local call. The subscriber then puts the number in its ads as a "Smallville number," but when customers call it from adjacent Littleburg, they find they are charged for a call to some place outside of their calling area which is not Smallville.) Here are two recent examples [edited] illustrating the problem, which appears to be widespead: > From: Sean Marrett > Subject: Bell Atlantic inflating cost to access ISP > Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 12:58:36 -0400 > Organization: NMR Center - Mass. Gen. Hospital > I recently received a bill from Bell Atlantic that had a nasty > surprise: $175.00 for zone 2 calls. After an hour or so on the > phone with them (very polite folks), they adjusted the bill so that > the zone 2 charges became zone 1 (other). > We had been using the Quincy number for my ISP, which is zone 1 > (other) for me. But, all calls to my ISP are carried to their > Bedford operations center - (which is zone 2) - by the an LEC which > provides their number in Quincy. Customer service at my ISP assures > me that they pay for the forwarding from Quincy - but I'm scared of > what my next bill will look like - even if I only use Cambridge, > Brookline or Boston access numbers. > Has anyone had similar experiences with their ISP and/or with Bell > Atlantic/Nynex? I'm especially interested in knowing if anyone had > this happen to them with a local call. and: > From: annbal9@thecia.net (Ann) > Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic inflating cost to access ISP > Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 21:10:57 GMT > Organization: TheCIA - Complete Internet Access > I had called NYNEX back in April about my ISP's listed the numbers, > and I made sure they would be within my circle dialing (20 mile > radius). I was using a Weymouth number, I have a Hanover exchange. > NYNEX assured me it was. Everything was fine until my July bill, I > guess that's when Bell Atlantic took over. My phone bill for the > period July 16 to August 15 was $194, $140 of it was calls to my ISP > at the Weymouth number! > When I called on August 24, the woman was very nice, and agreed that > the number should have been a free dial for me. (I guess she later > found out she was wrong, but she did adjust my bill.) She told me I > would have to call regarding the August 16-Sept 15 bill because she > couldn't adjust it until it had been issued. She credited me the > $140. > I got the next bill, and called again, got a different woman. She > was definitely NOT nice, and told me that "Bell Atlantic wouldn't > continue to give me free phone service." I explained to her that I > changed the number I was using as of August 24, and referred her to > what the other woman had told me. She was so abusive, it was > unbelievable, she ended up hanging up on me! I called back and got > a nice young man on the phone, who apologized for her treatment of > me. He saw that I had stopped using the offending number (which > Bell Atlantic recognizes as a Boston phone number only). He gave me > the $75.00 credit I was looking for. > Moral here is to recheck all those numbers your ISP says are local > calls, if they have foreign exchanges, in other words exchanges that > don't match the other exchanges in the town you are supposed to be > calling, call Bell Atlantic to be sure they aren't toll calls for you. ------------------------------ From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic Toll Alerting in Massachusetts Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 23:06:49 PST Organization: Shadownet Greg Monti writes: > The trouble is, they want BA to implement this in a "general way" so > the people who have the most common type of unlimited local service > get the toll alerting correctly. People who buy the "extended area" > local calling service (which increases the number of prefixes in your > local calling area for an additional monthly fee) would still be > required to dial 11 digits to reach those additional prefixes, even of > the call is local and free, and even if it is in the same area code as > the caller. > *This* is what Bell Atlantic is saying is confusing. That toll > alerting is correct for some people, but not for others. They're > going through all this trouble to re-implement full toll alerting, but > it won't be correct for everybody. BA's position is "why have toll > alerting at all?" They want Massachusets to go to 7 digits for within > area code, 11 digits for outside, both regardless of toll. > Just another reason why toll alerting through dialing plans is a bad > idea. Why not have the recorded sound of a cash register play just > after the last digit is dialed to indicate toll? Why not do like US West does here in Oregon? We get "full toll alerting", and it works for basic service *and* for all three (or is it four?) levels of "extended area" calling. It's doable that way and *not* confusing. It may require some extra programming in the phone switch, but it *is* doable. I suspect that many of the folks who are against "toll alerting" have never had to deal with equipment that dials numbers from a directory maintained elsewhere. With such a setup, you want the default to be trying to dial 7 digits if the exchange isn't explicitly listed in the translation table as a "local" prefix. That way you don't inadvertently make LD calls. There are other reasons as well. Things like the fact that *nobody* can keep track of which exchanges are local and which aren't if you live in a large metro area. The phone book lists are typically *two* years out of date. And trying to find out where an exchange that doesn't belong to your LEC is can be *very* frustrating ... Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow) shadow@krypton.rain.com <--preferred leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com <--last resort ------------------------------ From: bowenb@best.com (William H. Bowen) Subject: Re: Cell One / Albany Charging For Incomplete Calls Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 18:03:43 GMT Reply-To: bowenb@best.com Douglas Reuben wrote: > I recently reviewed a series of bills for our company detailing > roaming charges in the Cellular One/Albany, NY (00063) system. > It seems that for ALL of our accounts, EVERY call, even unanswered > calls of a few seconds, are being billed! Douglas, Boy am I getting a case of deja vu!!! This used to be a really rampant problem -- sorry to see it still is. In the LA market, both carriers charge for all unanswered calls (busies, RNA, etc.) at 1/2 the one minute rate (if the one minute rate is $.50, you'll get charged $.25 for a non-answered call). On one hand I can see the carrier's point: you ARE tying up the system with the call, even if it is not answered. But, on the other hand, the airtime rates charged in CA are so far out of line that it more than makes up for the airtime they lose in non-answered calls. Another "ugly secret" on cellular calls that most carriers don't admit unless you really press them: on a landline call, you only get billed time (either local for measured service or toll) once the called party answers - you don't pay for the time necessary to setup the call and for the calling party to actually get to their phone and answer it. On the other hand, on cellular calls, the meter is running from the instant you hit the "send" button on your cell phone until you hit the "end" button, INCLUDING call setup and teardown time. As with charging for un-answered calls, the carrier's argument is that you have a channel tied up. . > We have accounts with a number of "A" carriers from Boston, NYC, > Connecticut, Vermont, California, New Orleans, and New Jersey. All of > them reflected both incoming and outgoing calls which no one answered > and were significantly less than 45 seconds. Check your CA bills VERY carefully - a word to the wise by someone that got screwed by LA Cellular regularly! > Additionally, I was billed a $3 (daily charge) and $.99 on our Boston > (CO/Boston, 00007 account, not to mention their "Pizza Fund" rip-off > $4 "roamer administration charge" -- I've already cancelled two > accounts with them as a result of this outrageous charge and moved > them over to Bell Atlantic and AT&T), and $.99 on our Bell Atlantic/CT > 00119 bill, for the privilege of entering "*350" to turn on call > delivery! A genuine ripoff if there ever was one. <<<>>>> > If you roam in the Albany A system, or have in the past few months, > you may want to check your bill(s) for incomplete/unanswered calls and > contact your local carrier if you feel you were incorrectly charged. This doesn't go just for Albany - damn near every month I was with LA Cellular they tried to "slip one by me" (and I was with them for nearly five years). On the other hand, I must give GTE Wireless in the Bay Area credit for having never tried to screw me in the four years I've been with them. Regards, Bill Bowen bowenb@best.com Daly City, CA [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I must say reading all the cellular phone 'horror stories' which come my way every day makes me really appreciate Ameritech Cellular. They are not that expensive, they do not have outrageous roaming fees in any of their five state region, and I have never had a billing error. Now, I actually get my service through Frontier Communications, which is a reseller of cellular service from Ameritech and the good customer service is a function of Frontier, however when I have had occassion to call Ameritech direct to clear up some small problem or another, they have been very courteous and effecient also. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: NYS PSC Recommends "Overlay" For New NYC Area Code Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 12:30:43 -0700 Organization: No unsolicited commercial e-mail! In article , Danny Burstein wrote: > As an FYI, I testified at one of the public hearings, in favor of an > overlay (as opposed to to a geographic split). > I added two suggestions to the overlay concept: > b) I also requested that instead of using the plebian area > code of "6-4-6" which is kind of a throw-away, that they adopt the > "6-9-2" one and overlay it citywide. I felt this would be particularly > fitting for NYC and might even generate its own demand... Area code 692 is not assignable for any purpose, and New York City is not going to get a waiver on that. *ALL* area codes with '9' as the middle digit are reserved for future expansion of the numbering plan. My personal spin on the future expansion is to insert a '9' in the area code -- for example, 718 becomes 7918 -- and insert a '3' at the front of the rest of the number (555-0012 becomes 3555-0012) to make a 12-digit number. For more on that plan, see Assigning 692 to New York would conflict with, for example, 626 in the San Gabriel Valley (northeast side of L.A.). Of course, 626 would've been a nice choice for MANhattan, but it's too late now. Anyway, just think of all the gay chat lines you can have in Manhattan's new M-4-M area code ... ** Do not spam e-mail me! ** Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best-com >> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must change "NOSPAM" to "com" << ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 04:46:53 -0400 From: nilsphone@aol.com (Nils Andersson) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Baltimore's 3-1-1 Service In article , The Old Bear writes: > This came to me from Robert Vroman who > particiaptes in an Emergency Services Discussion List. He says > original source was the {New York Times} web site on 10/2/97. > I personally find this a worrysome idea. It would seem that the 911 > staff should be able to better triage incoming calls. I wonder what > will happens when someone calls 3-1-1 because they only have a "small > fire" or didn't want to call the regular 9-1-1 number because they > were not absolutely sure they were having a heart attack. The fact > that Baltimore was dispatching emergency personnel to non-emergency > situations sounds more like a staff training problem in their dispatch > center than any kind of techn You know, we could really use a FLAT number, one per area code, I would suggest in the 555 series. Here is the scenario: I am talking to an elderly relative on the phone. I suddenly hear a set of gasps, and end up with a silent line. I am on the opposite coast, or out of the country. If there were a regular number of e.g. the format 212-555-1111, I could call it at the end where the emergency existed, and get help. I realize that it could not be as narrowly targeted as local 911, but area codes are getting geographically smaller through splits all the time. Any takers? Regards, Nils Andersson ------------------------------ From: Thomas Johnson Subject: Re: Help With Line Noise Please Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 09:59:09 -0400 Organization: Erol's Internet Services Jonathan I. Kamens wrote: > My wife and I just bought a house, and in the process of undoing the > phone-wiring madness the previous tenants inflicted on it, I've > learned a few important tricks for reducing noise on phone lines (I've > tried to list them in order from most to least important, as I see > them): Thanks for sharing your experience about phone wiring in old houses. I live in an old house, but the wiring may not be the problem. I tried to download a huge file from Microsoft yesterday. I know that signals are sent from the originator (in this case New York, Washington, D.C. and Redmond, Cal. were all involved at one point or another) to the recipient via available computers used as relay stations, and the route information travels may change as better avenues become available. Each computer is responsible for its own segment of the package. If it drops it in transmission, a signal is sent back to the originator and the segment is resent. From watching the numbers (indicating progress) on my screen go up upand down, it occurred that lines were being dropped quite frequently, and the delivery was never going to be completed. After three or four hours and three restarts, I decided to save my electricity. The problem could be caused by heavy traffic on Saturday and Saturday night (although I have experienced the same thing on week nights with smaller packages) or it could be that the wiring in the local region is not upgraded as much as need be. Do you have any ideas on this? Thanks for any advice. ------------------------------ From: John David Galt Subject: Re: 206/425/253 Split, Usual Problems Date: 5 Oct 1997 06:50:58 GMT Organization: Sacratomato Cynics Tad Cook quotes his paper as saying: > Puget Sound Business Are Frustrated with Temperamental New Area Codes > By Cynthia Flash, The News Tribune, Tacoma, Wash. > Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News > TACOMA, Wash.--Oct. 3--Time is running out to fix any bugs associated with > the Puget Sound's new 253 and 425 area codes. > And with just six weeks before the new codes become the only option around, > some glitches do still exist. > The folks at Information Technologies Corp. in Puyallup report that some of > their customers from around the United States still can't get through using > 253. > "If you use 253, you may or may not get your calls. If you use 206, you may > or may not get your calls," said a frustrated employee of the company, > which offers courses on such topics as how to collect judicial judgments > and child support. A modest proposal: Telco switches should be programmed to poll each other, like machines on the Internet do. I don't see that it would be any great load on the network if each switch polled one 'upstream' neighbor (or a central source if 'upstream' isn't a meaningful term) once a week or even once a month to retrieve any new area codes and prefixes. Better yet, when a customer dials one the switch doesn't know about, have it poll a 'name server' immediately. This would eliminate the problem totally. (To eliminate the problem of 'spoofing' as was done to the Net earlier this year, I wouldn't give this 'DNS' full authority to edit the tables in your local switch -- only to provide _new_ area codes and prefixes.) John David Galt ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 09:15:18 -0400 From: Judith Oppenheimer Reply-To: joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com Organization: ICB TOLL FREE - 800/888 news... commentary... consulting... Subject: Re: Toll Free Domains Greg, it's like real estate. If every time someone wanted a house, a new one had to be built because no one was allowed to sell an existing one, we'd all be pushed into the ocean by now. However, just as we build taller buildings - we will probably inevitably go to eight digits somewhere down the road, in which grandfathering the seven digit 800's would "shelve" a mere drop in the bucket. Judith 800/888 ICB TOLL FREE NEWS 800/888 ...today's regulatory news for tomorrow's marketing decisions. TRY US FREE FOR 15 DAYS !!! http://icbtollfree.com (ph) 212 684-7210. (fx) 212 684-2714. 1 800 THE EXPERT. ICB Headlines Autosponder: mailto:headlines@icbtollfree.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 19:59:34 EDT From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: Thanks for the Number My thanks go to the two or three dozen of you who wrote me in response to my request for the modem number at NAVOBS. PAT ------------------------------ From: baldwin@netcom.com (J.D. Baldwin) Subject: Re: The Even Hand of the Law Organization: Revealed on a need-to-know basis. Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 16:01:13 GMT In article , The Old Bear wrote: > From what I can tell from this wire-service story, it looks like > the court made the correct legal decision -- my personal feelings > notwithstanding. Her personal feelings notwithstanding, as well! As your article points out, the judge herself denounced Cyberpromo's business practices. In fact, the ruling could have been much, much worse and still been within the bounds of the law. The AGIS agreement with Cyberpromo requires AGIS to give 30 days' notice before termination, and all she did was say that Cyberpromo had to get their service back until Oct. 16th. Note that this retroactively counts the initial disconnect as the commencement of "notice," and gives Spamford no credit whatsoever for the days he's already lost. There's been a lot of loose talk about "spamming" or otherwise harassing this judge. Leave her alone, or congratulate and thank her. She did the right thing, and then some. This decision is a major victory for the anti-spammers, and quite unlikely to be appealed, since it grants Spamford pretty much the relief he asked for. Spamford was also required to post a $12,500 bond before being reconnected. As of noon EDT on Friday, October 3: traceroute to ns7.cyberpromo.com (205.199.2.250), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 192.100.81.254 (192.100.81.254) 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms 2 sjx-ca-gw1.netcom.net (163.179.1.29) 2 ms 1 ms 1 ms 3 h2-0-1-mae-west.netcom.net (163.179.233.214) 10 ms 7 ms 6 ms 4 mae-west.agis.net (198.32.136.21) 15 ms 18 ms 15 ms 5 * * * 6 * * * ... and so forth. > I place more blame on AGIS and its counsel for not having prepared and > negotiated a document with better protection of AGIS under these > circumstances. Supposedly, AGIS requires that its spammers adhere to the IEMMC guidelines. It is trivially demonstrable that Spamford is not living up to the letter of these guidelines in any way whatsoever, nor has he made the slightest bit of effort to ensure that his customers do so. Ergo, Cyberpromo is in breach, QED. To my knowledge (mostly gleaned from news accounts posted and summarized in nana.*), AGIS did not even attempt to make this argument. Where *did* they get their legal counsel? From the catapult of J.D. Baldwin |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I _,_ Finger baldwin@netcom.com |+| say, I am quite prepared not only to _|70|___:::)=}- for PGP public |+| retract it, but also to deny under \ / key information. |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer ***~~~~----------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 04 Oct 1997 12:57:59 -0700 From: Babu Mengelepouti Reply-To: dialtone@vcn.bc.ca Organization: US Secret Service Subject: Last laugh! Cyberpromo Aquires MCI Dateline-New York: Trading in MCI was temporarily halted today when a public announcement that Cyber Promotions had beaten out competition from Worldcomm and British Telecom to acquire MCI. CP reportedly won the bidding war by offering 650 billion shares in Cyber Promotions stock and a dozen cases of SPAM to each member of MCI's board. Wall Street was taken completely offguard by this development although it has been rumoured on the street that CP's president has been looking for a means to secure sufficient communication capacity to accomodate the corporation's present and future requirements. The merger will see the creation of SpaMCI. CP's president, contacted at company headquarters in Papua New Guinea, had no comment. Cyber promotions can be contacted at it's email address: Spamford@lawsuit.net ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #273 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Oct 5 22:32:02 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA21968; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 22:32:02 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 22:32:02 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199710060232.WAA21968@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #274 TELECOM Digest Sun, 5 Oct 97 22:32:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 274 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Looking For Specialized Voicemail System; PLEASE Respond! (Chris Boone) Combining Analog Lines (Cameron Smith) Phone Stuff on TV (Leonard Erickson) Help Me Please! (Shane Devine) Bits Error After Lightning (Felix Leung) Toshiba Phone Help Needed (Scott Brader) Intro to Data Communications Wanted (Bruce W. Mohler) CDMA PCS in Canada (user@msn.com) Voice Mail Spam (J.D. Baldwin) What Least Expensive No-Surcharge Company/Plan? (Jack Decker) Re: Perhaps 888 Was a Poor Choice (Nils Andersson) Re: Security Alarm Problem due to Area Code Change (Patrick Miller) Re: Security Alarm Problem due to Area Code Change (Roger Fajman) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher W. Boone Subject: Looking For Specialized Voicemail System; PLEASE Respond! Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 12:41:07 -0500 Organization: The Walt Disney Company / ABC Radio Networks Engineering Reply-To: cboone@earthlink.net Have some questions that need answering fast! If you can help, PLEASE reply to my email above ASAP! (Remove the NOSPAM. from the address!) I am looking for a multiport (8-16) voicemail system with the following requirments: 1) MUST connect straight to CO trunks with Gnd or Loop start operation (must see CPC if loop start). 2) MUST have HIGH QUALITY audio ... NOT sound grainy like Active Voice and others do ... (ROLM Phonemail seems to have the best audio in this respect but it does not meet other requirements but I am using it as audio standard). 3) PREFERABLY have GUI/LAN interface so msgs can be edited and listened to via remote PC ... including uploading greetings/prompts to the system and downloading msgs from the system in WAV or similar form 4) MUST have CALL PROCESSING mailboxes (aka: MENU BOXES, etc) so the caller can choose a topic or subject with a single DTMF command, and then leave a msg at the end of the greeting ... NO extn answering here but could be used for that later ... but NOT main requirement. 5) MUST be able for system user to record ALL greetings, etc heard by caller (not the system prompts heard by system user but those such as "mailbox full" etc.) 6) MUST be able to disable help features (such as * or # keys) so once caller is into a CP Box, they are committed to leaving a msg and then the system will hang up, allowing other callers access. 7) SHOULD use NON proprietary equipment (ROLM ... eeerr Siemens ... charges $15,000 !!! for a HD.....cmon people, 4 GIG HDs dont cost that much!) I want something I can maintain or upgrade inexpensively. 8) HAVE 24 hr service available for this system ... I have a LOAD of calls that it will handle and cannot afford for it to be down. (NO!!! It does NOT answer extns, etc ... nor does it tie to a switch!) Have I left anything out?? Possibly ... but these are the main questions. NOW, I need an answer by Monday 10-6, 10am CT ... IF you are a dealer in such items and can deliver what I want above, I WILL BUY!!!! BUT NO BS !!! (If you are not a dealer, etc but do have a GOOD suggestion, please get with me asap!) I don't want crappy audio; I want CLEAN quality audio, not this grainy stuff I have been hearing on Active Voice, Amanda, etc. If yours cannot do what I want, DONT BOTHER CALLING ME AND WASTING my time (and yours!). If you CAN deliver the above, you OWE it to yourself to call me and let me listen to the system. I have a budgeting meeting at 10am CT Monday, so its on the line. I have some systems in consideration; none really meet what I want and searching the WEB has been frustrating, so here's your chance. My number is 972-448-3366 DID. Call it asap. Thanks for your input in advance. Chris IF you wish to reply via email, take OUT the NOSPAM. in the address! BUT reply asap. I will check my email here one last time @ 8am CT Monday. DONT DELAY!!!! [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: For all the ASAP demands made by Chris, I think he must be unaware of the mechanics of preparing a digest and getting messages out. His message arrived here Sunday afternoon and I put it in the first available issue. Still, I do not know how many people will see it in time. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 12:35:18 -0700 From: Cameron Smith Subject: Combining Analog Lines Organization: Cutting Edge Technology Services I live in a rural area where digital service is all but unavailable. We have, here on-island, an ISP who brings in a T-1 signal. In order to get that T-1 (or any fraction thereof) to my home, I would have to pay the telco a $1400 setup fee and over $1200 per month! Plus, of course, the connection fee to the ISP. The ISP, however, is willing to let me co-locate a machine on his premises. What I can do is set up a standard analog line from that machine to my home with a couple of 56K modems. So far so good. What I *want* to do, however, is set up *two* analog lines with 56k modems and combine or concentrate them somehow. Something like this: --> 56K modem <--> Analog Line / -T1--> ISP <--Ethernet--> My Comp. <--> device <--< @ ISP \ --> 56K modem <--> Analog Line Analog Line <--> 56K modem <-- \ >--> device <--> My Computer / @ home Analog Line <--> 56K modem <-- So what is the "device" that I need and what are some of the brand names? Any help or suggestions would be most welcome. Please (also) reply via e-mail. Cameron Smith Cutting Edge Technology Services ccsmith@pinc.com http://www.pinc.com/~ccsmith ------------------------------ From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) Subject: Phone Stuff on TV Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 22:24:55 PST Organization: Shadownet It's interesting how much stuff they get right (and wrong!) in TV shows. Especially which bits. Just tonight on Millenium, Frank Black has been getting mysterious calls. Phone rings, he answers, there's silence, he tries to get a response, they hang up. So we see some nerdly type messing with all sorts of wires ... to install a Caller-ID unit! Then just after Frank writes the check (for $85!), he gets a mystery call. And (naturally) the unit says "Anonymous Caller". Frank snatches back the check (nice touch!) The nerdly type then proceeds to sell Frank a gizmo that (supposedly) can override the blocking (yeah, right). And it works when they test it. Of course, it doesn't work with the mystery call. No mention is made of the *?? code that records the info at the phone company office. Nor is any mention made of trying to get the phone company to help. On several shows, I've seen them stating that you can only get a general area when trying to trace a cell phone (and some even have things relatively correct when using mobile tracking units to try to refine that position). And they have it being appropriately easy to get the number of the cell phone that is making the call. But every single one of the shows fails to note that a cell phone merely has to be *on* to be trackable. And they can't even use the excuse that the bad guy turned off the phone, because on many of them, they call him back! I really, *really* wish that at least *one* show would get it right. Either have them catch a bad guy because he didn't turn the phone off after making his call, or have them tracking him after the call and *then* have them frustrated at the last instant as he turns off the phone (or better yet, have them tracking a kidnapped "good guy" and have his battery run down just as they are about to pinpoint his location) That would not only be suspenseful, but it'd let them feel good about showing how smart they were. And unllike the current situation, they wouldn't *actually* be showing how *stupid* they are... :-) Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow) shadow@krypton.rain.com <--preferred leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com <--last resort [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Of all the things to crab and complain about! Next thing I know you are going to be sending a message here asking why it is newspaper reporters never can get their details right when writing about the internet or telephone networks. Then before long the complaints will start coming in about all the very ignorant FBI/local law enforcement officers who know as little about computers and the net as I know about brain surgery who assume every time they see someone online the person must be uploading or downloading a kiddie porn picture or having a chat with a twelve year old boy. Where would we get our laughs every day if it were not for the very ignorant television writers/producers, newspaper 'reporters' (in actual practice, frequently fiction writers) and Keystone Cops who control our reading/viewing habits and our lives? Television is not quite as bad this year as it was last year -- i.e. the year of the 'the net is mostly kiddie porn and devil worshippers' and even the print media has decided now and then to actually investigate what they print but there is still a long way to go. Most police officers are still ignorant as ignorant can be where the net is concerned, but if they are unwilling to learn then maybe some higher courts will slap the nonsense out of them. I wish I had seen the show you referred to; I am sure it would all have been a jolly-good laugh; and you don't see me laughing or inserting any smileys now do you ... PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 11:52:25 -0400 From: Devine Subject: Help Me Please! Organization: cyberzone.net I recently purchased a computer for use at school (Dell Dimensions H233, 64mb, 512Kcache, .....). With this computer I got a 56Kx2 US Robotics modem. I just signed up with a server in the area who offers 56Kx2 connections. So far, I have only been able to connect at speeds up to 28.8Kbps, usually only 24Kbps. The telecom person on campus told me that all phone lines are 56K capable so that's "not the problem". What I need to know is what the problem could be. I was reading another message posted here and that person mentioned that they get interference from a radio station. There is a large radio tower on top of my dorm building. Could this be the problem? Could it also be the way the telephone lines are wired in the building? If anyone knows of an existing problem, possible problem, or a possible solution, please email me at, shade39@cyberzone.net. Thanks! Shane ------------------------------ From: Felix Leung Subject: Bits Error After Lightning Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 18:07:03 -0500 Organization: University of Winnipeg Hi, I got the answer for the following question, but I am not sure how should I handle the 0.2 bits error, should I just leave the answer as 25.2 or I should use 26bits? If the speed of transmission on a line is 7200bps and that line is hit by lighting that causes an impluse distortion of 3.5 milliseconds, what is the max. number of bits that could be in error? The term bit rate representing the number of bits per second. 7200 bits per sec. * .0035 sec. = 25.2 bits could be in error. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks, Felix ------------------------------ From: Scott Brader Subject: Toshiba Phone Help Needed Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 20:09:53 -0500 Organization: Redwood Interactive: A division of USAV Communications Group Reply-To: sbrader@usavgroup.com We've recently added two HSTU's to our Toshiba Strata XXe key phone system. (I know, we're in the dark ages!) The system does not recognize the two new cards. Is there a setup routine or dip switch change we have to do to get the system to recognize the new cards? Thanks for your help. Scott Brader Redwood Interactive A division of USAV Communications Group 5485 S. Westridge Drive PO Box 510620 New Berlin, Wisconsin 53151 Phone: 414.814.2000 Fax: 414.814.2006 ------------------------------ From: Bruce W. Mohler Subject: Intro to Data Communications Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 16:18:39 -0700 Organization: A News Reader at ATMNet Dear c.d.t, Are there any good books that provide an introduction to the realm of data communications or bookstores that specialize in books of this type? [I checked through this newsgroups and searched for a dcom FAQ before posting this.] Thanks, in advance. Bruce W. Mohler bmohler@fv.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You really should investigate the mail order book service operated by Harry Newton of {Teleconect Magazine}. His service is called Telecom Library and it is located in New York City. Harry is a regular reader of this Digest and he'll probably see your message. Maybe he will reply with particulars on how to obtain a catalog, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ From: user@msn.com Subject: CDMA PCS in Canada Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 16:41:13 -0700 Organization: Alternate Access Inc. Hello to all! Can some one tell me whether there is any differences in the PCS1900 standards used in Canada for CDMA compared to US? Do they use IS-95 (J-STD-008) without modification? Any CTC mandates that would make the Canadian CDMA operation/ products different than in US? I appreciate your input; thanks in advance. Shawn in California ------------------------------ From: baldwin@netcom.com (J.D. Baldwin) Subject: Voice Mail Spam Organization: Revealed on a need-to-know basis. Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 16:11:59 GMT We all get e-mail spam. I'm hardly alone there. I am, however, the only one I know who's received PAGER spam. A few months back, my text pager came alive with several ads purportedly for MEN'S HEALTH magazine. I called the 800-# to raise hell, and got an ad for some sort of sex chat instead. Grrrrrrr. Last night, this was exceeded by Ameritech, which my fellow midwesterners know is The Most Evil Corporation In The History Of The World. My phone service with Ameritech includes phone company hosted voice mail (so I can get messages during busy signals on what is primarily a data line). Last night, when checking my messages, there was a two-minute "bulletin" from Ameritech. I punched in the code to listen to it (I don't think there was a way around it) and was treated to an ad for some sort of "sweepstakes" Ameritech wanted me to enter by calling some 800-#. WHAT THE HELL?!? I plan to call Ameritech to complain, loudly, about this practice, but I thought I'd mention it here to see whether: a) Anyone else has experienced this; b) There is any way to stop this (that I should know about before calling)? From the catapult of J.D. Baldwin |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I _,_ Finger baldwin@netcom.com |+| say, I am quite prepared not only to _|70|___:::)=}- for PGP public |+| retract it, but also to deny under \ / key information. |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer ***~~~~----------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 04 Oct 1997 23:23:18 -0400 From: Jack Decker Subject: What Least Expensive No-Surcharge Company/Plan? I very rarely make toll calls on my main home line, and for years I have used MCI and their Friends & Family plan. My mother is on the same plan and use it to call her relatives out-of-state. I was therefore quite surprised (and more than a little disappointed) to read that although they now offer their much-touted 5 cent Sundays, they have apparently INCREASED their rates at all other times, including Saturdays (see Eli Mantel's page at http://www.geocities.com/WallStreet/5395/pr970907.html for particulars -- that is where I found out about this increase). MCI has plans other than Friends and Family, but according to an MCI rep that I spoke to today, there are none available to me that do not have a monthly fee or minimum associated with them. I'm also aware that if you place a "casual" call through certain other carriers using a 10(1X)XXX code, a surcharge or monthly minimum applies. What I am wondering is, what is the least expensive way to place an occasional call (usually between one and three minutes in length) WITHOUT incurring any monthly minimums or surcharges? There's one interesting aspect of this. In Michigan, we have competition for intraLATA toll, and my line is NOT presubscribed to the local phone company (which in my case happens to be GTE) for intraLATA toll. Since virtually every toll call I have made from my home line in recent months has been within my home LATA, I *would* just use GTE for those calls, BUT it seems that there is no way to access them using a 10(1X)XXX code -- at least not any way that any of their reps seem to know about. If you call various GTE numbers and ask around enough, they will give you the code for whoever is handling GTE's interLATA toll (I forget which carrier is doing that, but basically GTE has an arrangement with one of the major carriers [not one of the "big 3", though] to handle their interLATA toll). But that is not the same access that one would get for intraLATA toll (for example, dialing the code they give plus "0" gets you the IXC's operator, not a GTE operator). If any GTE switch technicians happen to read this and know the *correct* code to use to place an intraLATA toll call using GTE's facilities (and NOT those of the IXC they contract with for interLATA toll), I'd appreciate it if you'd send me the code via e-mail. Alternately, I'd like to know about any carrier that has resonable per-minute rates and that will still allow you to place "casual" calls (via a 10(1X)XXX code) without imposing any surcharge or monthly minimum. If you reply, please be sure to edit out the "bogus" part of my return e-mail address (I get FAR too much "spam" as it is!). Thanks, Jack ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 04:46:54 -0400 From: nilsphone@aol.com (Nils Andersson) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Perhaps 888 Was a Poor Choice In article , Telecom@Eureka.vip. best.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) writes: > Of course, I think that the root of the problem is that there seems to > have been no coherent attempt at a public education campaign for 888. > Too many phone books still refer to 800 without mentioning 888. Nobody except us phone nuts actually READ a phone book. I agree about public education, and you are technically correct that 888 should be in the phone book, but that is the least important place to put it. Regards, Nils Andersson ------------------------------ From: pmiller@nyx.net (Patrick Miller) Subject: Re: Security Alarm Problem due to Area Code Change Date: 4 Oct 1997 22:56:12 -0600 Organization: Nyx.net, free public access to the Internet One thing to note that was said in the previous message is that more leeway should be made for dialing numbers. 1. Always allow 10 digit dialing (why should a kid who only knows the 7 digit number not be able to call home when out of the area?) 2. Always allow *s0 to disable call waiting (I should be able to not have to worry about whether the line I am plugging my computer into has call waiting, after all if I want to be kicked off I can uncheck the disable CW box.) Those are the main two problems I have which will become moot once all areas require 10 digit dialing, or digital lines remove now what is connected to the line (and allow voice and data simultaneously.) Pat Miller--Communications Consult./ *HUG* C-ya Soon http://www.nyx.net/~pmiller /pmiller@nyx.net finger pmiller@nox.nyx.net | 816-968-968-5 (you-you5) full/expanded info on web/finger | ---------------------------------+Heartland TEC #145 ------------------------------ From: Roger Fajman Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 12:07:18 EDT Subject: Re: Security Alarm Problem due to Area Code Change >> That's a rather odd position for Bell Atlantic to take, since we've >> had 10 digit dialing for local calls for some time now in the >> Washington, DC area, which is Bell Atlantic territory. > Well, Bell Atlantic inherited that system when they acquired C&P > Telephone. Changing it to whatever Bell Atlantic thinks is not > confusing would have been confusing =) You have your timing of events mixed up. C&P Telephone was one of the Bell Operating Companies that became part of the original Bell Atlantic when it was formed in 1984. At that time in the Washington, DC area we had 7 digit dialing for local calls (even across area codes) and 10 digit dialing for long distance calls. Later, 1+10 digits for long distance calls was introduced. After that, 10 digit dialing for local calls across area codes became mandatory. Most recently, 10 digit dialing for local calls within the same area code became mandatory in Maryland (but not in DC or Virginia). After all of that, the merger of Bell Atlantic and NYNEX was finalized, with the merged company being called Bell Atlantic. I believe that along with NYNEX came other ideas about what dialing plans are confusing. The particular area that the statement was referring to was NYNEX territory. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #274 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Oct 6 21:58:45 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id VAA09515; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 21:58:45 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 21:58:45 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199710070158.VAA09515@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #275 TELECOM Digest Mon, 6 Oct 97 21:58:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 275 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson What's up With Dixon, California? (Linc Madison) 101-XXXX for Traditional Intra-LATA LEC Toll (Mark J. Cuccia) Re: The Even Hand of the Law (oldbear@arctos.com) Re: Combining Analog Lines (Christopher W. Boone) Re: Combining Analog Lines (admin@honoluluairport.com) Re: Voice Mail Spam (Jim Youll) Re: Voice Mail Spam (Mark W. Schumann) Re: Bits Error After Lightning (Brett Frankenberger) Re: Worldcom - MCI Merger? (Jason Clifford) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: What's up With Dixon, California? Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 04:40:25 -0700 Organization: No unsolicited commercial e-mail! The community of Dixon, California, on Interstate 80 between San Francisco and Sacramento, has just been realigned from area code 916 into area code 707. The city and county leaders requested this realignment rather than be split into area code 530. However, there are two questions I've been having trouble answering: (1) Is there permissive dialing for the change? The early information seemed to indicate a splash cut. (2) Will Dixon also move from the Sacramento LATA (the southern half of the current 916) into the San Francisco LATA (all of 415, 650, 510, and 707, plus northern 408)? Such a move would be more consistent with the existing LATA boundaries, but I've seen no announcement addressing the question. This realignment means that, for the first time in decades, all the rate centers in Solano County are in the same area code. However, if the LATA line didn't shift, it means that it is now possible to dial inter-LATA toll calls within area code 707, just by dialing 7 digits. In an attempt to answer these questions, I tried a small experiment. I dialed 0-707-678-xxxx and 0-707-693-xxxx, and also tried the same calls using area code 916. My preassigned carrier for intra-LATA calls is Pacific Bell; for inter-LATA calls, Sprint. Thus, I should get a PacBell bong if I'm calling within the S.F. LATA, but a Sprint bong if I'm calling to the Sac'to LATA. Also, the call should immediately route to intercept if the prefix is invalid, at least if it's in my own LATA. All of the calls went through to a Sprint bong, using either 707 or 916. None went to intercept, and none went to a PacBell bong. I tried the number of a business (so as not to wake anyone at 4:30 a.m.!) on 1+ and it rang through on both 707 and 916, so it appears that there *is* permissive dialing, at least "de facto." Of course, the other question regarding permissive dialing is for calls originating in Dixon. I would guess that those calls were splash-cut, that as of October 4th, all calls from Dixon dialed with just 7 digits are assumed to be in area code 707. (All points in 707 outside Dixon are toll calls, but it is not necessary to dial 1+NPA for HNPA tolls in California. There are prefix conflicts between 707 and 916, so it is not possible to have permissive dialing out of Dixon.) Maybe if I have a free afternoon some time soon, I'll take a little "field trip" and find out ... ** Do not spam e-mail me! ** Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best-com >> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must change "NOSPAM" to "com" << ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 10:04:16 -0500 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: 101-XXXX For Traditional Intra-LATA LEC Toll In "What Least Expensive No-Surcharge Company/Plan?", Jack Decker wrote: > In Michigan, we have competition for intraLATA toll, and my line is > NOT presubscribed to the local phone company (which in my case > happens to be GTE) for intraLATA toll. Since virtually every toll > call I have made from my home line in recent months has been within > my home LATA, I *would* just use GTE for those calls, BUT it seems > that there is no way to access them using a 10(1X)XXX code -- > at least not any way that any of their reps seem to know about. > If you call various GTE numbers and ask around enough, they will > give you the code for whoever is handling GTE's interLATA toll (I > forget which carrier is doing that, but basically GTE has an > arrangement with one of the major carriers [not one of the "big 3", > though] to handle their interLATA toll). But that is not the same > access that one would get for intraLATA toll (for example, dialing > the code they give plus "0" gets you the IXC's operator, not a GTE > operator). > If any GTE switch technicians happen to read this and know the > *correct* code to use to place an intraLATA toll call using GTE's > facilities (and NOT those of the IXC they contract with for > interLATA toll), I'd appreciate it if you'd send me the code via > e-mail. GTE doesn't have any LATAs of their own in the state of Michigan. All LATAs in Michigan are considered to be Ameritech (formerly Michigan Bell). 'Traditional' Independent telcos which provide service within a BOC LATA have toll-homings to the BOC tandem switch in that LATA for intra-LATA toll calls. Some independents do have their own toll or tandem switch, if that independent has a large number of exchanges within a small region in the same LATA, but not all of the traffic between the exchanges is local. Ameritech does have some 101-XXXX codes, which _might_ happen to be dialable for intra-LATA calls from those GTE central offices. The following 101-XXXX+ codes are assigned to Ameritech, according to the FCC's latest list of US/NANP numbering/dialing information: 101-5475+, 101-5606+, 101-6123+; and for Ameritech's "Long-Distance" (future inTER-LATA toll? Ameritech's Cellular inTER-LATA toll?) there is 101-0113+ (10-113+ in the older/shorter, soon to be obsolete format). _IF_ GTE has _properly_ loaded (one of) Ameritech's fg.D "CIC-codes" (101-XXXX+) into your local GTE central-office switch translations, then you 'should' have your intra-LATA toll calls properly routed via Ameritech's toll/tandem switch for intra-LATA toll calls, and you 'should' be properly billed at Ameritech/GTE (Michigan) tariffed rates. BTW, note that I qualify 'if', 'properly' and 'should'. What 'should' happen doesn't always work that way. Last month, two new NPA codes took effect in permissive dialing (new NPA 228 for the Mississippi Gulfcoast area, splitting from NPA 601; new NPA 931 for central Tennessee except Nashville metro, splitting from NPA 615). For a few days into permissive dialing, if I dialed 1-228-nxx-xxxx for a valid Mississippi Gulfcoast number, or 1-931-nxx-xxxx for a valid number in central Tennessee (except Nashville metro), my own BellSouth local exchange would properly take the complete ten-digits. But when they sent the call to the AT&T toll switch in New Orleans (the calls were inTER-LATA, and AT&T is my primary inTER-LATA carrier), I received a recording from AT&T: "You call did not go through. Please try your call again. 060-T". Usually, if the AT&T toll switch doesn't have the new area code's digits in _their_ switch translations, the recording would state: "Your call cannot be completed as dialed ... 060-T". The 'rejection' recording came from AT&T, and _not_ BellSouth. And my local BellSouth central office _properly_ let me dial all ten-digits! But when I called AT&T's repair department, they kept telling me that I was experiencing a BellSouth problem. The AT&T tech/rep (who was in Atlanta) even 3-way'd me to a remote test line for him to dial-thru the AT&T New Orleans toll switch. _HIS_ calls to NPA 228 and NPA 931 went through! He then told me to try placing the calls with 10-288+ or 101-0288+. Since AT&T is my primary inTER-LATA carrier, this would be a redundant way to dial the call, but _not_ prohibited by my local switch, thus I thought I would get the _same_ "Your call did not go through ... 060-T" recording, when the call reached the AT&T toll switch in downtown New Orleans. However, my call properly routed!?!? So it might just have been a BellSouth problem after all! Maybe my local central office _allowed_ me to dial NPAs 228 and 931 in a full ten-digit format, but when I didn't indicate the call with 10[10]288+, BellSouth was sending the wrong number of digits or some other garbled information to AT&T's switch, yet when I did use 10[10]288+ before 1+ calls to 228 and 931, BellSouth simply sent the dialed digits 228-nxx-xxxx and 931-nxx-xxxx to AT&T with no problems. Please let us know whatever happens when you try to dial your inTRA-LATA toll calls using Ameritech's 101-XXXX+ codes. NWORLASKCG0 (BellSouth #1AESS Class-5 Local "Seabrook" 504-24x-) NWORLAIYCM1 (BellSouth-Mobility Hughes-GMH-2000 Cellular-MTSO NOL) NWORLAMA0GT (BellSouth DMS-100/200 fg-B/C/D Accss-Tandem "Main" 504+) NWORLAMA20T (BellSouth DMS-200 TOPS:Opr-Srvcs-Tandem "Main" 504+053+) NWORLAMA04T (AT&T #4ESS Class-2 Toll 060-T / 504-2T "Main" 504+) JCSNMSPS06T (AT&T #5ESS OSPS:Operator-Services-Tandem 601-0T 601+121) MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut-1-2497 WORK:__mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu|4710-Wright-Road|__(+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity-5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New-Orleans-28__|fwds-on-no-answr-to Fax:UNiversity-5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 00:24:03 -0400 From: The Old Bear Subject: Re: The Even Hand of the Law baldwin@netcom.com (J.D. Baldwin) writes: > The Old Bear wrote: >> From what I can tell from this wire-service story, it looks like >> the court made the correct legal decision -- my personal feelings >> notwithstanding. > Her personal feelings notwithstanding, as well! As your article > points out, the judge herself denounced Cyberpromo's business > practices ... > There's been a lot of loose talk about "spamming" or otherwise > harassing this judge. Leave her alone, or congratulate and thank her. > She did the right thing, and then some. This decision is a major > victory for the anti-spammers ... >> I place more blame on AGIS and its counsel for not having prepared and >> negotiated a document with better protection of AGIS under these >> circumstances. > Supposedly, AGIS requires that its spammers adhere to the IEMMC > guidelines. It is trivially demonstrable that Spamford is not living > up to the letter of these guidelines in any way whatsoever, nor has he > made the slightest bit of effort to ensure that his customers do so. > Ergo, Cyberpromo is in breach, QED. Unfortunately, one party being in default of one provision of a contract does not automatically nullify the contract. Most contacts contain various remedies which relate to different kind of defaults by the parties. While I am not a lawyer, I have spent many years dealing with complex commercial real estate leases and contracts. Interestingly, the hard-learned lessons of "real space" are quite applicable to cyberspace. And I am constantly amazed to see how few attorneys have thought through the complex issues involved. Generally speaking, our legal system abhors forfeitures. When someone defaults on the terms of a contract, there usually is a mechanism specified for the aggrieved party to put the other party on notice and to have an opportunity to cure the default. Naturally, there may be penalties involved, and sometimes there are additional provisions to prevent repetitive bad faith default-cure, default-cure cycles. Under some circumstances, a default may be so egregious as to cause further damage if allowed to continue. The AGIS problems of "ping attacks" would probably be considered such -- if one could demonstrate that Cyberpromo's wanton actions predictably caused these attacks. Although I am adamantly anti-spam, one thing about all of this which concerns me is that these 'denial of service' attacks can be mounted by anyone, for any reason. And just as they can harm unrelated third-parties who may be customers of a company like AGIS, they can also inflict harm on unrelated third-parties of any network provider who has the misfortune of having a customer who comes under attack for whatever reason. Let me draw a comparison to the recent situation in Atlanta where the FBI leaked information about its investigation of Richard Jewel, the security guard who discovered the bomb in Olympic Park. For several weeks, television and news crews kept Mr. Jewel's apartment complex under 24-hour siege with video trucks and bright lights. Certainly, this could not have been pleasant for other tenants who just happened to be living in the complex. Possibly, some of those tenants decided to move out or to withhold rent because their units had become all but unlivable. (I do not know if any tenants really did so.) Certainly, the landlord would be seriously damaged under such a scenario and might even be forced to default on his mortgage if his cash flow were sufficiently impaired. Should this give him a right to evict Mr. Jewel as a cause of the disturbance? I do not wish to portray AGIS as naive and innocent, but I am concerned that righteous vigilantism is only a short step from anyone with a computer 'bringing down' any network provider who sells services to someone with whom they take exception. It is for this reason that I strongly believe that we need a rule of law dealing with such things as forged addresses, failure to remove people from lists as requested, sale and resale of lists without the consent of those on the lists, using improperly harvested addresses, etc. With such laws in place, it becomes much simpler for a provider like AGIS to structure its contracts so that they can be quickly terminated in the event of a customer engaging in 'unlawful activities.' Cheers, The Old Bear ------------------------------ From: Christopher W. Boone Subject: Re: Combining Analog Lines Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 22:56:06 -0500 Organization: The Walt Disney Company / ABC Radio Networks Engineering Reply-To: cboone@NOSPAMearthlink.net There was a story in {Internet Week} magazine a week or so ago on such modems that use TWO analog lines to get 67K or 112K if supported by your ISP. I think I threw the article out but you might get info from the magazine. Your idea evidently has been on their minds (at the modem makers) for some time already. The modems aren't cheap ($400 or so). Chris ------------------------------ From: admin@honoluluairport.com Subject: Re: Combining Analog Lines Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 08:48:09 GMT On Fri, 03 Oct 1997 12:35:18 -0700, Cameron Smith wrote: > I live in a rural area where digital service is all but unavailable. > We have, here on-island, an ISP who brings in a T-1 signal. In order > to get that T-1 (or any fraction thereof) to my home, I would have to > pay the telco a $1400 setup fee and over $1200 per month! Plus, of > course, the connection fee to the ISP. > The ISP, however, is willing to let me co-locate a machine on his > premises. What I can do is set up a standard analog line from that > machine to my home with a couple of 56K modems. So far so good. > What I *want* to do, however, is set up *two* analog lines with 56k > modems and combine or concentrate them somehow. Cameron, I read on the net once about inverse multiplexing analog lines as you describe. I can't find the URL though! Sorry. Try doing a Yahoo search on inverse multiplexing. Maybe you could also try the sat. dishes that conx to the net? Regards, David ------------------------------ From: jim@newmediagroup.com (Jim Youll) Subject: Re: Voice Mail Spam Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 08:10:22 -0400 Organization: Agent Zero Communications J.D. Baldwin wrote: > Last night, this was exceeded by Ameritech, which my fellow > midwesterners know is The Most Evil Corporation In The History Of The > World. My phone service with Ameritech includes phone company hosted > voice mail (so I can get messages during busy signals on what is > primarily a data line). Last night, when checking my messages, there > was a two-minute "bulletin" from Ameritech. I punched in the code to > listen to it (I don't think there was a way around it) and was treated > to an ad for some sort of "sweepstakes" Ameritech wanted me to enter > by calling some 800-#. > WHAT THE HELL?!? > I plan to call Ameritech to complain, loudly, about this practice, but > I thought I'd mention it here to see whether: > a) Anyone else has experienced this; Oh yes, and I tend to pickup VM with a cellular phone, so I pay by the minute if they pollute my inbox. And yes, I got this junk even though I was promised a year ago that they would "remove" my box from the broadcast list. > b) There is any way to stop this (that I should know about > before calling)? Yes, but you already know what it is: "... call Ameritech to complain, loudly, about this practice". That's what I do. If your state has a public utilities commission that's worth anything, take your complaint there next. In Ohio they know of Ameritech's tricks ("free" services like 3-way calling, silently added to the line, that cost money when you use them, even by accident) If it takes an escalation call to the Chicago headquarters to get this done -- do it. But, that's what those Chicago people are there for -- don't be shy about calling. BTW there IS an 800-number for the Chicago office, though the front lines staff and their direct supervisors don't like to give it out. My God -- you PAY for the voicemail and they treat it like they own it! I'm so glad Ameritech has competition here (NW Ohio) and can't wait until the competitors start taking mainstream customers. BTW, I've had the 3-way calling "feature" removed from the line; our PUC has had tons of complaints about it (to the extent that Ameritech had to send extra notices to everyone about it.) ------------------------------ From: catfood@apk.net (Mark W. Schumann) Subject: Re: Voice Mail Spam Date: 6 Oct 1997 09:02:03 -0400 Organization: Akademia Pana Kleksa, Public Access Uni* Site In article , J.D. Baldwin wrote: > We all get e-mail spam. I'm hardly alone there. > I am, however, the only one I know who's received PAGER spam. A few > months back, my text pager came alive with several ads purportedly for > MEN'S HEALTH magazine. I called the 800-# to raise hell, and got an > ad for some sort of sex chat instead. Grrrrrrr. I've gotten pager spam, of the numeric variety. It's not uncommon; you get a message to call a number you don't recognize and WHAM! it's some high-priced Carribean island. Amply covered here in c.d.t. Alpha pager spam? Wow, that's new. > Last night, this was exceeded by Ameritech, which my fellow > midwesterners know is The Most Evil Corporation In The History Of The > World. My phone service with Ameritech includes phone company hosted > voice mail (so I can get messages during busy signals on what is > primarily a data line). Last night, when checking my messages, there > was a two-minute "bulletin" from Ameritech. I punched in the code to > listen to it (I don't think there was a way around it) and was treated > to an ad for some sort of "sweepstakes" Ameritech wanted me to enter > by calling some 800-#. I have Ameritech voice mail on an Ohio line that is primarily used for voice calls. I've received many service announcements on this line from Ameritech, but they have all been legitimate messages to inform me of things like upcoming outages. Mark W. Schumann | catfood@apk.net Why should I change or hide my return address to deter spammers? I just loop the garbage right back at 'em. ------------------------------ From: brettf@netcom.com (Brett Frankenberger) Subject: Re: Bits Error After Lightning Organization: Netcom On-Line Services Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 03:36:07 GMT In article , Felix Leung wrote: > Hi, I got the answer for the following question, but I am not sure how > should I handle the 0.2 bits error, should I just leave the answer as > 25.2 or I should use 26bits? > If the speed of transmission on a line is 7200bps and that line is hit > by lighting that causes an impluse distortion of 3.5 milliseconds, > what is the max. number of bits that could be in error? > The term bit rate representing the number of bits per second. 7200 > bits per sec. * .0035 sec. = 25.2 bits could be in error. Let me guess: A homework problem in some sort of data communications class. Sigh. In terms of getting the "right answer", 25.2 probably isn't it. You can't really corrupt a fractional bit - it's either corrupted or not. So they probably want you to round up to 26. Or maybe they're looking for 27 -- at 7200 bps, a bit lasts .139 milliseconds. So 25 bits (25*.139=3.47) will be completely distorted. That leaves .03 ms, and half of that can take out the last 15 microseconds of the "first" bit and the first 15 microseconds of the "last" bit, giving a total of 27 possibly distorted bits. Of course, in an ideal system, the receiver should be able to correctly detect a bit as long as it's over half right, so maybe 25 is the right answer -- even if all the extra .2 ends up hitting the same bit, there's still .8 of that bit to get it right. But no real world communications system works this way, anyway. Are we talking about a modem line here? 7200 bps modems use more than one bit-per-baud, and a noise hit can screw up an entire baud, so you really need to know the baud rate, figure out how many bauds are corrupted, and then multiply by bits-per-baud. Plus, with anything above a very basic modulation (i.e. just about anything faster tahn 600bps or so), the bauds aren't independant. If one is screwed up, it makes decoding the next one correctly impossible also. Some modulations, including, I think, v.32 (which would be the a common 7200bps modulation), use scramblers, which also compound a single-bit error into more bits-in-error. (But you could csondier the scrambler to be a higher layer, and make the problem concentrate just on the phyiscal line, in which case the scrambler effects would be irrelevant. Sorry I can't help you with a specific answer ... if my assumption that you are getting this in return for money you paid to an educational institution is correct, than I have lots of suggestions for them :). Brett (brettf@netcom.com) ------------------------------ From: Jason Clifford Subject: Re: Worldcom - MCI Merger? Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 16:45:04 +0100 Organization: Genesis Internet Services Limited Doug Dalton wrote: > Other side on this merger is that BT has been running a smear campaign > against MCI, BT contends that MCI is a struggling company that made > itself look better than it was actually performing and was providing > misinformation during merger discussions. I don't know how much of > this is propaganda, I don't think BT is trying to get out of the > merger, but they sure make it seem that way, the UUNet offer must be > stressing BT's protests. Bearing in mind how much BT will loose if the MCI merger fails I think this is unlikely. Recently BT have been remarketing themselves to their business customers as Concert (BT/MCI) and stating that through the merger and firming up of Concert BT will be able to offer truely world-class comms. The loss of face resulting from the merger failure after BT assured everyone that it was a done deal and made all the usual promises will be damaging in terms of future business. I am currently looking to implement a $300,000/year European network for one of my clients and Concert (BT/MCI) was, until the Worldcom announcement, the most likely to get the business. Now I am looking into the matter again. Jason Clifford Genesis Internet Services Limited As a service I provide analysis of viruses and poor grammar to senders of unsolicited commercial e-mail at a rate of $500.00 per hour. Delivery of said correspondence constitutes a request for the aforementioned services at said price. Supply billing address. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #275 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Oct 9 00:05:10 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id AAA21782; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 00:05:10 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 00:05:10 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199710090405.AAA21782@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #276 TELECOM Digest Thu, 9 Oct 97 00:05:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 276 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Wall Street Journal: Electric Outlets Could Be Link To Internet (Editor) AT&T Wireless Long Distance? (Celeste Tyree) Pay Phone Rates May Go Up After Deregulation (Monty Solomon) WhoWhere Announcement (Eric Florack) Outside Plant Issues (Warrens Stiles) Question About PacBell SuperTrunk ANI (William Dietrich) Book Review: "Shockwave Studio" by Schmitt (Rob Slade) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Wall Street Journal: Electric Outlets Could Be Link To Internet Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 09:36:59 -0700 This report which appeared in WSJ on October 7 bears some discussion by Digest readers. --------------------------- Electric Outlets Could Be Link To the Internet By Gautam Naik The Wall Street Journal 10/07/97 LONDON -- Engineers claim to have developed a breakthrough technology that would let homeowners make phone calls and access the Internet at high speeds via the electric outlets in their walls. If the technology developed by United Utilities PLC and Northern Telecom Ltd. proves commercially viable, it could transform power lines around the world into major conduits on the information superhighway. Because electricity flows into virtually every home and office the new technology could give power companies easy entree into the phone and Internet access businesses, thus posing a serious threat to current providers of those services. Both United Utilities, a power company, and Northern Telecom, a Canadian maker of telecom gear, confirmed that their system was "ready for the mass market," but declined to reveal details until a news conference scheduled for tomorrow. A Northern Telecom spokesman also declined to elaborate. While the technology must still be proven on a large scale, the two companies have tested telephone service over power lines in about 20 U.K. households over the last 12 months -- with positive results, according to Alistair Henderson, chief of technology at Energis PLC, the telecom unit of National Grid Group PLC, which owns and operates the electricity-transmission system in England and Wales. Energis, one of several power companies that has secretly worked with United Utilities on the "power line telephony" project, hopes to use the system to offer data services to its own business customers. "It's very good news for utilities, indeed," says Mr. Henderson. "Everybody has an electricity line to their homes, and every business has electric supply. "At long last, the local monopoly of the incumbent telecom operators is about to be demolished." But some questions remain. Although United Utilities' initial tests have been successful, technical and safety wrinkles have to be ironed out. There's also likely to be intensifying competition from a host of other wanna-be phone and Internet service providers, including cable companies and outfits that use wireless technology to provide high-speed access. And for the new system to be commercially feasible, a power utility would have to sign up 40% or more of homes and offices in a particular neighborhood, Mr. Henderson says. This could prove a difficult task as existing telecommunications players have proven to be adept at making life hard for new entrants. The Baby Bells in the U.S., for example, have largely thwarted efforts by AT&T Corp. and MCI Communications Corp. to enter the local telephone business. In recent years electric utilities in the U.S. and Europe have been trying to enter the telecom fray by the more conventional method of stringing fiber-optic cables along power lines. But so far they've had limited success. As a result, utilities have waited for exactly this kind of breakthrough to make a big splash in the telecom wars. While electric lines have been used before to zap tiny amounts of data between computers, their capacity has always been limited, making commercial applications unfeasible. Now United Utilities' telecom arm, Norweb Communications, has found a way to transmit data at a speed of more than 384 kilobits per second over regular electricity lines -- more than 10 times the speed of Internet modems used by most households with regular telephone lines. The advantage of the latest system -- which uses cellular phone technology to transmit signals along electric wires -- is that utilities needn't spend vast amounts of to build new telecom infrastructure, since existing power lines can simultaneously transmit both electricity, and a phone call, say. Electricity doesn't interfere with the phone transmission for the same reason that a radio broadcast doesn't interfere with a simultaneous TV broadcast: the frequencies are very different. "Utilities won't have to touch the wires underground," notes Mr. Henderson. Of course, there will be some cost to utilities that want to commercialize the new technology and enter the telecom business. Utilities will have to install a device in each residence or office to separate the electricity and phone transmissions. From the device, one line will deliver the telephone and Internet link, while the other will deliver electricity. In the case of the two companies' test, Northern Telecom is believed to have built the box that separates the power and data transmissions. Jennifer Schenker contributed to this article. ------------------------------ From: Celeste Tyree Subject: AT&T Wireless Long Distance? Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 13:52:05 -0700 Dear Pat, WARNING! WARNING! This is for all the cell phone users that were so excited about getting their new Digital phones and did not worry about who their long distance carrier. Here is what the latest scam is from AT&T Wireless. In the past I have had no problem getting my residential rates on my cellular phones. Yes, I did use a reseller for my analog service. When I signed up with Airtouch I requested that they pick AT&T for my carrier. I then called AT&T and asked that they add my new number to my account. No problem. About three weeks later MCI called with a better rate. Okay, I switch and I called Airtouch to let them know. Then AT&T called again with an even better deal "free minutes". Okay, I'll switch. Again, I called Airtouch and told them about my carrier change. No problem. I received my bill from MCI with my 1+ calls from my cell phone on it. No problem. Surprise! When I get my bill for my calls from AT&T it is a separate bill from AT&T Wireless and my rate is $.17 per minute !!! Calmly, I phoned Airtouch to see if that had made an error. No everything was fine on my account and this was the first time the rep had heard of this type of problem. Okay, now I have to call AT&T. I am sure everyone has had that experience and normally it is not a good one. First, I called to see what numbers were on my account. There are two residential and one cellular. The one cellular is my analog phone. I said where do you show the number for my digital phone? Oh, it's not on this account you need to call AT&T Wireless. I called 1 800 367 0226. (The number on my bill.) I asked what was going on and if I could get my $.10 a minute rate. No, you can't but call 1 800 742 5288 for True Rewards and they can discount your rate 25%. So, I called, can I get my $.10 per minute. No. Call AT&T Wireless and around I went. In the meantime my friend calls who has a cell phone from AT&T Wireless and says that they charged him $.26 per minute for his 1+ on his phone. HELP! He told me he called AT&T and gave them the number to add to his account. We all know that someone here is pulling something and it is AT&T Wireless!! So instead of trying to stay a customer with AT&T, I phoned both AT&T Wireless and Airtouch and asked who I could pick for a long distance carrier. They read to me a very long list. Since I knew that MCI was able to be my carrier for $.12 a minute and $.05 on Sundays I picked MCI for both phone plus they have excellent international rates. Everyone please make sure that you check your long-distance carrier on your new cellular phone. AT&T Wireless was not the long distance carrier I picked for my cellular phone. Celeste M Tyree Exotek Telecom Consulting 25424 213th Place SE #5 Maple Valley, WA 98038 Phone/fax 1 425 432 5311 Mobile 1 206 948 9855 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 00:09:10 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Pay Phone Rates May Go Up After Deregulation Pay Phone Rates May Go Up After Deregulation By Roger Fillion WASHINGTON - Consumers will probably have to dig deeper into their pockets for more coins when making a local call from a pay phone now that price caps on pay phones have been abolished. On Tuesday, Federal Communications Commission rules took effect that deregulate pay phone rates nationwide. States no longer can impose their own ceilings that in some cases have kept the cost of a local call as low as a dime. Analysts predict the typical call will rise to 35 cents from the 25-cent rate that now predominates at the 2.1 million pay phones scattered around the nation. "Clearly, the assumption is many pay phone companies will be raising their rates," said analyst John Bain of Hoak, Breedlove Wesneski & Co. in Dallas. Phone companies say they have no immediate plans to raise rates and are studying their options. But analysts expect many will move over the next several weeks to boost rates in search of profit on what has been a money-losing venture. "This is long overdue," Bain said. "In most jurisdictions, coin rates have not gone up for decades." Vince Sandusky, president of the American Public Communications Council, a trade group, said the typical pay phone rate has been 25 cents "for roughly 15-20 years." He added that industry figures put the cost of delivering a pay phone call at 32-35 cents. Consumer advocates cry foul, however. They charge that callers are not in a position to "shop around" and that rate hikes will hit those least able to pay. "Allowing pay phone providers to charge an unlimited rate for pay phone calls will disproportionately affect the poor and those consumers who are least able to afford an increase," said Janee Briesemeister of Consumers Union in Austin, Texas. "We know that lower-income families frequently do not have phones in their homes and rely on pay phones." The FCC rules stem from the Telecommunications Act of 1996. They are aimed at letting market forces, instead of state regulators, set rates. The regional Baby Bell phone companies and GTE Corp. account for the lion's share of pay phone operations. But there are more than 2,000 small independent operators. "We don't have any immediate plans to increase rates. But we are looking at how much it costs to serve a particular area," said GTE spokeswoman Nancy Bavec. "It's a competitive market," she said. "The cost will go to what the market will bear." Ameritech Corp., a Chicago-based Baby Bell, said it was "pleased" with the deregulation but that it was "not prepared to speculate" about possible price changes. "We'll make our decisions ... as we monitor and evaluate our competitors' responses and consumer reaction," it added. A spokesman for another regional phone company, Atlanta-based BellSouth Corp. said it is studying the use of "market-based pricing." Analysts and industry officials say the pay phone business is labor intensive. They cite the need to send workers to pay phone sites to clean and repair phones and collect the coins. They also said larger phone companies have managed to subsidize their pay phone rates through other operations. Those subsidies must end under the new FCC rules. Consumer advocates suggest callers who are unhappy with the price should complain to the convenience store, service station or other "location owner" where a phone is located. The owner of the site gets a fee from the pay phone company. Consumers also should complain to state regulators, who in turn can ask the FCC to change the rules, the advocates suggest. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have mentioned here a couple times about the COCOTS I had installed for a business in Skokie which requested my assistance. The three Ameritech payphones located very close by (about twenty feet away) already charge 35 cents per call and don't give any bargain on long distance either. I deliberatly had 'my' two COCOTS programmed for 25 cents on local coin calls and also programmed for three minutes of long distance at one dollar in coins. Additional long distance minutes are 25 cents each. My phones have a very nice brilliant blue housing, are *brightly* lighted with flourescent tubes and have a lighted sign on a mast overhead which says 'phone' with a picture of a handset. They are fully compliant for the purpose of using the long distance carrier of choice, and there is no charge -- zero -- to call 800/888. Reflective signs mounted on the mast announce the rates. Ameritech just found out about them the other day when the collector came out to look at their three phones which sit directly under a pigeon roost (about thirty of the creatures live in the area under the roof overhanging on the sidewalk there, on the wooden beams around the edge of the building); they are not lighted and two of the three have illegible instruction cards. He noticed his coin boxes were almost empty after two months and the phones covered with pigeon droppings, feathers, graffiti, etc. 'My' phones get wiped clean daily and the handsets cleaned with Lysol. So the Ameritech collector came over to check them out and he asked how much they were taking in. I told him the collector comes out usually twice weekly and typically pulls $75-100 out of each phone each time. This is right at a very major bus stop in Skokie. He complained that I should have those set for 35 cents like his. I asked if the 35 cents would include all the pigeon droppings one could stand in and next to while using the phone ... he checked them out and made a call on one, then walked away. I have noticed that when a Greyhound bus pulls up the driver will usually give the passengers five or ten mintues to run in the station for snacks, etc ... the passengers will be lined up waiting to use those two phones as soon as they see the sign saying 'three minutes for one dollar using coins as payment'. Multiply that by nine Greyhounds coming through every day. All those passengers, you see, used to go use the Ameritech phones in the same way, although not at the same rates, as the Ameritech collector knew quite well when *he* used to come out twice a week for his despite all the pigeons, etc. I think Ameritech was sorry to lose that revenue, but I don't feel sorry for them at all. Had they responded promptly to fix the phones when they they were out of order, lighted them up as requested, kept them clean and paid a decent commission, I am sure the proprietor would have kept them exclusively. The company which operates my COCOTS gave the proprietor a choice of commission options: one was for 30 percent of *all* (coin and non-coin) revenue since they get a kick back from their Alternate Operator Service, or 35 percent on coin-in-the-box only, less line charges. I recomm- ended the later; it seemed like more money. They would have gone to 40 percent had I not insisted on 25 cent local rates and the three minutes/one dollar rate. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 05:35:41 PDT From: Eric Florack Subject: WhoWhere Announcement From {Internet Daily}: ** Improved telephone directory assistance on Web WhoWhere?, Inc. announced today a partnership with DirectoryNET to bring what it calls the first affordable real-time directory assistance service to the World Wide Web. WhoWhereConnectNOW, jointly developed by WhoWhere? and DirectoryNET, a subsidiary of Telstra Corporation Limited, allows Internet users to obtain up- to-date directory information by providing direct access to the RBOC (Regional Bell Operating Company) databases widely used by telephone directory assistance operators throughout the United States. For a monthly subscription fee of $9.90, users of ConnectNOW have Web access to more than 130 million business, residential and government listings -- the same information used by local directory assistance, or ``555-1212'' services. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Too bad they did not include a URL or net.address for reaching/using the service. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 14:09:34 -0700 From: Warrens Stiles Reply-To: mail.isomedia.com Subject: Outside Plant Issues I am interested in learning what concerns people most regarding outside plant installation and maintenance. I recently learned of a new ANSI & ICEA recognized compound that is supposed to stop water intrusion into splices and cable while offering improved bandwidth performance in copper lines. Has anyone heard of abosrbing thixotropic gel? I wonder if it has any appeal and if anyone knows if it works. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 15:45:34 -0700 From: William Dietrich Subject: Question About PacBell SuperTrunk ANI We just installed SuperTrunk (voice T1) service from PacBell, in the San Francisco Bay Area (Sunnyvale, CA). We thought we could get ANI (Caller ID) on this T1, but PacBell says they don't offer that service; you have to get Primary Rate ISDN to get ANI. I find this hard to believe; I thought one of the main uses of voice T1 was for 800 numbers, and ANI would be extremely common in that situation. We do get incoming digits (after winking), but they are DID (last 4 digits of our T1's phone number). Side note: they can't just type a command somewhere to change us from voice T1 to PRI; they have to un-install and re-install wiring, and charge us money. Another side note: the monthly fee for PRI is LOWER than the monthly fee for voice T1 ! Seems backwards. Can anyone tell me if my PacBell representative is right or wrong? Is it possible to get ANI on a PacBell SuperTrunk? Thanks, Bill Dietrich Sr Software Engineer, VOIS Corp billdietrich@voiscorp.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 10:46:51 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Shockwave Studio" by Schmitt BKSWVSTD.RVW 970320 "Shockwave Studio", Bob Schmitt, 1997, 1-56592-231-X, U$39.95/C$57.95 %A Bob Schmitt %C 103 Morris Street, Suite A, Sebastopol, CA 95472 %D 1997 %G 1-56592-231-X %I O'Reilly & Associates, Inc. %O U$39.95/C$57.95 800-998-9938 707-829-0515 fax: 707-829-0104 nuts@ora.com %P 200 %T "Shockwave Studio: Designing Multimedia for the Web" With Java, as an experienced programmer, you can dedicate two weeks to learning a new language, master object-orientation, and then animate a graphic figure on a Web page and make it dance. Big deal. At this point, one normally says something like, "Enter Shockwave," except that Shockwave, and its Director predecessor, have been around longer than Java. The title of this book is slightly misleading. Although Shockwave is capable of handling a variety of media, this work concentrates primarily on animation via static image files and other related effects. The explanation is through sample code, but the annotation of the code is both extensive and clear. The scope of the material covers not only the basics of the language, but finer points in terms of performance and compatibility. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKSWVSTD.RVW 970320 roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca slade@freenet.victoria.bc.ca link to virus, book info at http://www.freenet.victoria.bc.ca/techrev/rms.html Author "Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses" 0-387-94663-2 (800-SPRINGER) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #276 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Oct 9 21:40:35 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id VAA01893; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 21:40:35 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 21:40:35 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199710100140.VAA01893@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #277 TELECOM Digest Thu, 9 Oct 97 21:40:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 277 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Book Review: "The Web Page Recipe Book" by Sosinsky/Parker (Rob Slade) UCLA Short Course on "Digital Signal Processing" (Bill Goodin) Number's Up On Credit Card Scam (Joey Lindstrom) MCI and Spam (Dave Harrison) New Book on the Internet (Jud Wolfskill) Re: 101-XXXX For Traditional Intra-LATA LEC Toll (Jack Decker) Re: Bell Atlantic Toll Alerting in Massachusetts (Greg Monti) Re: Baltimore's 3-1-1 Service (John McGing) Re: Combining Analog Lines (Jeff Carter) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 11:09:48 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "The Web Page Recipe Book" by Sosinsky/Parker BKWBPGRC.RVW 970328 "The Web Page Recipe Book", Barrie Sosinsky/Elisabeth Parker, 1996, 0-13-460296-X, U$29.95/C$38.00 %A Barrie Sosinsky %A Elisabeth Parker %C One Lake St., Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 %D 1996 %G 0-13-460296-X %I Prentice Hall %O U$29.95/C$38.00 +1-201-236-7139 fax: 201-236-7131 beth_hespe@prenhall.com %P 352 %T "The Web Page Recipe Book" About a year ago, there was a discussion on the NETTRAIN mailing list about the best Web page creation software. My favorite response was the one that suggested Notepad: HTML (HyperText Markup Language) is really quite simple, and if you can't be bothered to learn it, then you probably aren't willing to do the design work necessary to keep your page out of the hundred million garbage pages already on the Web. So, I am not predisposed to like a book recommending the use of canned Web pages with "paint by numbers" drop-ins. On the other hand, the book does start off with a background on the basics. On the third hand, right off the bat, page eight parses the wrong URL (Uniform Resource Locator), page ten gets the relationship between HTML and SGML (Standard Generalized Markup Language) wrong, and page twelve gets the name of a recommended program wrong. In fact, the "paint by numbers" aspect is not strongly emphasized: while the sample pages are available on disk, the book annotates them well enough to be a workable tutorial on HTML. By using the "mailto" function, the authors are even able to provide simple and workable forms, something that most other HTML books signally fail to do. The explanations are clear, and the basic page creation is developmental so that functions can be added and pages improved as the reader progresses. Still, there are a number of annoying aspects to the book. The strongest is that the formatting of the HTML code (designated by underlining, and often run together) makes reading much more difficult than it needed to be. The advice is inconsistent at times: page twenty-three promotes the important design rule that Web pages should allow for the use of non-graphical browsers and promises that all pages are checked with Lynx, but if there is a Lynx screen shot buried in the book, I couldn't find it. Even the screens of browsers with graphics turned off are not good examples, since the pages used are done "properly", and don't show how annoying a page of undistinguished image tags is. While I couldn't recommend it as a solid guide to HTML, it has enough of interest to be considered as an inclusion on the bookshelf. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKWBPGRC.RVW 970328 roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca ------------------------------ From: Bill Goodin Subject: UCLA Short Course on "Digital Signal Processing" Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 10:00:44 -0700 On January 5-9, 1998, UCLA Extension will present the short course, "Digital Signal Processing: Theory, Algorithms and Implementations", on the UCLA campus in Los Angeles. The instructor is Robert W. Stewart, PhD, Faculty Member, Department of Electronic and Electrical Engineering, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland. Each participant receives a Digital Signal Processing Reference Glossary (500 pages); multimedia reference CD-ROM featuring algorithms, DSP sample problems, graphs, and comprehensive notes; software and hardware workbook and manuals; and lecture notes. This course presents the core theory and algorithms of DSP and demonstrates through laboratory sessions the real-time and real-world implementation of digital signal processing strategies. It is intended for engineers, computer scientists and programmers, and project management staff. After presenting the mathematical tools and theory of DSP, the course features practical laboratory sessions that allow participants to simulate and implement advanced DSP systems such as acoustic echo cancellers, psychoacoustic compression strategies, or software systems. Participants should obtain the tools and materials necessary to apply DSP methods immediately at their workplace, as well as: o Analyze discrete time systems using time domain mathematics o Analyze discrete time systems using frequency domain/Z-domain mathematics o Understand the fundamental theory relating to sampling rate, quantization noise and the architecture of a generic DSP system o Design and implement FIR, IIR, and adaptive digital filters for real-world applications in digital audio and acoustics and telecommunications o Understand the theory of adaptive signal processing systems and how to apply to real-world problems o Understand the DSP theory of signal coding and compression o Understand the key theory and achievable advantages of oversampling, multirate, noise shaping, and undersampling strategies o Undertake DSP system design using advanced analysis and design software o Implement real-time digital filters, and adaptive digital filters using DSP simulation software, and real-time DSP processor hardware o Apply DSP theory and algorithms in the application domains of modern computing, multimedia systems, and communication systems o Integrate theoretical and practical skills to undertake a DSP design project. SystemView software (running on Windows 3.1/95) will be used for the DSP software laboratory sessions. This advanced software provides a comprehensive, state-of-the-art DSP toolbox for modern signal processing. An evaluation license will be available to participants so that they can continue to use the software after the course. The course fee is $1495, which includes extensive course materials. These materials are for participants only, and are not for sale. For a more information and a complete course description, please contact Marcus Hennessy at: (310) 825-1047 (310) 206-2815 fax mhenness@unex.ucla.edu http://www.unex.ucla.edu/shortcourses This course may also be presented on-site at company locations. ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Thu, 09 Oct 97 05:11:35 -0700 Reply-To: Joey Lindstrom Subject: Number's Up On Credit Card Scam By Bill Kaufmann Calgary Sun (c) 1997 Sun Media City Police have lowered the boom on a credit card scam that has bilked thousands of victims of at least $2 million. The Golden Globe Investment Club solicited $100 US from customers across North America with poor or non-existent credit, promising them either Visa or Mastercard from offshore banks. None of the estimated 2,000 applicants has received a credit card. A downtown Calgary office - once operated by Globe - was raided by City Police who discovered courier packages containing cash enroute to Nassau, Bahamas. The company is operating an Internet website, said police, who are seeking several Golden Globe staffers in Calgary. The operation's kingpin, believed to be in the Bahamas, is wanted on seven counts of fraud in Edmonton. From: The Desk Of Joey Lindstrom +1 403-606-3853 EMAIL: joey@lindstrom.com numanoid@ab.imag.net lindstrj@cadvision.com WEBB: http://www.ab.imag.net/worldwidewebb/ ------------------------------ From: Davew@cris.com (Dave Harrison) Subject: MCI and Spam Date: 9 Oct 1997 08:57:58 GMT Organization: Concentric Internet Services Since AGIS pulled the plug on Spamford, the amount of unwanted email in my box seems to have dropped about 80%, which is still way too much. Lately, I've seen an increase from sites connected thru MCI. As MCI has conditions of service that prohibit Spam activities, and MCI hasn't pulled the plug on the Spammers, I can only assume that money means more to MCI than their reputation. As a person responsible for a 96 line Centrex group, with MCI as the pic, I have decided to select another carrier and dump MCI like a carton of Spam. Our average MCI 1+ bill (and lately some of our lata traffic) is only about 5k a month, but hey, dropping MCI lets me express my displeasure with them. And before anyone admonishes me for not bypassing ... we bill calls to clients, so saving a few cents a minute isn't worth investing in a switch. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 97 11:25:24 EDT From: wolfskil@MIT.EDU (Jud Wolfskill) Subject: New Book on the Internet The following is a book which readers of this list might find of interest. For more information please visit: http://mitpress.mit.edu/mitp/recent-books/new-releases.html Coordinating the Internet edited by Brian Kahin and James H. Keller For years, the world saw the Internet as a creature of the U.S. Department of Defense. Now some claim that the Internet is a self-governing organism controlled by no one and needing no oversight. Although the National Science Foundation and other government agencies continue to support and oversee critical administrative and coordinating functions, the Internet is remarkably decentralized and uninstitutionalized. As it grows in scope, bandwidth, and functionality, the Internet will require greater coordination, but it is not yet clear what kind of coordinating mechanisms will evolve. The essays in this volume clarify these issues and suggest possible models for governing the Internet. The topics addressed range from settlements and statistics collection to the sprawling problem of domain names, which affects the commercial interests of millions of companies around the world. One recurrent theme is the inseparability of technical and policy issues in any discussion involving the Internet. A publication of the Harvard Information Infrastructure Project September 1997 500 pp. ISBN 0-262-61136-8 MIT Press * 5 Cambridge Center * Cambridge, MA 02142 * (800)356-0343 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 20:51:38 -0400 From: Jack Decker Subject: Re: 101-XXXX For Traditional Intra-LATA LEC Toll Mark J. Cuccia wrote: > GTE doesn't have any LATAs of their own in the state of Michigan. All > LATAs in Michigan are considered to be Ameritech (formerly Michigan > Bell). 'Traditional' Independent telcos which provide service within > a BOC LATA have toll-homings to the BOC tandem switch in that LATA > for intra-LATA toll calls. Some independents do have their own toll > or tandem switch, if that independent has a large number of exchanges > within a small region in the same LATA, but not all of the traffic > between the exchanges is local. Well, GTE may not have their own LATAs but they do have their own intraLATA toll. A toll call between two GTE points in the same LATA generally never sees an Ameritech switch. Further, GTE has their own toll operators. Independent telephone companies in Michigan have the option of obtaining intraLATA toll service from either Ameritech or GTE, and if they choose GTE their customers talk to GTE operators, not Ameritech operators. If you live in California or someplace like that you may think that this is a bad thing, but actually GTE service has improved considerably in Michigan in the last decade or so, and unless you happen to live in an area "served" by a subscriber carrier system (also known as an incredibly obsolete and substandard excuse for phone service, unfortunately still foisted on an unlucky few GTE rural customers), chances are that you will get phone service about on a par with what you would expect from Ameritech, AND you don't suffer the slimey tricks that Ameritech pulls on their customers (such as adding unwanted and co$tly "per-use" custom calling features to your line without warning). Where GTE really falls down is in their customer service - it is still very difficult to get a correct answer about anything without jumping through a lot of hoops (trying to find the correct 101XXXX code for GTE's intraLATA toll is a perfect example; even their "Action Line" couldn't seem to pry this bit of information loose from the switch technicians. I suppose I could bug some of the local upper management to get the number, but GTE management personnel seem to change so frequently that every time I get a "good" contact there, it seems that they are gone by the next time I try to contact them, and I haven't had time this week to play telephone tag with them). > Ameritech does have some 101-XXXX codes, which _might_ happen to be > dialable for intra-LATA calls from those GTE central offices. The > following 101-XXXX+ codes are assigned to Ameritech, according to the > FCC's latest list of US/NANP numbering/dialing information: > 101-5475+, 101-5606+, 101-6123+; and for Ameritech's "Long-Distance" > (future inTER-LATA toll? Ameritech's Cellular inTER-LATA toll?) there > is 101-0113+ (10-113+ in the older/shorter, soon to be obsolete format). None of these work here - after dialing the code it immediately cuts to an "I'm sorry, your call cannot be completed as dialed" recording. Except for a very short period of time a few years back when GTE experimented with letting Ameritech handle their toll calls, Ameritech toll has never been accessible from GTE exchanges (at least not in this area, although I think there were a few geographically isolated GTE exchanges that have always connected to Ameritech for toll). The thing that I am curious about is this: As I understand it (and feel free to correct me if I am wrong), if you do not have GTE as your default toll carrier, they have to load a PIC code into the switch for your preferred carrier. And it is possible to have NO default toll carrier (both interLATA and intraLATA), in which case no toll call will go through unless you dial an access code first. So, it would seem that there MUST be a code for GTE intraLATA toll, that would be the default code used in the switch if you don't ask for another carrier or specify that you don't want a default carrier. I would guess that the switch technicians know what that code is, but apparently they aren't telling! Jack When replying via e-mail, remove the "bogus" part of my e-mail address - I get WAY too much spam as it is, and I NEVER buy anything from spammers! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 22:28:58 -0400 From: Greg Monti Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic Toll Alerting in Massachusetts On 03 Oct 1997, The Old Bear wrote: > Something is going on with the Bell Atlantic/NYNEX consolidation of > billing functions where customers on 'unlimited' dialing plans are > suddenly finding themselves improperly billed for calls which should > be included in their dialing area. This may be exacerbated by the > number of new exchanges being created by the new entrant LECs which > are not always located where the LEC indicates that they are. So, this is even worse than the problem I had described before. In a state with toll alerting, the callers are not getting the alert in some cases, but are being billed toll rates anyway. [Example 1] > ... Customer service at my ISP assures > me that they pay for the forwarding from Quincy - but I'm scared of > what my next bill will look like - This one sounds like just plain bad switch programming. The standard rule is that, when forwarding from A to B to C, A pays for the call from A to B. B pays for the call from B to C. Sounds like a tariff violation to me. Complain loudly. Or better yet, sue. Sometimes it takes a two-by-four to get the mule's attention. [Example 2] > Moral here is to recheck all those numbers your ISP says are local > calls, if they have foreign exchanges, in other words exchanges that > don't match the other exchanges in the town you are supposed to be > calling, call Bell Atlantic to be sure they aren't toll calls for you. If this was in Massachusetts, the disputed calls must have crossed area code boundaries, where there is currently (or was until recently) no toll alerting. So the calling party could not have known at the time of dialing whether it was toll. On 3 Oct 97, shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) wrote: > Why not do like US West does here in Oregon? We get "full toll > alerting", and it works for basic service *and* for all three (or is > it four?) levels of "extended area" calling. > It's doable that way and *not* confusing. It may require some extra > programming in the phone switch, but it *is* doable. Exactly. Of course it can be done. But Bell Atlantic wants out of the toll alerting business. All the local exchange carriers do. And they are using controversies like this as possibile opportunities to extricate themselves from toll alerting. > I suspect that many of the folks who are against "toll alerting" have > never had to deal with equipment that dials numbers from a directory > maintained elsewhere. With such a setup, you want the default to be > trying to dial 7 digits if the exchange isn't explicitly listed in the > translation table as a "local" prefix. That way you don't inadvertently > make LD calls. It depends on what your objective is. If you want it to be cheap above all other criteria, you want toll alerting. If you want it to be fast above all other criteria (all calls go through on the first try), you don't want alerting. For better or for worse, four states were converted to full non-alerting during the 1994 preparation for interchangeable area codes: PA, NY, CA and IL (some of these had partial alerting before). Something like one third of all US phones are now non-toll-alerted. > And trying to find out where an exchange that doesn't belong > to your LEC is can be *very* frustrating ... Some earlier posts on this Digest noted that in some areas (Illinois, I think), the local Bell company is refusing to tell (even when asked) whether any particular prefix belonging to a competitor is local or toll. Messy. Greg Monti Jersey City, New Jersey, USA gmonti@mindspring.com http://www.mindspring.com/~gmonti ------------------------------ From: John McGing Subject: Re: Baltimore's 3-1-1 Service Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 09:01:44 -0400 Organization: DIGEX, Inc. On Thu, 2 Oct 1997, The Old Bear wrote: > This came to me from Robert Vroman who > particiaptes in an Emergency Services Discussion List. He says > original source was the {New York Times} web site on 10/2/97. > I personally find this a worrysome idea. It would seem that the 911 > staff should be able to better triage incoming calls. I wonder what > will happens when someone calls 3-1-1 because they only have a "small > fire" or didn't want to call the regular 9-1-1 number because they > were not absolutely sure they were having a heart attack. The fact > that Baltimore was dispatching emergency personnel to non-emergency > situations sounds more like a staff training problem in their dispatch > center than any kind of technological issue. > 311 Takes Pressure Off Overburdened > Emergency Phone System Well, then you should try living in an area where to contact the police ALL calls go through 911, meaning you get put on hold. My inlaws live in Baltimore, I live outside it. They have had to contact 911 a few times and got put on hold more than once. Now with 311, the call gets answered right away at 911 because those non-emergency calls don't suck up the time of the 911 call center personnel. Can you imagine waiting on hold while the fire gets bigger or the intruder is breaking the door while a call of lesser importance is being serviced? Where I used to live you called 911 even to report a lost cat. And I never got a good answer why I was sucking up the time and energy of personnel who should be jumping on calls responding to real crimes, not neighborhood concerns. The point is that most reasonable people know if a call requires 911 or if it doesn't and by helping make 911 the number for emergencies, everyone gets better service. And even still, if you call 911 because of a cat in a tree, they still take the call. Might wish you used 311, but you still get service. jmcging@dm.net <== New e-mail address New web page at http://www.dm.net/~jmcging Soon to be inactive==>> http://www.access.digex.net/~jmcging [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In Chicago, the police tell people to call 911 for everything. Even if you call for some non-emergency matter and call direct to the station house, the people who answer there say if you want to talk to a police officer you need to dial 911 to get one dispatched. Meanwhile, the people who staff the 911 center constantly complain about how people call them for even the most minor things and blame the citizens for abusing 911. So if you call back to the station house they refer you right back to 911, etc. I wish they could get their act together. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Jeff Carter Subject: Re: Combining Analog Lines Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 11:25:01 -0400 Organization: The Open Software Foundation / The Open Group Cameron Smith wrote: > I live in a rural area where digital service is all but unavailable. > We have, here on-island, an ISP who brings in a T-1 signal. In order > to get that T-1 (or any fraction thereof) to my home, I would have to > pay the telco a $1400 setup fee and over $1200 per month! Plus, of > course, the connection fee to the ISP. > The ISP, however, is willing to let me co-locate a machine on his > premises. What I can do is set up a standard analog line from that > machine to my home with a couple of 56K modems. So far so good. > What I *want* to do, however, is set up *two* analog lines with 56k > modems and combine or concentrate them somehow. Something like this: > --> 56K modem <--> > Analog Line > / > -T1--> ISP <--Ethernet--> My Comp. <--> device <--< > @ ISP \ > --> 56K modem <--> > Analog Line > > Analog Line <--> 56K modem <-- > \ > >--> device <--> My > Computer > / @ > home > Analog Line <--> 56K modem <-- > > So what is the "device" that I need and what are some of the brand > names? If you're talking TCP/IP, you run PPP (point-to-point protocol) on each of the two modem links, and use "Multilink PPP" channel bonding to treat them as a single line between the local and remote computers. This is essentially the technique used by ISDN with two B channels at 56/64K each to get 112 or 128K aggregate. The technique is not limited to ISDN, though. I don't believe (but am willing to be corrected) that WinDoze directly supports MLPPP, but most routers and unix-type systems would support this. Jeff Carter Interware, Inc. jeffc@shore.net ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #277 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Oct 10 22:01:07 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA16723; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 22:01:07 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 22:01:07 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199710110201.WAA16723@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #278 TELECOM Digest Thu, 9 Oct 97 22:00:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 278 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson FCC Sets $0.28 as Kickback to Payphones For "Tollfree" Calls (P.Townson) Another Unverified Integretel Charge on Bill (Steve Kastner) Lucent G2 to G3 Upgrade Problems (Jim Hurley) TDMA = Terminate Departmental Manufacturing Assemblers (30K!) (B. Devine) Re: Question About PacBell SuperTrunk ANI (Fred R. Goldstein) Re: Question About PacBell SuperTrunk ANI (Jay R. Ashworth) Re: Wall Street Journal: Electric Outlets Could Be Link (John Stah) Re: Wall Street Journal: Electric Outlets Could Be Link (Bill Ranck) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 21:40:08 EDT From: Patrick Townson Subject: FCC Sets $0.28 as Kickback to Payphones For "Tollfree" Calls FYI from the Associated Press late Thursday evening: Pay phone access fees to toll-free numbers fixed at 28 cents By JEANNINE AVERSA The Associated Press 10/09/97 7:33 PM Eastern WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Federal Communications Commission on Thursday set a new rate of 28 cents a call for long-distance companies to pay owners of pay phones for toll-free and access code services. The new, lower rate is effective immediately and will last for two years. It will apply only to companies that can't negotiate a rate with pay phone owners. The FCC's action does not affect local pay phone calls. A federal appeals court in June struck down the FCC's earlier rate of 35 cents a call. It's unclear how pay phone customers ultimately will be affected because long-distance companies can recover these expenses in a variety of ways. But AT&T said customers' rates will go up and vowed to appeal the ruling. "We're extremely disappointed that the FCC is determined to grant pay phone operators an unjustified windfall at the expense of customers," said Rick Bailey, AT&T's vice president of federal government affairs. AT&T said the new rate is too high and should be 12 cents a call. The appeals court had rejected the way the commission figured compensation for the 800 toll-free calls and access codes calls -- when a caller dials an 11-digit code to reach his or her preferred long-distance company, thus bypassing the company that is providing service to the phone. The court said the commission hadn't adequately justified its rate of 35 cents a call and instructed the FCC to rewrite its rate rules. A 1996 telecommunications law required the FCC to ensure that AT&T, MCI, Sprint and other companies that supply long-distance service to pay phones fairly compensate pay phone owners for all calls. Various companies had suggested a wide range of rates -- from zero to 63 cents a call, said a FCC attorney, speaking on condition of anonymity. The FCC said it arrived at the new rate by using the predominate rate for local pay phone calls in states that have deregulated rates -- 35 cents a call -- and adjusting it for costs differences associated with long-distance calling. AT&T, Sprint and MCI had challenged the FCC's original rates in court. Sprint and MCI had no immediate comment on the FCC's action. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 18:54:44 -0600 From: Steve Kastner Reply-To: aats4@airmail.net Organization: AAccess Technical Support Subject: Another Unverified Integratel Charge on Bill I got a new one for ya: I got my phone bill and saw a charge on behalf of Integretel. Having never heard from them I called and was told that I was being billed by them on behalf of Associated Transmissions for my own personal 800 number. Well, I have never ordered an 800 number in my life. I have no need for one and have never heard of Integretel prior to getting this bill. I called 'em up and was connected (after about a ten minute wait) to some insolent "customer service agent". I explained to her my situation. I was then shocked to hear her say that if I did not want to pay for the service I should not have ordered it. The day that this order was apparently placed happened to be my birthday and I remember that I was gone that whole weekend. I was not even home to place the order for the 800 number which they said was traced to my phone number. This went on for another ten minutes before she offered to cancel the 800 number service still leaving the charge for the line on my current bill. Well, I spent another ten minutes arguing with her about this and finally flat out told her I wouldn't pay it and then asked to talk to someone in authority. I waited yet another ten minutes and finally this customer service robot returned and said she would do a "one time courtesy removal" of the charge. In other words she is going to do me a favor by not charging me for something I never asked for in the first place. On top of all this I was told that I could not even have the phone number or address of this Associated Transmissions company. They couldn't even tell me what my 800 number was. So apparently someone either broke into my apartment on my birthday and called Associated Transmissions to order me an 800 number or these guys are involved in some big time fraud. Steve K. skastner@rocketmail.com ------------------------------ From: Jim Hurley Subject: Lucent G2 to G3 Upgrade Problems Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 01:35:29 GMT Reply-To: hurls@world.std.com Organization: James Hurley & Associates Hi all, I support a piece of CPE equipment for a large Chicago hospital. They are upgrading to a G3 switch. The first piece of equipment is the one I support. It has a T1 interface to an IVR application. It runs fine on the G2 using 'wink/wink' supervision. Lucent claims that they can't configure the G3r to perform the same way. We get about 4 seconds of dial tone on the line before the call is completely connected. Lucent has not let me speak with anyone knowledgable about this switch configuration. Can anyone help? Jim Hurley (hurls@world.std.com) ------------------------------ From: sdmort@electriciti.com (Brian P. Devine) Subject: TDMA = Terminate Departmental Manufacturing Assemblers (30K!) Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 18:38:18 GMT Organization: ElectriCiti, Inc. I wonder if this explains the recent run-up of Qcomm stock ... I recently came across an article that everyone may find quite interesting: It's a translation of a piece written by Johan Wallqvist, in the Swedish evening paper Expressen -- June 1, '97 -- about Ericsson and the mobile telephony industry: Wallqvist states that 30,000 jobs can disappear when the new technology takes over... Ericsson, Sweden'ss most successful company, is one of the leaders in mobile telephony. More and more experts are now asking themselves: Has Ericsson gone for the wrong technique? He goes on to say that Ericsson might have to close down more factories ... due to the fact that Ericsson is mainly investing in another technique, TDMA, in their digital GSM telephones. Today more and more commentators ask themselves: Has Ericsson made a catastrophic decision, that in the long run will threaten tens of thousands of jobs in Sweden? Wallqvist points out that the newcomer in the arena, Qualcomm, in San Diego, California, is challenging Ericsson with a CDMA system, which they declare is better than Ericsson's GSM system. Qualcomm has less than two million subscribers in their systems, to be compared with 20 million in digital GSM systems from Ericsson ... He explains that Motorola, Philips, Siemens, Sony, Sharp, Samsung, Sanyo, and NEC are all going to CDMA due to the fact that CDMA has got a better capacity and is more economical. You can cover a city with half as many transmitting installations on the ground compared to what is needed with GSM, Jack Scanlon, manager at Motorola explains. Wallqvist ends the expose by answering the question: Is Qualcomm's CDMA technology a serious threat against Ericsson? Yes, and we should possibly make mobile phones for CDMA systems too. But the governing body of this concern has not taken any decision yet, says John Siberg, in charge of Ericsson's mobile telephone division. Telia, Sweden's number one telecom operator, also supports the CDMA technology. CDMA is the technique for mobile phone systems of the future. GSM is out of date already, says Frank Arnoldsson at Telia. The board of directors at Ericsson is aware of this, but won't say it in public until the year 2000. E-Mail me for a copy of the article! pbdevine@aol.com ------------------------------ From: fgoldstein@bbn.NO$LUNCHMEAT.com (Fred R. Goldstein) Subject: Re: Question About PacBell SuperTrunk ANI Date: 9 Oct 1997 19:07:59 GMT Organization: GTE Internetworking - BBN Technologies In article , billdietrich@voiscorp.com says ... > We just installed SuperTrunk (voice T1) service from PacBell, in the > San Francisco Bay Area (Sunnyvale, CA). > We thought we could get ANI (Caller ID) on this T1, but PacBell says > they don't offer that service; you have to get Primary Rate ISDN to > get ANI. > I find this hard to believe; I thought one of the main uses of voice > T1 was for 800 numbers, and ANI would be extremely common in that > situation. Most big-volume 800 numbers are delivered in PRI format. The big IXCs have had PRI for almost a decade, long before the Bells did. In practice, you can't get ANI on Channelized T1. The CO has no way to deliver it. For DID incoming, there is a defined touch-tone protocol for it, but there is none for non-PRI subscriber-loop ANI. ANI is normally sent on inter-CO trunks, using "Feature Group D" signaling, but that uses "MF", not "DTMF" (touch-tone) tones, is rarely supported in PBXs, and letting subscribers use it makes telcos edgey -- that's what "Blue Boxes" used! Theoretically they could negotiate a "special assembly" of FGD/ANI but it wouldn't fall under the SuperTrunk tariff. > Side note: they can't just type a command somewhere to change us from > voice T1 to PRI; they have to un-install and re-install wiring, and > charge us money. Correct. Channelized T1 just goes into a trunk port of the CO. PRI goes into the trunk port but also connects a Packet Handler port for the D channel. > Another side note: the monthly fee for PRI is LOWER than the monthly > fee for voice T1 ! Seems backwards. The FCC has ruled that a CT1 is subject to 24 subscriber line charges ($6 apiece and rising), while PRI is subject to 5 of them. That often tilts the numbers in favor of PRI. From a strict cost viewpoint, PRI costs telcos around $50-100/month more to provision, because of the packet handler port. Actual tariff prices go all over the place. Fred R. Goldstein k1io fgoldstein"at"bbn.com GTE Internetworking - BBN Technologies, Cambridge MA USA +1 617 873 3850 Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission. ------------------------------ From: jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us (Jay R. Ashworth) Subject: Re: Question About PacBell SuperTrunk ANI Date: 9 Oct 1997 20:34:09 GMT Organization: Ashworth & Associates On Wed, 08 Oct 1997 15:45:34 -0700, William Dietrich wrote: > We just installed SuperTrunk (voice T1) service from PacBell, in the > San Francisco Bay Area (Sunnyvale, CA). > We thought we could get ANI (Caller ID) on this T1, but PacBell says > they don't offer that service; you have to get Primary Rate ISDN to > get ANI. Hmmm ... > I find this hard to believe; I thought one of the main uses of voice > T1 was for 800 numbers, and ANI would be extremely common in that > situation. This much is true. > We do get incoming digits (after winking), but they are DID (last 4 > digits of our T1's phone number). Aha. The problem is that there's a limited amount of time available there. It may well be that they can't give you DNIS _and_ ANI on a T-span at the same time: remember all the signalling is _analog_. > Side note: they can't just type a command somewhere to change us from > voice T1 to PRI; they have to un-install and re-install wiring, and > charge us money. Yeah; different line cards. > Another side note: the monthly fee for PRI is LOWER than the monthly > fee for voice T1 ! Seems backwards. Switch. It's worth it. Just make _sure_ you get the name and number of someone in their switch department who understands ISDN translations. > Can anyone tell me if my PacBell representative is right or wrong? > Is it possible to get ANI on a PacBell SuperTrunk? I'm speculating, of course, but no doubt, someone else will know for sure. If you can terminate a PRI into your switch, though, it's worth the change over fees, more than likely. Cheers, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "People propose, science studies, technology Tampa Bay, Florida conforms." -- Dr. Don Norman +1 813 790 7592 ------------------------------ From: aljon@worldnet.att.net (John Stahl) Subject: Re: Wall Street Journal: Electric Outlets Could Be Link Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 19:23:58 +0000 The latest from Nortel has startled the ILEC's (and probably a whole lot of others in the business) with the announcement of Internet service over the electrical power grid. Several with whom I've talked with (I travel around to the Independent Telcos in the Northeast US), have already contacted Nortel to find out what they have to offer as sort of a defensive mechanism. After all, if DATA can be sent via the power lines, can VOICE be far behind? I can think of one CLEC who probably is right in the (potential) middle of it: RCN (the new CLEC break-off from CTEC - who owns Commonwealth Telephone in PA). They have reportedly signed agreements with Boston Edison and Potomac Electric to "partner-up" to supply local telephone service. I'm sure that they will review their agreements before Nortel gets to their partners! There appeared (10/9/97) from Reuters News Service, another view of this potentially revolutionary transmission idea. It tells a bit more about the methodology and the probable costs: ---------------------- - - - Coming Soon: Net Access Through Power Lines - - - by Reuters October 8, 1997 "Canada's Northern Telecom (Nortel) and Britain's Norweb Communications today unveiled new technology allowing reliable, low-cost, high-speed access to the Internet through the domestic electricity supply. In a move heralding the first competition between electricity companies and telecommunications carriers, the two groups said their patented technology would allow power firms to convert their infrastructures into information access networks. Having reduced electrical interference on power lines, the companies said they could shunt data -- and possibly voice -- over power lines into the home at up to 1MB per second. This is up to ten times faster than ISDN, the fastest currently available speed for domestic computer users. Although it is slower than rival ADSL technology being developed by British Telecommunications, which upgrades copper wires, Norweb and Nortel's technology is much cheaper for operators to install. All consumers need is the equipment developed by Nortel and Norweb -- an extra card for personal computers, some software to handle subscription, security, and authentication services, and a small box that is installed next to the electricity meter. This will send and receive data and is in turn linked to a personal computer through an ordinary coaxial cable. Peter Dudley, vice president of Nortel, said the groups had an "absolutely spectacular" amount of interest from electricity companies in Britain and abroad that are keen to offer the service to consumers. "The race is on to be first," he told Reuters. Prices will be set by electricity companies that offer the service. But consumers currently spend an average of 20 to 30 pounds ($48.60) per month for Internet access -- and the new service offers permanent access without telephone costs. "Assuming they continue to spend at that rate, it is not unreasonable to assume that is the kind of tariffing that may be submitted," Dudley said. The Canadian telecoms equipment maker, and Norweb, part of England's multiutility United Utilities, said their technology was fast enough for most future domestic or small office applications and was cost effective enough to allow operators returns on investments. "As one of the first practical, low cost answers to the problem of high speed access to the Internet, this technology will unleash the next wave of growth," Dudley said. The two companies have developed a "specialized signaling scheme" that allows them to carry data traffic between local power substations and homes, effectively turning the electricity supply into a communications network. Each substation is then linked by fiber-optic circuits to a central switch -- and from there into the worldwide computer network. After 18 months of refining and upgrading a prototype and promising "oodles of bandwidth," the companies said they planned to market the technology in Europe and the Asia Pacific region. "We are ready to ship in volume," said Ian Vance, vice president and chief scientist at Nortel Europe. Banking on high growth and good economic returns, Norweb hopes to attract around 200 customers in a marketing pilot in northwestern England in the second quarter of 1998 before rolling out the service." -------------------- You note that their plans seem to not include the US market -- wanna bet? Notice the statement about bandwidth -- will they stop at data? How about video and voice and who knows what else? Time will tell but you can bet if the system is competitive, they will push it everywhere for every 'service' - voice, data, video, etc. Here's a real potential competition to all the markets: telephone and CATV. After all, everyone has electrical lines connected to their homes and businesses. John Stahl Aljon Enterprises Telecommunications and Data System Consultants email: aljon@worldnet.att.net ------------------------------ From: ranck@joesbar.cc.vt.edu (Bill Ranck) Subject: Re: Wall Street Journal: Electric Outlets Could Be Link Date: 9 Oct 1997 19:52:44 GMT Organization: Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia TELECOM Digest Editor (editor@telecom-digest.org) wrote: > Electric Outlets Could Be Link To the Internet > By Gautam Naik The Wall Street Journal 10/07/97 > LONDON -- Engineers claim to have developed a breakthrough technology > that would let homeowners make phone calls and access the Internet at > high speeds via the electric outlets in their walls. Hmmm, let's see what kind of data rates and how do they get by the local tranformers? > high-speed access. And for the new system to be commercially > feasible, a power utility would have to sign up 40% or more of homes > and offices in a particular neighborhood, Mr. Henderson says. Ah ha! Looks like they need to install some fairly expensive gadget to bridge the signal around the neighborhood transformer. Still, this isn't a show-stopper. Economies of scale should bring the price per tranformer down. > While electric lines have been used before to zap tiny amounts of > data between computers, their capacity has always been limited, > making commercial applications unfeasible. Now United Utilities' > telecom arm, Norweb Communications, has found a way to transmit data > at a speed of more than 384 kilobits per second over regular > electricity lines -- more than 10 times the speed of Internet modems > used by most households with regular telephone lines. Sounds impressive until one thinks about dividing that bandwidth up among x voice cicuits plus y data circuits. One medium busy Web server in a neighborhood could impact 384Kbit when added on top of some digitized voice traffic it seems to me. I'm somewhat skeptical about how well this will scale up. Of course 10 or 15 years ago I didn't think I would ever see regular voice grade phone lines carrying more than about 2400 BPS, so maybe they have something. I hope it works out, because I don't have much faith in the concept of cable-TV "cable modems." I've seen that technology in the past and it did not scale up well at all. Bill Ranck +1-540-231-3951 ranck@vt.edu Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, Computing Center ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #278 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Oct 10 22:56:07 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA19568; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 22:56:07 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 22:56:07 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199710110256.WAA19568@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #279 TELECOM Digest Fri, 10 Oct 97 22:56:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 279 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Another Failure of the Telecom Act (Marty Tennant) Re: Bell Atlantic Toll Alerting in Massachusetts (Linc Madison) 311 vs 911 in MA (Peter Simpson) Re: 101-XXXX For Traditional Intra-LATA LEC Toll (Al Varney) Re: WhoWhere Announcement (Andrew Olechny) Re: GTE InTRA-LATA 101-XXXX+ Carrier-ID Codes (Jack Decker) Last Laugh! Stop the Phones! (Chris Moffett) One More Laugh! The Latest World Com Press Release (Michael Hartley) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marty Tennant Subject: Another Failure of the Telecom Act Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 09:51:55 -0400 From Telecom A.M., Oct. 10, 1997 FCC SAYS STATES DON'T HAVE TO ARBITRATE DISPUTES FOR UNAUTHORIZED CLECS The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has ruled that state commissions are under no legal obligation to arbitrate local interconnection disputes involving a competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC) that hasn't been authorized to do business in the state. On that basis, the FCC denied petitions filed in August by Low Tech Designs Inc., in which the CLEC asked the FCC to assume jurisdiction over arbitrations by the Georgia, Illinois, and South Carolina commissions on grounds that the state commissions had failed to act on Low Tech's arbitration requests as required by Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. But the FCC determined that the states had fulfilled their statutory responsibilities when they ruled, within the prescribed time limits, that Low Tech lacked legal standing to petition for state arbitration because it hadn't received the required state certifications author- izing the company to provide local services. --------------- The FCC's refusal to assume responsibility for the arbitrations that my company sought, after legally entering into negotiations with three ILECs as a requesting telecommunications carrier, is another failure to act, adding insult to injury. The FCC's own rules state that it would be a violation of an ILEC's duty to negotiate in good faith for that ILEC to condition negotiations upon a requesting telecommunications carrier first obtaining State certifications (Duty to Negotiate- 47 CFR 51.301(c)(4)). Since arbitration is the legal remedy for failed negotiation, the FCC has taken a mighty duck at enforcing their own rules. If a new entrant requests negotiations with an ILEC prior to obtaining state certification, as the law allows, the ILEC would know beforehand that the failure of the negotiations wouldn't lead to arbitration, assuming the new entrant doesn't file for certification before or during the negotiations. This obviates the intent of the FCC rule and encourages halfhearted negotiations. If a requesting telecommunications carrier doesn't have to be certified by a state in order to negotiate with an ILEC, by the same token, aribitration with the same ILEC must not be conditioned upon State certification. The FCC has refused to enforce their own rules, and in doing so has shown another example of the failure of the 1996 Act. The fallout of this ruling, if left to stand, is that small entities, such as LTD, must first jump thru state certification regulatory hoops before they are on a firm legal basis to engage an ILEC in negotiations. This is exactly what the above FCC rule was written to avoid. This FCC interpretation has several Catch-22's built into it. In the case of Georgia, their state law allows up to 180 days for the Commission to rule on a certification request. Since you must file for arbitration within 135 to 160 days after the start of interconnection negotiations, you are presented with an unwarranted timing issue that has the effect of retarding entry and negotiations with ILEC's. When do you start negotiations with the ILEC in Georgia? After you file for certification? After you receive certification? 45 days after filing for certification?? Of course, all this speculation is absurd. You can start negotiations any time you are ready to start them. This is the law!!! LTD argued that small entities, particularly ones with entreprenuerial concepts, and with little capital and resources for expensive legal fees, must not be saddled with unnecessary regulatory hurdles to jump thru. The proper sequence of entry events should be: 1. Engage an ILEC into negotiations as a requesting telecommunications carrier. 2. If, after 135 days, you can't agree on an interconnection agreement, file for arbitration. 3. Arbitrate and hope that you get what you are looking for. 4. If you do, use this success to attact capital for your business plan. 5. File for state certification. 6. File tariffs. 7. Offer services to the public. In the case of LTD, we also argued that until an arbitration was held, and the conditions sought were obtained, LTD did not have the basis for putting together a complete business plan that would result in the need for state certification. Since the law was suppose to allow entry by any entity, remove barriers to entry, and promote competition, the FCC's ruling in my company's case resurrects the same old barriers that were suppose to come tumbling down. LTD engaged BellSouth, GTE and Ameritech in negotiations back in August of 1996. Over a year later, LTD is no closer to entry than it was when it started. The FCC rules have not been enforced, and the FCC has refused to stand up for the rights of new entrant requesting telecommunications carriers to enter this market in the most logical and efficient manner possible. So much for the entreprenuerial spirit being alive and well in telecommunications. So much for the law. So much for an FCC interested in new entrants challenging the old monopolists. LTD will challenge the FCC ruling, and is seeking support from public interest groups that are interested in seeing this abuse of the law remedied. marty tennant - president - low tech designs, inc.(tm) "Bringing Technology Down to Earth"(sm) 1204 Saville St., Georgetown, SC 29440 803 527-4485 voice / 803 527-7783 fax ------------------------------ From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic Toll Alerting in Massachusetts Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 23:35:52 -0700 Organization: No unsolicited commercial e-mail! In article , Greg Monti wrote: >> I suspect that many of the folks who are against "toll alerting" have >> never had to deal with equipment that dials numbers from a directory >> maintained elsewhere. With such a setup, you want the default to be >> trying to dial 7 digits if the exchange isn't explicitly listed in the >> translation table as a "local" prefix. That way you don't inadvertently >> make LD calls. > It depends on what your objective is. If you want it to be cheap > above all other criteria, you want toll alerting. If you want it to > be fast above all other criteria (all calls go through on the first > try), you don't want alerting. Nonsense. Full toll alerting does not interfere in the least with having all calls go through on the first try. There is nothing in full toll alerting that forbids dialing 1+ on a local call. Full toll alerting only means that 1+ is required on toll calls, not that it is forbidden on non-toll calls. Why are there so many idiot states that forbid dialing 1+ on local calls? There is absolutely no justification for it, under any circumstances. Once upon a time, some old switches would bill toll charges for a local call that was dialed 1+, but that doesn't happen any more. Any switch now in service can reasonably be required by law to no-bill a local call even if it's dialed with 1+. All states should immediately *PERMIT* any call to be dialed as 1+10D, irrespective of area code or toll status, irrespective of whether the state has full or partial or no toll alerting. > For better or for worse, four states were converted to full > non-alerting during the 1994 preparation for interchangeable area > codes: PA, NY, CA and IL (some of these had partial alerting before). > Something like one third of all US phones are now non-toll-alerted. With very few isolated exceptions, California has always been full non-alerting. There were even pathological examples where techs programmed the switches to forbid 1+ even on FNPA toll calls, because the Official Instructions said to dial 7D for all calls in the same area code, or 10D for all calls in any other area code. >> And trying to find out where an exchange that doesn't belong >> to your LEC is can be *very* frustrating ... > Some earlier posts on this Digest noted that in some areas (Illinois, > I think), the local Bell company is refusing to tell (even when asked) > whether any particular prefix belonging to a competitor is local or > toll. Messy. Also illegal and a breach of tariffs and/or contract. The local Bell company is required to tell you what its charges are if you use its service to call a given number, whether that number terminates on their own network or a competitor's. ** Do not spam e-mail me! ** Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best-com >> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must change "NOSPAM" to "com" << ------------------------------ From: Peter_Simpson@3com.com (Peter Simpson) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 06:34:32 -0400 Subject: 311 vs 911 in MA I live in suburban eastern MA. The 311 idea hasn't hit here yet (hey, we're hardly used to 508 and it's time to split again). It seems that when 911 came in, the Police stopped "advertising" their regular number. There was an informal standard around here that not all towns followed, but police was usually NXX-1212 and fire was usually NXX-2323. There was usually only one prefix per town, so you (almost) always knew the emergency numbers without having to look them up. Sort of an early version of 911. Anyway, these numbers used to be listed in the front of the phone book, and also inside, under the town listing for police, usually in big bold print. Underneath that listing was usually a "business" or "non-emergency" number. Well, when 911 came in, all that was history. When you look up the police, there's only one number, a big "911". No alternatives. If I didn't know the old "1212" standard, and the earliest issued NXX prefix (most towns now have two, three or more!) I wouldn't have an alternative but to call 911 and waste someone's time. As it is, I call the 1212 number, tell the person answering that this isn't an emergency, and take care of my business. Why these "alternate" numbers are no longer published is a mystery to me. Peter ------------------------------ From: varney@ihgp2.ih.lucent.com (Al Varney) Subject: Re: 101-XXXX For Traditional Intra-LATA LEC Toll Date: 10 Oct 1997 13:01:38 GMT Organization: Lucent Technologies, Naperville, IL Reply-To: varney@lucent.com In article , Jack Decker wrote: > Where GTE really falls down is in their customer service - it is still > very difficult to get a correct answer about anything without jumping > through a lot of hoops (trying to find the correct 101XXXX code for > GTE's intraLATA toll is a perfect example; even their "Action Line" > couldn't seem to pry this bit of information loose from the switch > technicians. .... > The thing that I am curious about is this: As I understand it (and > feel free to correct me if I am wrong), if you do not have GTE as your > default toll carrier, they have to load a PIC code into the switch for > your preferred carrier. And it is possible to have NO default toll > carrier (both interLATA and intraLATA), in which case no toll call > will go through unless you dial an access code first. So, it would > seem that there MUST be a code for GTE intraLATA toll, that would be ^^^^ not true, see below > the default code used in the switch if you don't ask for another > carrier or specify that you don't want a default carrier. I would > guess that the switch technicians know what that code is, but > apparently they aren't telling! Switches generally implement two levels of routing. One is based on dialed digits only -- no carrier code is needed or used. The other is routing based on carrier code. Dialed digit analysis can trigger carrier routing (using an interLATA or intraLATA PIC), or the customer can force it with a Carrier Access Code (CAC=101XXXX). In the latter case, digit analysis will screen the call for valid digits, a type (intraLATA, etc.) and other attributes before deciding to honor the CAC, block the call or even ignore the CAC. [For example, 10XXXX-911 will ignore the CAC.] The implementation varies between switches, but in general there need NOT be a dialable intraLATA Carrier Access Code for the "LEC". When the "intraLATA Toll Presubscription" capability is first turned on, no per-line data changes in the switch. The ABSENCE of an "intraLATA PIC" assignment on a line (initially true for all lines) implies "use non-carrier routing", that is, route based on just the dialed digits. It is possible to set a line to "no intraLATA Presubscribed Carrier", but that's a special setting of the intraLATA PIC, not the absence of an intraLATA PIC. In addition, even when a LEC assigns itself an XXXX code, it is possible to indicate "not dialable" as an attribute of the XXXX code. (Some IXCs don't want casual-dialed calls, only pre-subscribed.) Thus it MAY BE that GTE just doesn't know its own XXXX code. Or, more likely, they have no XXXX code or a non-dialable XXXX code. That would allow them to say, in effect: "If you want to have some other carrier carry your Toll calls, fine. But don't plan on using me for such calls ever again. I don't want casual customers." An alternative would be to have an XXXX code, and indicate casual-calling (when you are not pre-subscribed to the LEC) will incur an extra $5/month billing charge for the first use in any month. But that probably requires PUC hearings, etc. So far as I know, no PUC that orders IntraLATA Toll Presubscription also orders the LEC to have an XXXX code and accept casual dialing of Toll calls. Ameritech probably does it because they feel there is more profit from casual calls (in spite of the overhead) than from the customers that might keep Ameritech for intraLATA Toll only because they know they can't casual-dial them. Al Varney - just my opinion ------------------------------ From: ccoprao@acmex.gatech.edu (Andrew Olechny) Subject: Re: WhoWhere Announcement Date: 10 Oct 1997 08:28:38 GMT Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology TELECOM Digest Editor asked where to find the new Internet Directory Assistance web page. Go to: http://www.whowhere.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 21:32:48 -0400 From: Jack Decker Subject: Re: GTE InTRA-LATA 101-XXXX+ Carrier-ID Codes At 04:09 PM 10/10/97 -0500, Mark J. Cuccia wrote: > Again, from the FCC's website regarding US/NANP numbering/dialing info, > (and some people have emailed me asking me about the particular URL at > the FCC's site, which I will give further down), the following "CICs" > (Carrier Identification/Access Codes) assigned to GTE are as follows: > 101-5249+ > GTE Telephone Operations > (could THIS be inTRA-LATA GTE as an incumbent LEC?) "We're sorry, your call cannot be completed as dialed ..." (after dialing just the PIC code). > 101-5483+ 101-5483+0 yields dial tone spurt followed by "WilTel". That is the company that I could not recall that provides GTE's long distance. > and 101-6224+ > GTE Card Services dba GTE Long Distance > (I think this is for GTE-marketed "prepaid" cards, which is most likely > a resale of some other toll [usually inTER-LATA] carrier) "We're sorry, your call cannot be completed as dialed ..." (after dialing just the PIC code). > 101-5448+ > GTE Internal Telecommunications Services > (I have no idea what they intend this code for) "We're sorry, your call cannot be completed as dialed ..." (after dialing just the PIC code). > Have you asked a GTE (single) '0' Operator what GTE's inTRA-LATA toll > access code is, for such calls in your case? Yes. She had no idea what I was talking about. > Also, when you told GTE > that you were going to change from GTE (in association with Ameritech) > to someone else for your primary inTRA-LATA toll carrier, had you ever > received any documentation (ballot? list of carrier choices?) from GTE? No, they were not required by the Michigan Public Service Commission to provide balloting for intraLATA toll, so of course they didn't. However, there was publicity in the local news media when intraLATA toll competition became available, and I think I recall seeing a printed notice on the bill to the effect that you could choose a carrier of intraLATA toll when it became available in my exchange. I think the thought was that the carriers would probably solicit their own interLATA toll customers to switch to them for intraLATA toll, thus why should the LEC spend the money to send out ballots? > Also, what is the 101-XXXX+ "CIC" code that GTE has told you to use (the > one which seems to route you to some _other_ carrier that GTE is > reselling)? I _guess_ that it is the 101-5483+ listed above as the "GTE > Card Services dba GTE Long Distance". Note that the 483 spells out GTE! Correct, and that is the one that goes to "WilTel." > One thing you might do to verify the GTE 101-XXXX+ codes listed above to > see if any of them are actually able to route to GTE local and > inTRA-LATA toll is to dial 101-XXXX+0(#/0), and see if you get the same > operator as your GTE local single '0' operator. That's exactly how I've been testing the various codes that have been suggested. Only the 101-5483 code gives me anything other than the local switch recording saying that my call cannot be completed as dialed, and as I have noted, that goes to WilTel. Jack ------------------------------ From: Chris Moffett Subject: Last Laugh! Stop the Phones! Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 14:13:00 -0400 This may give everyone a little smile. The copyright information is at the bottom. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Actually, we have run this story here at least a couple times previously over the past few years, and I do not recall them getting copyright okay from me but I'll include theirs none the less. The story on the one hand is funny, but at the same time sort of sad. It is one thing, I suppose, to mess up the reservations for a corporate meeting, but quite another to cause a miserable mess for a young couple on their wedding day -- what should be a happy time for them. Anyway, here we go again ... PAT] From: Just4laughs@USA.Net To: Just4Laughs@USA.Net Subject: Stop the Phones! Date: Thursday, October 09, 1997 20:07 Stop the Phones! Phone Won't Stop Ringing? Here's What You Do Leola Starling of Ribrock, Tenn., had a serious telephone problem. But unlike most people she did something about it. The brand-new $10 million Ribrock Plaza Motel opened nearby and had acquired almost the same telephone number as Leola. From the moment the motel opened, Leola was besieged by calls not for her. Since she had the same phone number for years, she felt that she had a case to persuade the motel management to change its number. Naturally, the management refused claiming that it could not change its stationery. The phone company was not helpful, either. A number was a number, and just because a customer was getting someone else's calls 24 hours a day didn't make it responsible. After her pleas fell on deaf ears, Leola decided to take matters into her own hands. At 9 o'clock the phone rang. Someone from Memphis was calling the motel and asked for a room for the following Tuesday. Leoloa said, "No problem. How many nights?" A few hours later Dallas checked in. A secretary wanted a suite with two bedrooms for a week. Emboldened, Leola said the Presidential Suite on the 10th floor was available for $600 a night. The secretary said that she would take it and asked if the hotel wanted a deposit. "No, that won't be necessary," Leola said. "We trust you." The next day was a busy one for Leola. In the morning, she booked an electric appliance manufacturers' convention for Memorial Day weekend, a college prom and a reunion of the 82nd Airborne veterans from World War II. She turned on her answering machine during lunchtime so that she could watch the O.J. Simpson trial, but her biggest challenge came in the afternoon when a mother called to book the ballroom for her daughter's wedding in June. Leola assured the woman that it would be no problem and asked if she would be providing the flowers or did she want the hotel to take care of it. The mother said that she would prefer the hotel to handle the floral arrangements. Then the question of valet parking came up. Once again Leola was helpful. "There's no charge for valet parking, but we always recomend that the client tips the drivers." Within a few months, the Ribrock Plaza Motel was a disaster area. People kept showing up for weddings, bar mitzvahs, and Sweet Sixteen parties and were all told there were no such events. Leola had her final revenge when she read in the local paper that the motel might go bankrupt. Her phone rang, and an executive from Marriott said, "We're prepared to offer you $200,000 for the motel." Leola replied. "We'll take it, but only if you change the telephone number." --------------------------------------------- Just 4 Laughs! A FREE Humor To Your E-mail! About 4 e-mails per day, most every day. If you would like to receive Just 4 Laughs! Send an e-mail message to me or go to the Web site. List-Subscribe: Web-Interface: http://www.GeoCities.com/Hollywood/Set/6993 ~~~~~~~~~~ Do you need another e-mail account? They are FREE! Go to the Just 4 Laughs Home Page, there is a list of FREE e-mail programs. GO to http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/6993 To unsubscribe, forward this message to unsubscribe-just4laughs@lyris.net ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 11:04:00 +0100 From: Michael Hartley Subject: One More Laugh! The Latest World Com Press Release <...> (API - MoneyWire) WorldCom Inc., of Jackson, Mississippi, has issued a press release confirming recent reports of it's latest blockbuster takeover. John Sidgmore, WorldCom Chief Operating Officer, has announced that a definitive agreement has been reached. The agreement calls for a combination of cash payment and stock swap (Tuesday's close: 35 3/8) of truly behemoth proportions. In what is being hailed as possibly the largest corporate acquisition in history, WorldCom has revised it's previous offer and will pay $30 billion and offer another $100 billion in stock in exchange for England. England is strongly expected to approve the measure. Bernie Ebbers has been quoted as stating "While we were in a buying frenzy I thought that England would provide an excellent launching pad for our new European expansion plans. I thought it would be neat to buy a country". When asked about the incredible press coverage the announcement had created Ebbers response was "It's really not that big of a country, I can't understand what all of the fuss is about". WorldCom's Chief Financial Officer, has stated that no layoffs of English citizens are expected as result of the addition of England to WorldCom's portfolio. This does not include the Royal Family. John Sidgmore has confirmed that the U.K. will definitely be broken up. Ireland's stock has risen 7 points on the Tokyo exchange to a new high at 23 5/8 as a result of the announcement. It has been reported that Prince Charles will not be offered a position with the newly combined entity. He has reportedly forwarded his resume to Holland. Reports are flying that Holland is in the market to pick up a reduced price Prince. The Royal English Navy will now be based in Gulfport, Miss- issippi and will be renamed "The Group of Them Big Ole Boats With Guns", GTBOB. Mr. Ebbers has issued his first corporate directive including England, instructing that all English citizens are to quit speaking in that funny accent. The current English flag will be retired and replaced with the confederate flag. The companies press release states "We believe this acquisition is an important strategic opportunity for our company to meet the challenge of owning the world, and providing to our shareholders the highest return possible". In a related announcement, Bernie Ebbers has announced that Greenwich Mean Time will be shifted to put it in alignment with Jackson, MS (Central Standard Time). The International Date Line will move as a result of the change. The name of "Greenwich Mean Time" will be changed to "Ole' Miss Time". GMT will now be abbreviated OMT. The Campus of Ole' Miss has replaced London as the capitol of England. ******************************************** (MoneyWire is a bogus production of Ludicrous Announcements Inc.) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #279 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Oct 11 21:25:02 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id VAA17367; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 21:25:02 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 21:25:02 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199710120125.VAA17367@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #280 TELECOM Digest Sat, 11 Oct 97 21:25:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 280 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson GTE InTRA-LATA 101-XXXX+ Carrier-ID Codes (Mark J. Cuccia) Chicago Non-Emergency (was: Baltimore's 3-1-1 Service) (Adam H. Kerman) Phone Firms Get OK to Pool Bad Payment Data (Lisa Hancock) Payphone Prices Going Up (Linc Madison) Re: Wall Street Journal: Electric Outlets Could Be Link (John Nagle) Re: Wall Street Journal: Electric Outlets Could Be Link (Ed Ellers) Re: Wall Street Journal: Electric Outlets Could Be Link (H. Peter Anvin) Re: Wall Street Journal: Electric Outlets Could Be Link (Darrell Greenwood) Re: Wall Street Journal: Electric Outlets Could Be Link (John B. Hines) Re: Combining Analog Lines (Bruce Hanson) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: GTE InTRA-LATA 101-XXXX+ Carrier-ID Codes Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 16:09:13 -0500 Organization: Tulane University Jack Decker wrote: > Mark J. Cuccia wrote: >> Ameritech does have some 101-XXXX codes, which _might_ happen to be >> dialable for intra-LATA calls from those GTE central offices. The >> following 101-XXXX+ codes are assigned to Ameritech, according to the >> FCC's latest list of US/NANP numbering/dialing information: >> 101-5475+, 101-5606+, 101-6123+; and for Ameritech's "Long-Distance" >> (future inTER-LATA toll? Ameritech's Cellular inTER-LATA toll?) there >> is 101-0113+ (10-113+ in the older/shorter, soon to be obsolete format). > None of these work here - after dialing the code it immediately cuts > to an "I'm sorry, your call cannot be completed as dialed" recording. > Except for a very short period of time a few years back when GTE > experimented with letting Ameritech handle their toll calls, Ameritech > toll has never been accessible from GTE exchanges (at least not in > this area, although I think there were a few geographically isolated > GTE exchanges that have always connected to Ameritech for toll). > The thing that I am curious about is this: As I understand it (and > feel free to correct me if I am wrong), if you do not have GTE as your > default toll carrier, they have to load a PIC code into the switch for > your preferred carrier. And it is possible to have NO default toll > carrier (both interLATA and intraLATA), in which case no toll call > will go through unless you dial an access code first. So, it would > seem that there MUST be a code for GTE intraLATA toll, that would be > the default code used in the switch if you don't ask for another > carrier or specify that you don't want a default carrier. I would > guess that the switch technicians know what that code is, but > apparently they aren't telling! Again, from the FCC's website regarding US/NANP numbering/dialing info, (and some people have emailed me asking me about the particular URL at the FCC's site, which I will give further down), the following "CICs" (Carrier Identification/Access Codes) assigned to GTE are as follows: 101-5249+ GTE Telephone Operations (could THIS be inTRA-LATA GTE as an incumbent LEC?) 101-5483+ and 101-6224+ GTE Card Services dba GTE Long Distance (I think this is for GTE-marketed "prepaid" cards, which is most likely a resale of some other toll [usually inTER-LATA] carrier) 101-5448+ GTE Internal Telecommunications Services (I have no idea what they intend this code for) Also, even though you have someone else as your primary inTRA-LATA toll carrier (since Michigan probably allows this now), and I am guessing that you chose MCI since you mention them in an earlier post for your primary inTER-LATA choice, when you dial (single) '0', I assume that you are getting a GTE Telco Operator for 'local' assistance (rather than Ameritech). She _might_ probably be able to assist you on inTRA-LATA toll calls (although probably at Operator assisted rates, unless you indicate a 'trouble' condition). Have you asked a GTE (single) '0' Operator what GTE's inTRA-LATA toll access code is, for such calls in your case? Also, when you told GTE that you were going to change from GTE (in association with Ameritech) to someone else for your primary inTRA-LATA toll carrier, had you ever received any documentation (ballot? list of carrier choices?) from GTE? Also, what is the 101-XXXX+ "CIC" code that GTE has told you to use (the one which seems to route you to some _other_ carrier that GTE is reselling)? I _guess_ that it is the 101-5483+ listed above as the "GTE Card Services dba GTE Long Distance". Note that the 483 spells out GTE! One thing you might do to verify the GTE 101-XXXX+ codes listed above to see if any of them are actually able to route to GTE local and inTRA-LATA toll is to dial 101-XXXX+0(#/0), and see if you get the same operator as your GTE local single '0' operator. I know that BellSouth's "CIC" for inTRA-LATA (and it does work work in Louisiana, even though we can't yet choose someone other than BellSouth for _primary_ inTRA-LATA toll, although we _can_ dial 10[1X]XXX+ codes of other carriers) toll is 101-5124+. Dialing 101-5124-0(#/0) routes to the _same_ BellSouth inTRA-LATA "TOPS" operator/card services as dialing single '0' does. Where private COCOT payphones allow the longer "CIC" 101-XXXX+ codes, I use BellSouth's 101-5124+0+ten-digits-local to place "coinless" local calls billed to card. It can be cheaper than using coins at the COCOTs. I also avoid using the COCOT company's chosen A/O/Sleaze entity's overpriced card/operator rates. And BTW, internal-chip COCOT payphones and A/O/Slime now includes BellSouth's public phone subsidiary, with their COCOT-like phones and their expensive A/O/Slime, "Tel-(dis)Trust". While your toll calls, within your LATA, GTE-to-GTE don't even seem to route via an Ameritech tandem, toll calls to an Ameritech area in your LATA do have to route via the Ameritech inTRA-LATA tandem, _unless_ the GTE inTRA-LATA tandem which serves your GTE local exchange also happens to have direct trunkings to Ameritech's local central offices. I'm going to have to check my outdated (circa 1990/91) edition of the LERG, volume 3 (Ameritech LATAs) to verify this, though. Please let us know about these GTE "CIC-codes" - do they properly work from your area, what the GTE '0' operator tells you, and check for any documentation or ballot, etc. Now, for the info on the FCC's numbering/dialing info page: It's called the "FCC-State-Link" part of their website, under the Common-Carrier Bureau Industry Analysis Reports: www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/fcc-link.html scroll down to "Telephone Numbering Facts" www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/number.html There are several files there ... the most recent being in Adobe Acrobat (.pdf), and some older .zip files which when 'unzipped' are spreadsheets in Lotus .wk3 format and text in WordPerfect 5.1 format. NWORLASKCG0 (BellSouth #1AESS Class-5 Local "Seabrook" 504-24x-) NWORLAIYCM1 (BellSouth-Mobility Hughes-GMH-2000 Cellular-MTSO NOL) NWORLAMA0GT (BellSouth DMS-100/200 fg-B/C/D Accss-Tandem "Main" 504+) NWORLAMA20T (BellSouth DMS-200 TOPS:Opr-Srvcs-Tandem "Main" 504+053+) NWORLAMA04T (AT&T #4ESS Class-2 Toll 060-T / 504-2T "Main" 504+) JCSNMSPS06T (AT&T #5ESS OSPS:Operator-Services-Tandem 601-0T 601+121) MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut-1-2497 WORK:__mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu|4710-Wright-Road|__(+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity-5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New-Orleans-28__|fwds-on-no-answr-to Fax:UNiversity-5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 21:52:26 CDT From: Adam H. Kerman Subject: Chicago Non-Emergency (was: Baltimore's 3-1-1 Service) In article , TELECOM Digest Editor noted: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In Chicago, the police tell people to > call 911 for everything. Even if you call for some non-emergency > matter and call direct to the station house, the people who answer > there say if you want to talk to a police officer you need to dial > 911 to get one dispatched. Meanwhile, the people who staff the 911 > center constantly complain about how people call them for even the > most minor things and blame the citizens for abusing 911. So if you > call back to the station house they refer you right back to 911, etc. > I wish they could get their act together. PAT] Correction, Pat. Chicago DOES have non-emergency numbers: police 312 746-6000; fire 312 744-6666. It has NOT been my experience to have been referred to the 911 emergency call center by my local police district. When my Network Interface box on the outside of my apartment building was broken into, I called my local police district (the one that used to be Summerdale!). The desk sergeant wouldn't take my complaint, and told me to call the police non-emergency number. And, no, he couldn't transfer my call, despite the vast amount of money that the City has spent over the years for a private network serving all city agencies, libraries, and park district offices. I was able to make a "criminal damage to property" complaint right over the phone (my lock was broken), and would have been able to make a "theft of services" complaint if I'd later discovered billing irregularities. You CANNOT make complaints over the phone to the 911 call center. ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: Phone Firms Get OK to Pool Bad Payment Data Date: 11 Oct 1997 03:54:07 GMT Organization: Net Access BBS The {Philadelphia Inquirer} reported that: The U.S. Justice Department gave phone companies permission recently to compile and exchange information on people who don't pay their long distance bills. AT&T, MCI, Sprint and other companies would supply such information to an independent clearinghouse. The companies would then go to the clearinghouse to find out whether a potential customer has defaulted on long distance charges. Neither the Justice Department nor individual phone company representatives had industrywide information on how much money is lost in unpaid long distance bills. [There was nothing mentioned about protection for consumers from inaccurate/erroneous information getting into this central database.] ------------------------------ From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: Payphone Prices Going Up Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 01:47:45 -0700 Organization: No unsolicited commercial e-mail! I was at the grocery store on Tuesday, picking up a few items for a friend who is sick in bed. I ran into a few unanticipated options in selecting the items he requested, so I figured the easiest thing to do was to call and inquire whether he wanted his applesauce with or without sugar, cinnamon, and/or cranberries. I had already put some of the items in the basket, so I didn't want to leave the store entirely, lest my stuff be put back on the shelves before I returned. Not to worry -- there is a payphone right at the entrance to the store. "Effective 10/7/97, local calls 35 cents" was plastered on the phone near the coin slot. Sure enough, I had to pay $0.35 for this call. California law is explicit and clear: local payphone calls are to be no more than $0.20 for the first 15 minutes. However, the federal law now pre-empts local authority, even though that pre-emption is blatantly unconstitutional: a local call is clearly INTRAstate commerce, and thus not subject to federal regulation. Congress and the FCC have unquestionably overstepped their legal authority. And today we see the FCC continuing with its ridiculous rules on reimbursement to payphone owners for calls to toll-free numbers. First of all, the per-call charge is ridiculously high, even at $0.28, and secondly, it shouldn't be a flat fee per call. I think that a rate of $0.05 for the first minute and $0.01 per additional minute would be entirely reasonable and proper, although I still don't grant the point that it's reasonable or proper to reimburse payphone owners ANYTHING for this service. Every single payphone owner entered the business knowing full well that they would have some non-revenue calls, so their crying and wailing influences me not the least. Why should *I* pay more to give these companies something with NOTHING given in return? Payphone deregulation has been an unmitigated failure, far beyond any problems with deregulation of other aspects of the telephone system. What benefits has the CONSUMER seen from payphone deregulation?? ** Do not spam e-mail me! ** Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best-com >> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must change "NOSPAM" to "com" << [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The only benefit perhaps to the consumer is that some COCOT operators do try to actually be competitive in environments where other phones are located. As I mentioned a couple days ago, the COCOTS I had installed at the place of business only charge 25 cents and I intend to keep them that way as long as possible. When you see a privately operated pay phone why don't you courteously suggest to the owner that if he were to set local call prices so low it was 'almost a giveaway' it would serve to promote a lot of goodwill for his establishment. It could even be tied into a promotion for the store with a sign saying, 'not sure what to buy or how much to get? Call back home to find out; this phone set at a low cost as a courtesy to assist our customers.' ... or words to that effect. The phones I had installed for the guy here in Skokie have already generated much good will for him; i.e. people arriving on the bus late at night who need a taxicab for example need only deposit 25 cents and press *2 to get one. The speed dial on the phone then does this routine: 6731000,,,1,1,1,cocot-number,1,1,1,2 and the taxicab interactive voice response unit says, 'thank you, your cab will arrive in approximatly 5-10 minutes. You may hang up now.' What that does is dials the taxicab number; pauses for 3x2 seconds to wait for an answer; yes I have a touch tone phone (do not need to wait for a live operator); yes I want to order a cab (as opposed to package delivery service or rechecking status on a pending order); it will come to a residence or place of business (as opposed to airport or hotel); the number of the phone placing the call is checked in the database to find the address where to send the cab; number of persons traveling (I just had them default this to one, it does not really matter if two or three people also ride); going to same community (a choice could have been [2] going to nearby community, but again it does not matter); 'driver might not allow smoking [1] okay [2] must be non-smoking [3] must allow smoking'; no I do not need to have this order repeated back to me for verification (a choice could have been [1] repeat this to me to be sure it is correct). Each comma puts in a two-second pause. I have *3 speed dial the toll free number for Greyhound information and *4 dial the number for local transit information. *5 calls a time and weather message. *2 *4 *5 cost 25 cents each. A sign on the phone indicates these options. I think there does exist the possi- bility that some payphone owners will use them as ways to build and maintain goodwill with customers. You might suggest it to merchants you trade with. PAT] ------------------------------ From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) Subject: Re: Wall Street Journal: Electric Outlets Could Be Link Organization: Netcom On-Line Services Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 04:14:57 GMT aljon@worldnet.att.net (John Stahl) writes: > The latest from Nortel has startled the ILEC's (and probably a whole > lot of others in the business) with the announcement of Internet > service over the electrical power grid. Several with whom I've talked > with (I travel around to the Independent Telcos in the Northeast US), > have already contacted Nortel to find out what they have to offer as > sort of a defensive mechanism. After all, if DATA can be sent via the > power lines, can VOICE be far behind? I have doubts about transmitting data over power lines all the way from the substation. Doing it from the pole transformer is feasible, but transmitting all the way back to the substation would be tough. It has been done, though, although the first scheme to do it (for meter reading) involved shorting the power line for a microsecond or so, which produced enough of a spike to make it through the pole transformer. If the system involves extra gear at each pole transformer, though, that's quite feasible. People have been sending stuff short distances over power lines for decades, and recently the data rates have been going up. Check out the Intellon system (U.S. patent #5574748). A scheme with fibre-optic lines from substation to pole transformer, with an interface box at the pole and plug-in boxes in the home would be quite feasible with current technology. John Nagle ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: Wall Street Journal: Electric Outlets Could Be Link Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 00:35:09 -0400 Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Bill Ranck wrote: "Hmmm, let's see what kind of data rates and how do they get by the local tranformers?" Dunno. But this reminds me of a scheme that was tested in the early 1960s to put civil defense buzzers in every home and business to augment sirens, which miss many people for various reasons. It was called NEAR (I've forgotten the wording). The system superimposed a 240 Hz signal on the AC lines going out from substations in a given area, that frequency being low enough to pass through the transformers. Delco Electronics made the buzzers, which looked like today's common "wall wart" AC adapters except that they didn't have cords; the buzzers were tuned to 240 Hz and would go off if that frequency was present. There was also a related proposal to make AM radios that would turn themselves on when the 240 Hz signal was received. One problem they discovered was that SCR-based light dimmers -- which work by cutting off the power for a portion of each half-cycle -- often generated a harmonic at 240 Hz that would falsely trigger the NEAR buzzers. The folks working on the system decided to change to a frequency that wasn't harmonically related to 60 Hz -- using a new signal generator that, ironically, used SCRs itself -- but the system seems to have disappeared without a trace shortly afterward. ------------------------------ From: hpa@transmeta.com (H. Peter Anvin) Subject: Re: Wall Street Journal: Electric Outlets Could Be Link Date: 11 Oct 1997 08:15:24 GMT Organization: Transmeta Corporation, Santa Clara CA Reply-To: hpa@transmeta.com (H. Peter Anvin) > Hmmm, let's see what kind of data rates and how do they get by > the local tranformers? They usually don't -- draw fibre away from there -- but they already have the rights-of-way for the trunk lines, and that's a *heck* of a lot less digging needed. hpa ------------------------------ From: Darrell_Greenwood@mindlink.net (Darrell Greenwood) Subject: Re: Wall Street Journal: Electric Outlets Could Be Link Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 02:26:50 -0700 Organization: URL: In article , ranck@joesbar.cc.vt.edu (Bill Ranck) wrote: > Hmmm, let's see what kind of data rates and how do they get by > the local tranformers? FWIW, another article gave me the ah-ha. North America 8 to 12 houses on a transformer. UK 300 houses on a transformer. I(squared) rules. Cheers, Darrell Greenwood, Vancouver, BC Darrell_Greenwood@mindlink.net My web homepage... http://www.nyx.net/~dgreenw/ ------------------------------ From: jhines@enteract.com (John B. Hines) Subject: Re: Wall Street Journal: Electric Outlets Could Be Link Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 12:34:48 GMT Organization: EnterAct L.L.C. Turbo-Elite News Server aljon@worldnet.att.net (John Stahl) wrote: [Stuff on data access via power lines in the UK snipped] > You note that their plans seem to not include the US market -- wanna bet? > Notice the statement about bandwidth -- will they stop at data? How about > video and voice and who knows what else? From what I saw, the UK puts more houses per local transformer than US practices. This makes the cost much higher here, for the extra equipment needed. ------------------------------ From: Bruce Hanson Subject: Re: Combining Analog Lines Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 13:50:16 -0700 Organization: U S WEST International Systems Group A company called Ramp Networks makes a product that may do what you need. It is an analog router that can distribute the load of an internet connection over up to three modems. It does this by assigning TCP connections over the most available modem. A drawback is that you can only get one modem's worth of bandwidth for any one connection. It also has a built-in four port 10Base-T hub as well. It will work with basic PPP accounts that an ISP provides, you need one account per modem, which could eliminate your need for anything at the ISP's location. The product is called the WebRamp M3, and more info can be found at: http://www.rampnet.com I'm not affiliated with them in any way, I'm just a satisfied customer. Bruce ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #280 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Oct 11 23:15:23 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id XAA23252; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 23:15:23 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 23:15:23 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199710120315.XAA23252@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #281 TELECOM Digest Sat, 11 Oct 97 23:15:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 281 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Personal 800 Service (Thomas Hinders) Re: 101-XXXX For Traditional Intra-LATA LEC Toll (Jeffrey Rhodes) Re: Perhaps 888 Was a Poor Choice (Brent Best) Employment Opportunity: CAD Supervisor Needed (Thom Erickson) Phone Problem in Residence Hall (Janet Price) Another Spam 800 Number (Dale O. Miller) Not Spam: If Anyone Needs Info on How to MAKE MONEY FAST (A. Reader) Help: Cellular/Wireless Notebook Solution (Roque Aranador) Qualcomm Q Phone Paging/Voice Question (Scott R. Ehrlich) Re: Phone Stuff on TV (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: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. Telecommunications Resources Survey (John McHugh) Simulation of an ATM-Based Network (course@socrates.berkeley.edu) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas_Hinders/CAM/Lotus@lotus.com (Thomas Hinders) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 16:17:10 -0400 Subject: Personal 800 Service Sometime ago, there was a discussion of personal 800 service. My daughter has gone off to college (200 miles from home) and I think its time to consider one. ATT offers $.20 a minute with a $2.50 per month charge. Any suggestions? Tom Hinders Thomas_Hinders@lotus.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Forget about AT&T. There are many better deals around, or at least deals just as good from a lot of small vendors. How would you like an 800 service which allows all these features: 1) Use it not only for incoming calls, but for *outgoing* calls as well, eliminating the need for a separate calling card? Just dial your 800 number, insert your pin, and dial out again. 2) Program it to follow you around. Dial into your 800 number and put it in maintainence mode by inserting your pin. Then tell it where (a) priority calls are to be sent; (b) other, normal calls are to be sent; (c) how do deal with no-answers; i.e. to system provided voicemail or your own voicemail or some third backup number. 3) Call screening: When it first answers and receives a call for you the caller is asked to state his name. The connection is then split and you get a call giving you the name provided by the caller. You then either accept the call or send it to voicemail. 4) Call waiting and three way calling (on an 800 number, yet!) If a call comes in for you and the system knows you are on line; i.e. you are making an outgoing call, accepting another incoming call, or in maintainence mode, listening to voicemail or whatever, the system makes a little chirp and says 'you have a call waiting'. You have the option of taking the new call while holding the old one or dropping the old one and taking the new one or ignoring the new call. If you are on a call either incoming or outgoing and need to make another call you can either consult on the side or conference the existing call with a new one. It is all done with the touch tone buttons. 5) A pretty standard voicemail package is available as part of it if you want to use it. (There is an extra charge.) 6) The system can tell the difference between fax/data and voice calls so if a fax machine calls your 800 number there is a provision in maintainence mode to tell it where to send the fax/data call, for example to a different number with a fax machine on it. It all happens automatically. If a fax machine calls your 800 number it gets sent to your fax line. If voice, the call comes to your voice line. 7) Wakeup service and callback service. Tell it to call and wake you at 7:00 AM and the number to reach you at and it will do so. If you are at an international location and prefer to use USA dialtone you can do that also. Just dial in and ask it to call you back at whatever number you give it. For this purpose, not only do you have your 800 number but on request they will assign you a regular POTS number in 408 or 415. For example, on mine I have my 800 number but I also have 415-xxx-xxxx which simply ties into the 800 ... if you call the 800 line I pay for it, if you call the 415 side then you pay for that portion of the call and I pay for the outbound to wherever it locates me. 8) Data transmission is *GREAT*. I can easily go 28.8 or faster with my existing modem through the 800 number. Only rarely is the connection not good enough to go that fast. 9) Your personal greeting, recorded in your own voice answers incoming calls and tells the caller 'please hold while your call is transferred to me'. You can change your destination number as often as desired at any time. If that is not enough features, there are a few more. The system is very robust, but I will let the proprietors tell you about it. The charges are fifteen cents per minute inbound and ten cents per minute outbound. So if someone called your 800 number and the call was passed along to you, the charge would be 15+10=25 cents per minute. If they only leave voicemail then it is just 15 cents per minute. If you use it for outgoing calls, that is dial in to 800, enter your pin and dial out again, the same charge applies of 15+10=25, but bear in mind there is no surcharge if using a calling card or a pay phone, etc. Anytime it makes an outgoing call to you, for example to wake up, the charge is the ten cents per minute noted above. Inter- national calls are permitted at prevailing rates. I think the monthly fee for the service, in addition to calling charges is about ten or fifteen dollars per month; I would have to look at my latest bill to be sure. So now, not only can your daughter use it at school, but you can throw away your other calling cards and use it yourself from any payphone, etc. You can use it like AT&T's 500 Service by only giving out the POTS version of your 800 number. Callers pay to reach you but the system locates you wherever. It is called "MY LINE" and is marketed by Call America, a company located in the Silicon Valley area of California. Jeff Buckingham is the president, and the company has been a loyal and generous patron of this Digest for a few years now. For more information and immediate signup (they turn you on rather quickly) contact one of these people: jbucking@callamerica.com (Jeff Buckingham) estrong@callamerica.com (Ernie Strong) beth_harris@callamerica.com (Beth Harris) Mention to them please that you appreciate their support of this Digest and inquire further about MyLine, or ask to try it for a couple months to see how it fits in to your telecom requirements. Personally, I cannot imagine ever going back to a 'traditional' sort of 800 number, personal or not, with as many features as MyLine includes as part of their standard package. I know that some of you have signed up with them in the past at my recommendation and if you would care to share your experiences, please do. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Jeffrey Rhodes Subject: Re: 101-XXXX For Traditional Intra-LATA LEC Toll Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 14:47:35 -0700 Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Al Varney wrote: > In article , Jack Decker > wrote: >> The thing that I am curious about is this: As I understand it (and >> feel free to correct me if I am wrong), if you do not have GTE as your >> default toll carrier, they have to load a PIC code into the switch for >> your preferred carrier. And it is possible to have NO default toll >> carrier (both interLATA and intraLATA), in which case no toll call >> will go through unless you dial an access code first. So, it would >> seem that there MUST be a code for GTE intraLATA toll, that would be > ^^^^ > not true, see below > Switches generally implement two levels of routing. One is based on > dialed digits only -- no carrier code is needed or used. The other is > routing based on carrier code. Dialed digit analysis can trigger > carrier routing (using an interLATA or intraLATA PIC), or the customer > can force it with a Carrier Access Code (CAC=101XXXX)... Forcing no intra-LATA toll calling unless casually dialed is trickier than simply not having a default PIC. I doubt this option is really offered since billing and routing are distinctly different processes and most lines have some sort of "free" radius of non-toll intra-LATA calling. Calls within this radius are often charged as toll when dialed with access codes, ie. so-called casual dialing, either 10XXX or 101(0,5,6)XXX. The XXXX carrier can refuse to accept such calls dialed as 101XXXX1+ in order to force 101XXXX0+ when a suitable billing arrangement is not in place for casual dialing. A carrier usually charges more for casual dialing calls than for 1+ inter-LATA calls, sometimes more for their own customers who choose to casual dial, so maybe GTE wants this capability for when the intra-LATA PIC is not GTE? The XXXX carrier can even require the dialing carrier's network to block the casual calling at their network. This comes up with traditional inter-LATA carriers who must pay per-second access charges, even for calls that they do not wish to complete! When do LATAs go away? What is keeping GTE from converting all their local customers to use GTE long distance? That might not go over too well with the public (or the state PUCs) but does the Telecom Act of 1996 require a CLEC or ILEC to provide choices for "toll" calling? I'd kind of like it if I could extend my GTE local unlimited ISDN voice and data calling for $50 a month to "any" distance ;-) Jeffrey Rhodes at jeffrey.rhodes@attws.com ------------------------------ From: Brent Best Subject: Re: Perhaps 888 Was a Poor Choice Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 02:07:35 -0700 Reply-To: bjbest@interlog.com Linc Madison wrote: > It occurs to me (with 20/20 hindsight) that 888 was a poor choice for > the second toll-free SAC. It just doesn't jolt the average Joe enough > as being distinct from 800. A different choice -- maybe 822 -- would > have been more distinctive, and might have resulted in fewer problems. > There could've been ads with the jingle "8-2-2 is toll-free, too!" The solution is to throw open as many 8XX SAC's as possible for toll-free use. Companies can then have virtually unlimited choice to use unique 9-character alpha names. A company could pick a number like 1-865-263-7422, which spells out 1-8-OK-AMERICA. If your "slogan" starts with a T, U, or V, a complete ten-character name is possible. An example could be " 1-TO-CALL-4-LAW " ( 1-862-255-4529 ) ------------------------------ From: tpe@dmc10.com (Thom Erickson) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 16:47:43 CDT Subject: Employment Opportunity: CAD Supervisor Needed I am looking for a third shift CAD Supervisor to perform supervisory roles in a CAD and CNC Dept. The individual will be responsible for overseeing the Computer Aided Design, CNC Machining areas and mold fabrication areas supervising 10 people. This department is responsible for the design and prototyping of medical implants and located in Pennsylvania. Experience with 3D design and machining would be ideal. A college degree is not neccessary. Knowledge of Computer Aided Design technology is a must. We have benefits, stock options, retirement plans and excellent salary for the area. If you know anyone that might be interested please contact: Thom Erickson Voice: 609-584-9000 ext. 259 Fax: 609-584-9575 Email: tpe@dmc10.com ------------------------------ From: Janet Price Subject: Phone Problem in Residence Hall Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 15:02:11 -0500 Organization: Carroll College Reply-To: jprice@carroll1.cc.edu We have a student with a cordless phone that works fine in the room across the hall, but has a lot of line noise in his room. However, a plain phone works fine in his room. We'd appreciate any suggestions regarding simple things to try. Thanks in advance. ------------------------------ From: domiller@ualr.edu Subject: Another Spam 800 Number Date: 9 Oct 97 14:57:07 CST Organization: University of Arkansas at Little Rock I received a nice UCE today, and thought that telecom readers would appreciate a small portion of it. > [ Unimportant portion of UCE deleted ] > For details call 1-800-322-6169 ext 3747 today for a brief recorded > overview Some people just won't learn, will they? This number has a rather long recorded message which I encourage you to call and be sure to listen to in its entirety, then leave your message expressing your dislike of UCE. Dale O. Miller - domiller@ualr.edu | University of Arkansas at Little Rock Systems Programmer | 2801 S. University Ave. Voice: +1 501 569 8714 | Little Rock, AR 72204-1099 USA http://www.ualr.edu/~domiller/ | KC5NXW ------------------------------ From: a-reader@aol.com (A. Reader) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 20:32:46 EDT Subject: If Anyone Needs Info on How to MAKE MONEY FAST Dear PAT: I received the enclosed in my in-box today. It appears to have originated (as has much recent spam) from an MCI.NET dialup. ** The important part of the message is : 1-800-304-5632 ** My comments are in brackets; I wouldn't bother you with this, but the sender must REALLY want calls, since he offers to pay for 'em himself. --and just this once, please don't use my real return address-- > Yes... that can be *you* at the top... [Oh, I'm sure] > and... > not just the top of another scam pyramid.... [Right. At the bottom...] > but a great product that all mlmers can use! > A 3x9 forced matrix that has a 50% matching sponsor bonus [That's right; confuse > and a 33% payout on the first level to keep the little guy in! 'em with jargon ! ] > *************************************** > 3 [million] BELOW YOU - AND YOUR POSITION IS FREE!!! > *************************************** > This program is so new, NOBODY knows about it yet! [There's a reason for that] > There are less than 50 distributors in the company [Mr. Grammar Person sez > as of today, "don't you mean 'FEWER', > but that will change dramatically, dammit ?"] > as this is the first email ad > being sent. [But not the last. Oh, no, not by a longshot] > We need people to call back the people who respond to this ad! [Then we'll need people to call back the people who call back the people who call back the people who call back the people who call back the people who call back...] > Call 1-800-304-5632 NOW for your free issue and business plan! [If this isn't an open invitation, I'll eat this spam. You heard him; do it RIGHT NOW, even if you're walking down the street and see some phone booths that look a bit lonely, or perhaps from work, behind your employer's PBX....] Other numbers to try are 1-888 [NOT 800] 365-0000 x1732 or 1-800-613-3456. Tell 'em you wanna know about the Laundry CD. I kid you not. A. Reader [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Okay readers, including you, 'A. Reader' you know what needs to be done; you know the routine by now. In the olden days we thought it was great when Jeff Slaton got a bill from his telco for right about a hundred thousand dollars one month as a result of netizens working together to pollute his number. Let's see if we can pledge at least a half-million dollars to distribute among the fools listed in these two messages today. The 'Laundry CD' is really worth everything you can put into it ... but Make Money Fast needs to learn his lesson also. When you are at a bank of pay- phones, dial them up and walk away leaving the phones off hook. Ask your employer to make a 'matching contribution' by using those DID lines and PBX extensions at your school, etc. Remember, lunchmeat will go away -- at least in large amounts -- when the *perception* that it is profitable goes away. Help show these fools how costly it really can be. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Roque Aranador Subject: Help: Cellular/Wireless Notebook Solution Date: 10 Oct 1997 18:41:11 GMT Organization: BHP HAWAII INC I'll be taking a trip to Australia and France and I'm looking for the following devices: -cellular/wireless phone that can be attached to a pcmcia modem (that works in Australia, France, and USA) -pcmcia modem card that will work with a cellular/wireless phone (that works in Australia, France, and USA) The notebook is a Toshiba Libretto running Windows 95. Please provide Manufacturer and Model for both devices. Many thanks in advance!!!! Roque Aranador aranador.roque.rr@bhp.com.au ------------------------------ From: sehrlich@shore.net (Scott R. Ehrlich) Subject: Qualcomm Q Phone Paging/Voice Question Date: 11 Oct 1997 20:37:20 -0400 Organization: Shore.Net; a service of Eco Software, Inc. (info@shore.net) I was considering buying a pager until I saw the specs of the Q phone. Can the present Q phone, along with the upcoming dual-mode Q phone in Nov/Dec, simultaneously receive alpha pages along with receiving incoming calls and making outgoing calls? In other words, if I want to make/receive calls and receive alpha pages simultaneously, will the Q phone be my all-in-one answer, or will I still need two devices - a pager and a phone? For paging, I would take advantage of the carrier's email -> pager gateway. As I am in the Boston area, and don't plan to go too far in the near or far future, what cellular providers plan to take full advantage of the Q phone's capabilities? I know we have Bell Atlantic Mobile, and Sprint PCS is coming soon. Who else is coming to the area in the near future? Can I assume BAM and Sprint PCS are/will be able to offer alpha paging via email to the Q phone? Thanks, Scott Ehrlich sehrlich@shore.net Scott Ehrlich Consulting http://www.shore.net/~sehrlich Amateur Radio Callsign: wy1z ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 11:59:41 -0500 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Re: Phone Stuff on TV Leonard Erickson wrote: > It's interesting how much stuff they get right (and wrong!) in TV > shows. Last year, I posted an article to TELECOM Digest regarding inconsistancies about ringers used on TV shows, movies, old radio entertainment, etc. I had mentioned that you might see a WECO/NECO 500/554 telephone, but when it rings, you hear that of an old steel ringer-box, old bakelite ringer-box, or WECO/NECO 302/352 telephone, vice-versa, etc. (i.e. a Trimline phone ringing like a 500/554 telephone). Or, the ringing cadences aren't always correct - they are too long, too short, not 'spaced' consistantly, etc. And the telephone in the TV show or movie is _NOT_ intended to be on a party line! Sometimes, in a TV show (or movie), when you see the party pick up the receiver, the ringing STOPS DEAD, without ANY remaining 'reasonance' of the brass bells. In that last year's mid-June posting "Questions about ringing", I also stated: > In some movies, two telephone calls come in at different times on > the same telephone shown. Each time the phone is shown to be ringing, > a different type ringer gong has been used. I remember this in a > scene of "Vertigo" (James Stewart and Kim Novak) and in a scene of > "Imitation of Life" (Lana Turner and Juanita Moore). In both movies > (circa late 1950's), the same telephone rings like a WECO 302 in one > scene, but like an old bakelite ringer box in another scene! Actually, in "Vertigo", the telephone rings first like a WECO/NECO model #302 (B-type ringer with brass-gong-pair 41-A and 41-B), but later on in the scene, the telephone rings like an old WECO steel ringer-box (type-8 ringer). This is all in one scene, in the apartment of John 'Scotty' Fergusen (Jimmy Stewart), where he had taken Madeline Elster - really Judy Barten (Kim Novak), after he had rescued her from her suicidal dive into San Francisco Bay. The telephone that Jimmy Stewart answers _IS_ a WECO/NECO model #302 desk telephone. It seems that the call is from Gavin Elster, Madeline's husband. Jimmy Stewart tells the caller that he will return the call later on. After several minutes of dialogue with Kim Novak, the phone rings again, but that of a WECO steel ringer-box. Well, that is how it is shown and heard in an airing of "Vertigo" that I taped off TV about seven years ago. Last year, MCA/Universal 'restored' "Vertigo" for theatrical re-release, by going to the original 1958 Paramount Pictures 35-mm VistaVision negatives/prints and audio soundtrack, and putting togather a 70-mm restored color print with new digital stereo soundtrack. Last Saturday night, AMC (American Movie Classics) aired "Vertigo" (one-time-only) on cable-TV. It was the 1996 'restored' version, shown in the wide-screen ('letterbox') version. There was a 30-minute special prior to the movie, about the restoration process of "Vertigo". It was mentioned that _some_ of the original sounds had to be re-created on a sound-effect machine, so that the original dialogue and musical soundtrack, now in digital stereo could be properly heard. Well, in the 'restored' version, in the scene in Jimmy Stewart's apartment when the first telephone call rings in, it doesn't ring anymore like a WECO/NECO model #302 (gongs 41-A and 41-B), but rather like that of a WECO/NECO model #500/554, gongs 54-A and 55-A. When Jimmy Stewart answers the phone, you do see it as a WECO/NECO model #302, though. But when the second telephone call rings several minutes later, the ringing is still that of the old WECO steel ringer-box. One other telco topic in "Vertigo" is when Jimmy Stewart is early in the movie, when he is at "Midge's" (Barbara Bel-Geddes') apartment. He mentions that he needs to call Gavin Elster, an old college friend. The number is a 'MIssion' number. I _assume_ that in 1958 there was an exchange in San Francisco named 'MIssion'. Of course, most movies made in the "good-old-days" referred to all telephone numbers with EXchange names, or if in a small town or rural area, in all numbers (and possible party line station letters) but as five-digits or less. MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut-1-2497 WORK:__mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu|4710-Wright-Road|__(+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity-5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New-Orleans-28__|fwds-on-no-answr-to Fax:UNiversity-5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail- ------------------------------ From: John McHugh Subject: Telecommunications Resources Survey Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 17:28:00 -0500 Dear Colleagues, Our municipality is revising its Comprehensive Plan, as required by Minnesota State Statute. This version will have a telecommunications component in it. As we survey our telecommunications resources, we already know the capability and location of facilities for the upgraded TWI cable tv system serving our city. However, specifics about US West's plant, switches and capabilities aren't readily at hand. The MN PUC said they didn't know, but did send us a list of companies who have been granted certificates of authorization for local service, and the name of a USWC regulatory affairs office representative. I'm sure others, as part of a business plan or comprehensive plan, have flattened the learning and lingo curve. Can you recommend any information resources, www-based or otherwise, which I can reference so we ask productive questions and get useful answers from the right wire-line and wireless teleco operators? Also, in a recent development, the Benton Foundation's Communications Headlines listserv had this summary in their 10.7.97 edition: Title: Electric Outlets Could Be Link To the Internet Source: Wall Street Journal (B6) Author: Guatam Naik Issue: Infrastructure Description: Engineers claim they have developed technology that would allow people to make phone calls and access the Internet at high speeds through the electrical outlets in walls. (How fast? Like the speed of light, man). If the technology developed by United Utilities PLC and Northern Telecom Ltd is successful, it would transform the world's power lines into major conduits on the information superhighway and give electrical companies easy entree into the phone and Internet access business. The companies believe the technology is "ready for mass market" and will announce plans at a press conference tomorrow. "At long last, the local monopoly of the incumbent telecom operators is about to be demolished," said a spokesman. (c)Benton Foundation, 1997. Redistribution of this email publication -- both internally and externally -- is encouraged if it includes this message. What do you readers think? Will Buck and Flash arrive sooner than believed? Grateful for your insights, John McHugh Cable TV Office @ City Hall 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard St. Louis Park, MN 55416 jmchugh@ci.saint-louis-park.mn.us 612-924-2660 fax-924-2175 ------------------------------ From: course@socrates.berkeley.edu Subject: Simulation of an ATM-Based Network (Course) Date: 11 Oct 1997 17:44:16 GMT Organization: Data Communication and Newtorking Services Announcing a hands-on short course in Boston, Massachusetts November 5-7, 1997 "SIMULATION OF AN ATM-BASED NETWORK" with William E. Stephens, Ph.D. and Christopher Ward, Ph.D., both of the David Sarnoff Research Center, Princeton, N.J. This short course examines key issues involved in simulating high-performance local and wide area networks. Topics covered include: High-Speed Transport Protocols, Simulation Steps, System Simulation Considerations, ATM Switch Architectures, and ATM Signaling. The course is instructed by William E. Stephens, Head of the Wireless and ATM Networking Group at the David Sarnoff Research Center in Princeton, NJ and Christopher Ward, technical staff at Sarnoff. More information? Call (510) 642-4151 Fax (510) 642-6027 Electronic Mail to: course@unx.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #281 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Oct 11 23:34:24 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id XAA24447; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 23:34:24 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 23:34:24 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199710120334.XAA24447@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #281 TELECOM Digest Sat, 11 Oct 97 23:15:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 281 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Personal 800 Service (Thomas Hinders) Re: 101-XXXX For Traditional Intra-LATA LEC Toll (Jeffrey Rhodes) Re: Perhaps 888 Was a Poor Choice (Brent Best) Employment Opportunity: CAD Supervisor Needed (Thom Erickson) Phone Problem in Residence Hall (Janet Price) Another Spam 800 Number (Dale O. Miller) Not Spam: If Anyone Needs Info on How to MAKE MONEY FAST (A. Reader) Help: Cellular/Wireless Notebook Solution (Roque Aranador) Qualcomm Q Phone Paging/Voice Question (Scott R. Ehrlich) Re: Phone Stuff on TV (Mark J. Cuccia) Telecommunications Resources Survey (John McHugh) Simulation of an ATM-Based Network (course@socrates.berkeley.edu) THIS IS A Re-TRANSMISSION. The first mailing of issue 281 had an incomplete index at the top. Please disgard it. PAT TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. Telecommunications Resources Survey (John McHugh) Simulation of an ATM-Based Network (course@socrates.berkeley.edu) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas_Hinders/CAM/Lotus@lotus.com (Thomas Hinders) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 16:17:10 -0400 Subject: Personal 800 Service Sometime ago, there was a discussion of personal 800 service. My daughter has gone off to college (200 miles from home) and I think its time to consider one. ATT offers $.20 a minute with a $2.50 per month charge. Any suggestions? Tom Hinders Thomas_Hinders@lotus.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Forget about AT&T. There are many better deals around, or at least deals just as good from a lot of small vendors. How would you like an 800 service which allows all these features: 1) Use it not only for incoming calls, but for *outgoing* calls as well, eliminating the need for a separate calling card? Just dial your 800 number, insert your pin, and dial out again. 2) Program it to follow you around. Dial into your 800 number and put it in maintainence mode by inserting your pin. Then tell it where (a) priority calls are to be sent; (b) other, normal calls are to be sent; (c) how do deal with no-answers; i.e. to system provided voicemail or your own voicemail or some third backup number. 3) Call screening: When it first answers and receives a call for you the caller is asked to state his name. The connection is then split and you get a call giving you the name provided by the caller. You then either accept the call or send it to voicemail. 4) Call waiting and three way calling (on an 800 number, yet!) If a call comes in for you and the system knows you are on line; i.e. you are making an outgoing call, accepting another incoming call, or in maintainence mode, listening to voicemail or whatever, the system makes a little chirp and says 'you have a call waiting'. You have the option of taking the new call while holding the old one or dropping the old one and taking the new one or ignoring the new call. If you are on a call either incoming or outgoing and need to make another call you can either consult on the side or conference the existing call with a new one. It is all done with the touch tone buttons. 5) A pretty standard voicemail package is available as part of it if you want to use it. (There is an extra charge.) 6) The system can tell the difference between fax/data and voice calls so if a fax machine calls your 800 number there is a provision in maintainence mode to tell it where to send the fax/data call, for example to a different number with a fax machine on it. It all happens automatically. If a fax machine calls your 800 number it gets sent to your fax line. If voice, the call comes to your voice line. 7) Wakeup service and callback service. Tell it to call and wake you at 7:00 AM and the number to reach you at and it will do so. If you are at an international location and prefer to use USA dialtone you can do that also. Just dial in and ask it to call you back at whatever number you give it. For this purpose, not only do you have your 800 number but on request they will assign you a regular POTS number in 408 or 415. For example, on mine I have my 800 number but I also have 415-xxx-xxxx which simply ties into the 800 ... if you call the 800 line I pay for it, if you call the 415 side then you pay for that portion of the call and I pay for the outbound to wherever it locates me. 8) Data transmission is *GREAT*. I can easily go 28.8 or faster with my existing modem through the 800 number. Only rarely is the connection not good enough to go that fast. 9) Your personal greeting, recorded in your own voice answers incoming calls and tells the caller 'please hold while your call is transferred to me'. You can change your destination number as often as desired at any time. If that is not enough features, there are a few more. The system is very robust, but I will let the proprietors tell you about it. The charges are fifteen cents per minute inbound and ten cents per minute outbound. So if someone called your 800 number and the call was passed along to you, the charge would be 15+10=25 cents per minute. If they only leave voicemail then it is just 15 cents per minute. If you use it for outgoing calls, that is dial in to 800, enter your pin and dial out again, the same charge applies of 15+10=25, but bear in mind there is no surcharge if using a calling card or a pay phone, etc. Anytime it makes an outgoing call to you, for example to wake up, the charge is the ten cents per minute noted above. Inter- national calls are permitted at prevailing rates. I think the monthly fee for the service, in addition to calling charges is about ten or fifteen dollars per month; I would have to look at my latest bill to be sure. So now, not only can your daughter use it at school, but you can throw away your other calling cards and use it yourself from any payphone, etc. You can use it like AT&T's 500 Service by only giving out the POTS version of your 800 number. Callers pay to reach you but the system locates you wherever. It is called "MY LINE" and is marketed by Call America, a company located in the Silicon Valley area of California. Jeff Buckingham is the president, and the company has been a loyal and generous patron of this Digest for a few years now. For more information and immediate signup (they turn you on rather quickly) contact one of these people: jbucking@callamerica.com (Jeff Buckingham) estrong@callamerica.com (Ernie Strong) beth_harris@callamerica.com (Beth Harris) Mention to them please that you appreciate their support of this Digest and inquire further about MyLine, or ask to try it for a couple months to see how it fits in to your telecom requirements. Personally, I cannot imagine ever going back to a 'traditional' sort of 800 number, personal or not, with as many features as MyLine includes as part of their standard package. I know that some of you have signed up with them in the past at my recommendation and if you would care to share your experiences, please do. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Jeffrey Rhodes Subject: Re: 101-XXXX For Traditional Intra-LATA LEC Toll Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 14:47:35 -0700 Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Al Varney wrote: > In article , Jack Decker > wrote: >> The thing that I am curious about is this: As I understand it (and >> feel free to correct me if I am wrong), if you do not have GTE as your >> default toll carrier, they have to load a PIC code into the switch for >> your preferred carrier. And it is possible to have NO default toll >> carrier (both interLATA and intraLATA), in which case no toll call >> will go through unless you dial an access code first. So, it would >> seem that there MUST be a code for GTE intraLATA toll, that would be > ^^^^ > not true, see below > Switches generally implement two levels of routing. One is based on > dialed digits only -- no carrier code is needed or used. The other is > routing based on carrier code. Dialed digit analysis can trigger > carrier routing (using an interLATA or intraLATA PIC), or the customer > can force it with a Carrier Access Code (CAC=101XXXX)... Forcing no intra-LATA toll calling unless casually dialed is trickier than simply not having a default PIC. I doubt this option is really offered since billing and routing are distinctly different processes and most lines have some sort of "free" radius of non-toll intra-LATA calling. Calls within this radius are often charged as toll when dialed with access codes, ie. so-called casual dialing, either 10XXX or 101(0,5,6)XXX. The XXXX carrier can refuse to accept such calls dialed as 101XXXX1+ in order to force 101XXXX0+ when a suitable billing arrangement is not in place for casual dialing. A carrier usually charges more for casual dialing calls than for 1+ inter-LATA calls, sometimes more for their own customers who choose to casual dial, so maybe GTE wants this capability for when the intra-LATA PIC is not GTE? The XXXX carrier can even require the dialing carrier's network to block the casual calling at their network. This comes up with traditional inter-LATA carriers who must pay per-second access charges, even for calls that they do not wish to complete! When do LATAs go away? What is keeping GTE from converting all their local customers to use GTE long distance? That might not go over too well with the public (or the state PUCs) but does the Telecom Act of 1996 require a CLEC or ILEC to provide choices for "toll" calling? I'd kind of like it if I could extend my GTE local unlimited ISDN voice and data calling for $50 a month to "any" distance ;-) Jeffrey Rhodes at jeffrey.rhodes@attws.com ------------------------------ From: Brent Best Subject: Re: Perhaps 888 Was a Poor Choice Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 02:07:35 -0700 Reply-To: bjbest@interlog.com Linc Madison wrote: > It occurs to me (with 20/20 hindsight) that 888 was a poor choice for > the second toll-free SAC. It just doesn't jolt the average Joe enough > as being distinct from 800. A different choice -- maybe 822 -- would > have been more distinctive, and might have resulted in fewer problems. > There could've been ads with the jingle "8-2-2 is toll-free, too!" The solution is to throw open as many 8XX SAC's as possible for toll-free use. Companies can then have virtually unlimited choice to use unique 9-character alpha names. A company could pick a number like 1-865-263-7422, which spells out 1-8-OK-AMERICA. If your "slogan" starts with a T, U, or V, a complete ten-character name is possible. An example could be " 1-TO-CALL-4-LAW " ( 1-862-255-4529 ) ------------------------------ From: tpe@dmc10.com (Thom Erickson) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 16:47:43 CDT Subject: Employment Opportunity: CAD Supervisor Needed I am looking for a third shift CAD Supervisor to perform supervisory roles in a CAD and CNC Dept. The individual will be responsible for overseeing the Computer Aided Design, CNC Machining areas and mold fabrication areas supervising 10 people. This department is responsible for the design and prototyping of medical implants and located in Pennsylvania. Experience with 3D design and machining would be ideal. A college degree is not neccessary. Knowledge of Computer Aided Design technology is a must. We have benefits, stock options, retirement plans and excellent salary for the area. If you know anyone that might be interested please contact: Thom Erickson Voice: 609-584-9000 ext. 259 Fax: 609-584-9575 Email: tpe@dmc10.com ------------------------------ From: Janet Price Subject: Phone Problem in Residence Hall Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 15:02:11 -0500 Organization: Carroll College Reply-To: jprice@carroll1.cc.edu We have a student with a cordless phone that works fine in the room across the hall, but has a lot of line noise in his room. However, a plain phone works fine in his room. We'd appreciate any suggestions regarding simple things to try. Thanks in advance. ------------------------------ From: domiller@ualr.edu Subject: Another Spam 800 Number Date: 9 Oct 97 14:57:07 CST Organization: University of Arkansas at Little Rock I received a nice UCE today, and thought that telecom readers would appreciate a small portion of it. > [ Unimportant portion of UCE deleted ] > For details call 1-800-322-6169 ext 3747 today for a brief recorded > overview Some people just won't learn, will they? This number has a rather long recorded message which I encourage you to call and be sure to listen to in its entirety, then leave your message expressing your dislike of UCE. Dale O. Miller - domiller@ualr.edu | University of Arkansas at Little Rock Systems Programmer | 2801 S. University Ave. Voice: +1 501 569 8714 | Little Rock, AR 72204-1099 USA http://www.ualr.edu/~domiller/ | KC5NXW ------------------------------ From: a-reader@aol.com (A. Reader) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 20:32:46 EDT Subject: If Anyone Needs Info on How to MAKE MONEY FAST Dear PAT: I received the enclosed in my in-box today. It appears to have originated (as has much recent spam) from an MCI.NET dialup. ** The important part of the message is : 1-800-304-5632 ** My comments are in brackets; I wouldn't bother you with this, but the sender must REALLY want calls, since he offers to pay for 'em himself. --and just this once, please don't use my real return address-- > Yes... that can be *you* at the top... [Oh, I'm sure] > and... > not just the top of another scam pyramid.... [Right. At the bottom...] > but a great product that all mlmers can use! > A 3x9 forced matrix that has a 50% matching sponsor bonus [That's right; confuse > and a 33% payout on the first level to keep the little guy in! 'em with jargon ! ] > *************************************** > 3 [million] BELOW YOU - AND YOUR POSITION IS FREE!!! > *************************************** > This program is so new, NOBODY knows about it yet! [There's a reason for that] > There are less than 50 distributors in the company [Mr. Grammar Person sez > as of today, "don't you mean 'FEWER', > but that will change dramatically, dammit ?"] > as this is the first email ad > being sent. [But not the last. Oh, no, not by a longshot] > We need people to call back the people who respond to this ad! [Then we'll need people to call back the people who call back the people who call back the people who call back the people who call back the people who call back...] > Call 1-800-304-5632 NOW for your free issue and business plan! [If this isn't an open invitation, I'll eat this spam. You heard him; do it RIGHT NOW, even if you're walking down the street and see some phone booths that look a bit lonely, or perhaps from work, behind your employer's PBX....] Other numbers to try are 1-888 [NOT 800] 365-0000 x1732 or 1-800-613-3456. Tell 'em you wanna know about the Laundry CD. I kid you not. A. Reader [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Okay readers, including you, 'A. Reader' you know what needs to be done; you know the routine by now. In the olden days we thought it was great when Jeff Slaton got a bill from his telco for right about a hundred thousand dollars one month as a result of netizens working together to pollute his number. Let's see if we can pledge at least a half-million dollars to distribute among the fools listed in these two messages today. The 'Laundry CD' is really worth everything you can put into it ... but Make Money Fast needs to learn his lesson also. When you are at a bank of pay- phones, dial them up and walk away leaving the phones off hook. Ask your employer to make a 'matching contribution' by using those DID lines and PBX extensions at your school, etc. Remember, lunchmeat will go away -- at least in large amounts -- when the *perception* that it is profitable goes away. Help show these fools how costly it really can be. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Roque Aranador Subject: Help: Cellular/Wireless Notebook Solution Date: 10 Oct 1997 18:41:11 GMT Organization: BHP HAWAII INC I'll be taking a trip to Australia and France and I'm looking for the following devices: -cellular/wireless phone that can be attached to a pcmcia modem (that works in Australia, France, and USA) -pcmcia modem card that will work with a cellular/wireless phone (that works in Australia, France, and USA) The notebook is a Toshiba Libretto running Windows 95. Please provide Manufacturer and Model for both devices. Many thanks in advance!!!! Roque Aranador aranador.roque.rr@bhp.com.au ------------------------------ From: sehrlich@shore.net (Scott R. Ehrlich) Subject: Qualcomm Q Phone Paging/Voice Question Date: 11 Oct 1997 20:37:20 -0400 Organization: Shore.Net; a service of Eco Software, Inc. (info@shore.net) I was considering buying a pager until I saw the specs of the Q phone. Can the present Q phone, along with the upcoming dual-mode Q phone in Nov/Dec, simultaneously receive alpha pages along with receiving incoming calls and making outgoing calls? In other words, if I want to make/receive calls and receive alpha pages simultaneously, will the Q phone be my all-in-one answer, or will I still need two devices - a pager and a phone? For paging, I would take advantage of the carrier's email -> pager gateway. As I am in the Boston area, and don't plan to go too far in the near or far future, what cellular providers plan to take full advantage of the Q phone's capabilities? I know we have Bell Atlantic Mobile, and Sprint PCS is coming soon. Who else is coming to the area in the near future? Can I assume BAM and Sprint PCS are/will be able to offer alpha paging via email to the Q phone? Thanks, Scott Ehrlich sehrlich@shore.net Scott Ehrlich Consulting http://www.shore.net/~sehrlich Amateur Radio Callsign: wy1z ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 11:59:41 -0500 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Re: Phone Stuff on TV Leonard Erickson wrote: > It's interesting how much stuff they get right (and wrong!) in TV > shows. Last year, I posted an article to TELECOM Digest regarding inconsistancies about ringers used on TV shows, movies, old radio entertainment, etc. I had mentioned that you might see a WECO/NECO 500/554 telephone, but when it rings, you hear that of an old steel ringer-box, old bakelite ringer-box, or WECO/NECO 302/352 telephone, vice-versa, etc. (i.e. a Trimline phone ringing like a 500/554 telephone). Or, the ringing cadences aren't always correct - they are too long, too short, not 'spaced' consistantly, etc. And the telephone in the TV show or movie is _NOT_ intended to be on a party line! Sometimes, in a TV show (or movie), when you see the party pick up the receiver, the ringing STOPS DEAD, without ANY remaining 'reasonance' of the brass bells. In that last year's mid-June posting "Questions about ringing", I also stated: > In some movies, two telephone calls come in at different times on > the same telephone shown. Each time the phone is shown to be ringing, > a different type ringer gong has been used. I remember this in a > scene of "Vertigo" (James Stewart and Kim Novak) and in a scene of > "Imitation of Life" (Lana Turner and Juanita Moore). In both movies > (circa late 1950's), the same telephone rings like a WECO 302 in one > scene, but like an old bakelite ringer box in another scene! Actually, in "Vertigo", the telephone rings first like a WECO/NECO model #302 (B-type ringer with brass-gong-pair 41-A and 41-B), but later on in the scene, the telephone rings like an old WECO steel ringer-box (type-8 ringer). This is all in one scene, in the apartment of John 'Scotty' Fergusen (Jimmy Stewart), where he had taken Madeline Elster - really Judy Barten (Kim Novak), after he had rescued her from her suicidal dive into San Francisco Bay. The telephone that Jimmy Stewart answers _IS_ a WECO/NECO model #302 desk telephone. It seems that the call is from Gavin Elster, Madeline's husband. Jimmy Stewart tells the caller that he will return the call later on. After several minutes of dialogue with Kim Novak, the phone rings again, but that of a WECO steel ringer-box. Well, that is how it is shown and heard in an airing of "Vertigo" that I taped off TV about seven years ago. Last year, MCA/Universal 'restored' "Vertigo" for theatrical re-release, by going to the original 1958 Paramount Pictures 35-mm VistaVision negatives/prints and audio soundtrack, and putting togather a 70-mm restored color print with new digital stereo soundtrack. Last Saturday night, AMC (American Movie Classics) aired "Vertigo" (one-time-only) on cable-TV. It was the 1996 'restored' version, shown in the wide-screen ('letterbox') version. There was a 30-minute special prior to the movie, about the restoration process of "Vertigo". It was mentioned that _some_ of the original sounds had to be re-created on a sound-effect machine, so that the original dialogue and musical soundtrack, now in digital stereo could be properly heard. Well, in the 'restored' version, in the scene in Jimmy Stewart's apartment when the first telephone call rings in, it doesn't ring anymore like a WECO/NECO model #302 (gongs 41-A and 41-B), but rather like that of a WECO/NECO model #500/554, gongs 54-A and 55-A. When Jimmy Stewart answers the phone, you do see it as a WECO/NECO model #302, though. But when the second telephone call rings several minutes later, the ringing is still that of the old WECO steel ringer-box. One other telco topic in "Vertigo" is when Jimmy Stewart is early in the movie, when he is at "Midge's" (Barbara Bel-Geddes') apartment. He mentions that he needs to call Gavin Elster, an old college friend. The number is a 'MIssion' number. I _assume_ that in 1958 there was an exchange in San Francisco named 'MIssion'. Of course, most movies made in the "good-old-days" referred to all telephone numbers with EXchange names, or if in a small town or rural area, in all numbers (and possible party line station letters) but as five-digits or less. MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut-1-2497 WORK:__mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu|4710-Wright-Road|__(+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity-5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New-Orleans-28__|fwds-on-no-answr-to Fax:UNiversity-5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail- ------------------------------ From: John McHugh Subject: Telecommunications Resources Survey Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 17:28:00 -0500 Dear Colleagues, Our municipality is revising its Comprehensive Plan, as required by Minnesota State Statute. This version will have a telecommunications component in it. As we survey our telecommunications resources, we already know the capability and location of facilities for the upgraded TWI cable tv system serving our city. However, specifics about US West's plant, switches and capabilities aren't readily at hand. The MN PUC said they didn't know, but did send us a list of companies who have been granted certificates of authorization for local service, and the name of a USWC regulatory affairs office representative. I'm sure others, as part of a business plan or comprehensive plan, have flattened the learning and lingo curve. Can you recommend any information resources, www-based or otherwise, which I can reference so we ask productive questions and get useful answers from the right wire-line and wireless teleco operators? Also, in a recent development, the Benton Foundation's Communications Headlines listserv had this summary in their 10.7.97 edition: Title: Electric Outlets Could Be Link To the Internet Source: Wall Street Journal (B6) Author: Guatam Naik Issue: Infrastructure Description: Engineers claim they have developed technology that would allow people to make phone calls and access the Internet at high speeds through the electrical outlets in walls. (How fast? Like the speed of light, man). If the technology developed by United Utilities PLC and Northern Telecom Ltd is successful, it would transform the world's power lines into major conduits on the information superhighway and give electrical companies easy entree into the phone and Internet access business. The companies believe the technology is "ready for mass market" and will announce plans at a press conference tomorrow. "At long last, the local monopoly of the incumbent telecom operators is about to be demolished," said a spokesman. (c)Benton Foundation, 1997. Redistribution of this email publication -- both internally and externally -- is encouraged if it includes this message. What do you readers think? Will Buck and Flash arrive sooner than believed? Grateful for your insights, John McHugh Cable TV Office @ City Hall 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard St. Louis Park, MN 55416 jmchugh@ci.saint-louis-park.mn.us 612-924-2660 fax-924-2175 ------------------------------ From: course@socrates.berkeley.edu Subject: Simulation of an ATM-Based Network (Course) Date: 11 Oct 1997 17:44:16 GMT Organization: Data Communication and Newtorking Services Announcing a hands-on short course in Boston, Massachusetts November 5-7, 1997 "SIMULATION OF AN ATM-BASED NETWORK" with William E. Stephens, Ph.D. and Christopher Ward, Ph.D., both of the David Sarnoff Research Center, Princeton, N.J. This short course examines key issues involved in simulating high-performance local and wide area networks. Topics covered include: High-Speed Transport Protocols, Simulation Steps, System Simulation Considerations, ATM Switch Architectures, and ATM Signaling. The course is instructed by William E. Stephens, Head of the Wireless and ATM Networking Group at the David Sarnoff Research Center in Princeton, NJ and Christopher Ward, technical staff at Sarnoff. More information? Call (510) 642-4151 Fax (510) 642-6027 Electronic Mail to: course@unx.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #281 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Oct 15 09:35:05 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA08536; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 09:35:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 09:35:05 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199710151335.JAA08536@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #282 TELECOM Digest Wed, 15 Oct 97 09:35:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 282 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Toll-Fraud via Remote-Access to Call-Forwarding (Chris Telesca) Book Review: "Mobile Data Communications Systems" (Rob Slade) "Sky Word Plus" - How Does it Work? (J.D. Baldwin) Number Pooling in Virginia (Tad Cook) Re: 101-XXXX For Traditional Intra-LATA LEC Toll (Al Varney) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ctelesca@pagesz.net (Chris Telesca) Subject: Toll-Fraud via Remote-Access to Call-Forwarding Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 07:42:57 -0500 Organization: Pagesz.net Hello again! I have posted several messages to this group over the last 17 months or so about some problems I was having with someone apparently hacking the PIN number to a Remote-Access to Call-Forwarding service, remotely forwarding my phone number to long-distance numbers without my knowledge or permission. It wasn't until a friend of mine called me on another line to tell me that someone other than me answered on my line that I knew something was up. According to my phone bill, I am supposed to have call-forwarded LD calls identified by a special calling rate code on my bill. But (at least according to both BellSouth (the phone company supplying the local phone service and the call-forwarding service) and to AT&T (my LD provider), the reason why the code doesn't show up is because I don't use BellSouth as my LD provider, and that the only way that BellSouth would have to provide that information is if I change from AT&T to BellSouth as my LD provider. I don't want to change to BellSouth because I like paying AT&T $0.10 per minute for dial-direct calls (through the One Rate Plus plan). At first I complained to both BellSouth and AT&T, but I didn't get anywhere after playing lots of phone tag. Neither company would give me enough information about: how the R-A to C-F service worked; how the calls are billed; and about other fraud (in fact everybody says I'm the first person to call and complain about this type of toll-fraud). After getting nowhere with the phone companies, I finally filed a complaint with my State's Public Utility Commission. At first I thought this was the right thing to do but now I'm not so sure that this will accomplish much. In fact, the PUC might be blocking or holding-back the phone companies here in NC from making changes in the service to not place smaller teleco's at a disadvantage. And now another interesting twist has occurred. This past Friday I called BellSouth repair service to report a suspected problem with my *66 service (calls back a busy number) at about 2:45PM, after having been logged-on to my ISP at various times throughout the day. After reporting the problem, I logged back on for about ten minutes, then called a friend in Fayetteville and talked for about five minutes, then left the house at about 3:10PM for about two hours, returning home around 5:30PM. When I got home, I went to use the phone and heard a stutter dial tone, indicating that I had a Memory Call voice-mail message. The message was time-stamped at 3:16PM that day, and was from someone with the BellSouth repair service saying that my *66 feature was working fine, but that my phone number was forwarded to a long-distance number. I finally got in touch with this repair person ans was told that the number my call was forwarded to belonged to a friend in Maryland. Problem: I didn't forward my phone to her number. At this time, the phone company either can't (or won't) tell me when the call was forwarded, if any LD calls were made and billed to me, or where the call that inititated the R-A to C-F call came from (it's for security purposes). I'm still waiting for someone with BellSouth Security to call me about this. An engineer with the PUC says he doesn't want to help me with this problem, because he thinks he can use his time better. He also told me that he thinks the phone comanies don't want to solve this problem because it isn't worth their time to solve it (apparently it costs more to solve it in terms of labor rates for technicians and engineers as opposed to the charges involved). He also says I should drop the service. I think that this is a poor attitude for a public servant to take with an issue like this. I am also bothered by the fact that somehow my phone number is being forwarded by someone other than myself) to LD numbers (some of which somehow are numbers I occasionally call). The only way somone other than myself could get that number is to: access my Voice-Mailbox (where my friend left me a message with her relatively- new phone number); my Caller-ID box (a Radio Shack Caller ID System 250 - can someone cause the CID box to remotely download information and/or somehow forward calls to a number stored on the CID box?); or that someone at the phone company is accessing my PIN number to R-A to C-F and/or Voice Mail (R-A to C-F PIN is 4 characters long ans set by phone co, Voice Mail PIN can be set by me and presumably can be read by someone at phone co) and trying to screw with me to make it look like there is no fraudulent use of R-=A to C-F by anyone other than myself - thereby making this look to be a frivolous complaint to the PUC that the PUC will likely dismiss? Any help or information would be appreciated. E-mail or call at (919)676-2597 (home phone with voice mail) or (919)982-0866 (digital pager). Please -- don't try to hack the PIN and forward any more calls please! ;-) Chris Telesca ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 10:48:39 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Mobile Data Communications Systems" BKMDCMSY.RVW 970407 "Mobile Data Communications Systems", Peter Wong/David Britland, 1995, 0-89006-751-1, U$59.00 %A Peter Wong %A David Britland %C 685 Canton St., Norwood, MA 02062 %D 1997 %E John Walker %G 0-89006-751-1 %I Artech House Publishers %O U$59.00 617-769-9750 800-225-9977 fax: 617-769-6334 artech@world.std.com %P 189 %S The Artech House Mobile Communications Series %T Mobile Data Communications Systems According to the preface, this is a less technical book intended for students, salespeople, and marketers. By and large, the book does cover the material on a conceptual level, and a number of the ideas are presented in a way that does not require recourse to mathematics. Topics dealt with include modulation techniques, radio characteristics, error control, specific proprietary networks, analogue and digital cellular, mobil data networks, wireless LANs, applications, and the future. While most of the material should be accessible to the determined reader, the author's definition of "minimal" mathematics *does* seem to contain one heck of a lot of formulae. And, unfortunately, in a number of cases, the explanations fall short, and the equations are the only explanation available. The sections on applications are a bit of a disappointment, as well. Most of the discussion is limited to the usual point-of-sale or paging functions. There is little exploration of possible future uses, or even functions such as broadcast information. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKMDCMSY.RVW 970407 roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca ------------------------------ From: baldwin@netcom.com (J.D. Baldwin) Subject: "Sky Word Plus" - How Does it Work? Organization: Revealed on a need-to-know basis. Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 13:53:28 GMT OK, so I got this SkyTel "Sky Word Plus" pager yesterday and I've tested it out a bit and it seems to work as advertised. Other people in my company have expressed an interest in just how reliable this thing is going to be. Unfortunately, the marketing junk enclosed with the unit is pretty short on technical details (no surprise) and Customer Service seemed pretty unprepared to deal with customers who express an interest in the workings of this thing. So here I am, asking c.d.t, which seems an appropriate group for this sort of discussion. The SWP pager has three "levels" of service, depending where you are: Full Service, Basic Service and Storing Messages. What you're getting at any given moment depends on where you are relative to the company's transmitters and is displayed in text on the unit. (Coverage in southern Michigan is pretty good.) Here's what the levels mean: Full Service - Pages received are confirmed as received by the unit, apparently with some kind of checksum (?), and messages received as less than complete or garbled are re-sent. Basic Service - Pages received are not confirmed, but if you get a garbled one (or miss one), this fact will be detected (how?) when you get back to Full Service coverage, and any problems will be corrected at that time. Storing Messages - The pager can't even "hear" new pages (like when you're in the machine room in the basement of a big, metal building), but will announce itself (how?) when you return to Full Service and all missed pages will be downloaded at that time. Obviously, this pager *must* be transmitting something. (Right?) I imagine that it sends some sort of "here I am" code periodically, and if it receives an acknowledgement, it "knows" it's in Full Service, otherwise it makes its determination according to whether it can "hear" other transmissions. What happens when it goes from Basic (or storing) to Full Service? I surmise that the electronic dialogue goes something like: PAGER: "Hey it's me, pager #32E567R9!" SYSTEM: "OK, I hear you, #32E567R9. Send me checksums from any unconfirmed messages." PAGER: "5F43, 6DAA and 3321." SYSTEM: "No, that last one's incorrect, here's the message again: [...] and you're missing a message, so here it is: [...]" PAGER: "OK, checksums for those are 332A and 5B52." SYSTEM: "Yes, you're up to date now." How far off is this picture? And how good is this thing in actual practice? How often does the pager try to tell the network where it is? What are the frequencies and signal strengths involved? (I notice that this thing *eats* batteries at the rate of one AA per month, according to SkyTel. So the transmission would seem to be a significant power burden.) Any information or pointers would be greatly appreciated, and probably interesting besides. From the catapult of J.D. Baldwin |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I _,_ Finger baldwin@netcom.com |+| say, I am quite prepared not only to _|70|___:::)=}- for PGP public |+| retract it, but also to deny under \ / key information. |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer ***~~~~----------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Subject: Number Pooling in Virginia Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 18:43:11 PDT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Virginia Official Suggests New Area Code Scheme By Greg Edwards, Richmond Times-Dispatch, Va. Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News Oct. 14--Changing the way phone numbers are assigned might delay the need for a new area code in Northern Virginia, a State Corporation Commission official says. In a recent report to the commission, SCC Hearing Examiner Glenn P. Richardson said that "number pooling" might be the best way to delay a second Northern Virginia area code now expected to be needed by late 1999. Currently phone numbers are assigned to telecommunications carriers in blocks of 10,000. Those numbers represent all available in a local exchange code as defined by the first three digits of a seven-digit phone number. In number pooling, which is made possible by new technology, phone numbers are assigned to telecommunications companies in blocks of 1,000 or fewer. Numbers that are now being held but not used by a carrier could be re-assigned to other carriers, possibly delaying the need for a new area code. Richardson didn't predict how much time could be bought through pooling before growth makes a new area code inevitable. Bell Atlantic, the major local phone company in Northern Virginia, has no objection to number pooling as long as it's done fairly, company spokesman Paul Miller said. Bell Atlantic prefers, however, that the state wait until a national standard for pooling is developed, he said. During the past two years, because of increasing use of phones, faxes and pagers, two new area codes have been created in Virginia. In the western part of the state, the 540 code was carved out of the 703 region, and in Hampton Roads part of the 804 region became 757. A single area code contains roughly 7.6 million possible phone numbers. In his report to the SCC, Richardson also recommended that when a new area code can be avoided no longer that Northern Virginia be split into two geographic regions with Arlington and Alexandria keeping the current 703 area code and all other Northern Virginia exchanges assigned a new area code. Representatives of local phone companies Bell Atlantic and GTE, however, said their companies favor "overlaying" a second area code over the same geographic area as the existing 703 area code. If an overlay were used, businesses wouldn't have to go through the expense of reprinting their stationery and other materials because their area code had changed, the two companies said. Because local phone companies and long-distance carriers, such as AT&T, couldn't agree last year on how the new area code should be put in place in Northern Virginia, the decision was left to the SCC. In recommending a geographic split of the region, Richardson reported that a split had been the preference of most people commenting on the issue. He also reasoned that a split would mean local calls could still be made by dialing seven digits as opposed to the 10 digits that are required when making local calls in an area with an overlay. Bell Atlantic's Miller, however, said a split doesn't eliminate 10-digit dialing. Northern Virginians who make local calls into the District of Columbia already have to dial 10 digits and, if the 703 region is split, those making local calls into the new area code will have to dial 10 digits, he said. Richardson's report is available on the Internet at www.state.va.us/scc. The SCC will accept comments on the report until Oct. 24. ------------------------------ From: varney@ihgp2.ih.lucent.com (Al Varney) Subject: Re: 101-XXXX For Traditional Intra-LATA LEC Toll Date: 14 Oct 1997 04:35:00 GMT Organization: Lucent Technologies, Naperville, IL Reply-To: varney@lucent.com In article , Jeffrey Rhodes wrote: > Al Varney wrote: >> Switches generally implement two levels of routing. One is based on >> dialed digits only -- no carrier code is needed or used. The other is >> routing based on carrier code. Dialed digit analysis can trigger >> carrier routing (using an interLATA or intraLATA PIC), or the customer >> can force it with a Carrier Access Code (CAC=101XXXX)... > Forcing no intra-LATA toll calling unless casually dialed is trickier > than simply not having a default PIC. I doubt this option is really > offered since billing and routing are distinctly different processes The option certainly exists in the switches -- whether it's "offered" or not is a tariff issue. But absence of a default intraLATA PIC doesn't mean "blocking" an intraLATA call, it means "route using LEC toll". To really "block" the non-CAC intraLATA call, you have to assign a code that effectively means "block any calls that yield this PIC". > and most lines have some sort of "free" radius of non-toll intra-LATA > calling. Calls within this radius are often charged as toll when > dialed with access codes, ie. so-called casual dialing, either 10XXX > or 101(0,5,6)XXX. Nope. Calls to a carrier are not TOLL calls from a LEC perspective. If you dial 10XXX in front of a free call, the LEC passes the call to the IXC (or whatever the XXX code selects), assuming the PUC allows such calls to be handled by an IXC. Per-second access charges are billed to the IXC, but the LEC collects nothing from the caller, and the IXC is perfectly free to not charge the caller either. In fact, the LEC doesn't require the IXC to ever charge callers for calls, so long as the access charge bill is payed by the IXC. :) > The XXXX carrier can refuse to accept such calls dialed as 101XXXX1+ > in order to force 101XXXX0+ when a suitable billing arrangement is not > in place for casual dialing. Carriers are free to refuse any call (except, perhaps, to their customer service number). > The XXXX carrier can even require the dialing carrier's network to > block the casual calling at their network. This comes up with > traditional inter-LATA carriers who must pay per-second access > charges, even for calls that they do not wish to complete! Intra-LATA carriers pay those same access charges. > When do LATAs go away? What is keeping GTE from converting all their > local customers to use GTE long distance? That might not go over too > well with the public (or the state PUCs) but does the Telecom Act of > 1996 require a CLEC or ILEC to provide choices for "toll" calling? I'd > kind of like it if I could extend my GTE local unlimited ISDN voice > and data calling for $50 a month to "any" distance ;-) The RBOC ILECs are required to offer equal-access to callers and IXCs by a consent decree. GTE is required to offer the same in some areas by a similar ruling. IntraLATA, intraSTATE rules are up to the individual PUCs. Most of the ILECs fall under PUC rules that require them to support equal access, if they want to be considered "local exchange carriers". The Telecom Act of 1996 didn't change any of those rules. Nor did it prohibit GTE from making your free calling area larger or smaller. But I don't see a lot of carriers in the near future beating a path to your door to offer 24-hour fixed-price (cheap) calls to the world. If you were, say, WorldComm, how could you keep the shareholders happy with such a revenue stream? Al Varney ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #282 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Oct 15 21:54:03 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id VAA28074; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 21:54:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 21:54:03 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199710160154.VAA28074@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #283 TELECOM Digest Wed, 15 Oct 97 21:54:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 283 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Book Review: "writers.net" by Gach (Rob Slade) International Routing Problems? (Joshua G. Fenton) New Cellular Phone Experience So Far (Lisa Hancock) Do AMPS or PCS Cell Sites Send Site IDs? (Greg Monti) Compuserve Spams Own Customers, Refuses To Stop (Alan Boritz) OAN Tries to Keep Up With Integretel (David Jensen) POTS Acronym (J. DeBert) Communications Technology Magazines (telic@netcom.ca) Re: Payphone Prices Going Up (Stanley Cline) Re: Payphone Prices Going Up (Bruce Wilson) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 10:52:10 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "writers.net" by Gach BKWRTRNT.RVW 970407 "writers.net", Gary Gach, 1997, 0-7615-0641-1, U$22.00/C$29.95 %A Gary Gach writersnet@hotmail.com %C 3875 Atherton Road, Rocklin, CA 95765 %D 1997 %G 0-7615-0641-1 %I Prima Publishing %O U$22.00/C$29.95 800-632-8676 fax: 916-632-4405 julieb@indy.primapub.com %P 400 p. %T "writers.net: Every Writer's Essential Guide to Online Resources and Opportunities" Writers, much like teachers, potentially can use anything on the net, and can use the net for anything. Most of Gach's book is a list of Web sites and other net resources for different writing genres: science fiction, romance, mystery, poetry, juvenile, screenwriting, playwriting, technical writing, soaps, and journalism. Other chapters deal with the mechanics and business of writing, such as networking, money, research, magazines, books, self-publishing, multimedia, censorship, and copyright. An appendix on Internet applications quickly covers basic net usage. The listings may or may not be annotated and the annotation (if any) is likely to be subjective. The coverage is by no means complete. Under technical writing, alt.books.technical is mentioned, but not biz.books.technical or misc.books.technical. The section on book reviews doesn't mention any of the newsgroups at all, not even the moderated rec.arts.books.reviews. The organization of the book could use some work. Both chapter groupings and the placement of material within chapters are sometimes odd. While the anecdotal style may not be too helpful in a reference, it certainly makes the book a more appealing read. This is particularly true of the success stories of writers who have used the net. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKWRTRNT.RVW 970407 roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca ------------------------------ From: Joshua G. Fenton Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 15:33:09 -0600 Subject: International Routing Problems? I'm interested in hearing about people's experiences in completeing international calls to the UK and other countries. I'm having a VERY strange routing problem, and though "Long Distance Repair" is working on it, I know that the experience of these readers will give me a better idea of what's going on. Calls are being placed from 309.793.xxxx (Ameritech) to a UK mobile telephone (Orange Network) on +44.7970.xxxxxx via AT&T. (I currently subscribe to AT&T One Rate International and pay $0.12/min/24hr both to the UK and domestically. Yes, we make calls at all hours. Can anyone top that for $3/mo fee?) The cell number is a new one, and works fine from within the UK. I tried to place the call, and got 'your international call cannot be completed as dialled, please check the number or call your operator to help you 024T'. After 00# and an explanation, the AT&T operator put the call through on the first attempt. A subsequent direct dial attempt completed normally. Next day, get the same 'cannot be completed' recording. Call to AT&T International LD repair gets me to Bobbie (who was wonderful). She got on a tie line of some kind (Digital cross connect, or what?) out of the DesMoines IA 4E tandem, and was able to complete the call, which went to voice mail. However, after several call attempts, she kept getting mixed results. Occasionally a single pitched solid tone, sometimes completion to voice mail. However, calls from 309.793.xxxx still got the 'your international call cannot be completed...' She referred it out, and suggested that there might be a routing problem from the LEC on SOME of the trunks, leaving off a digit or two, indicating the changes in allowable length of phone numbers. However, the solid tone seemed to be a problem on the other end, once the call hit the international gateway. When I asked her why I was getting a message from a DesMoines switch (three hours away) when there is a huge AT&T building just accross the river (four minutes) in Davenport, IA, she responded that Davenport is just a POP, and that the LEC (Ameritech) is responsible for the call until it is handed off at the toll tandem. Questions: *What mechanism do repair personnel use to 'get a line' on a local tandem from wherever they are? *Is it common for the LEC to be responsible for carrying a call such long distances? *What is the occasional solid tone? Is that at the international gateway? *Is there another carrier involved between the international gateway and Orange (or any other cell provider, for that matter?) How does the international gateway work? Thanks in advance! Joshua joshuaf 'at'adc-qc.com ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: New Cellular Phone Experience So Far Date: 15 Oct 1997 02:02:56 GMT Organization: Net Access BBS Recently I got cellular phone service. I previously posted my experiences dealing with the sales people. Now here's some notes on usage ... 1) How do people drive and talk? For me at least, there's no way I can drive my car and talk on the phone, it's simply too distracting with traffic. Yes, I know when we drive we freely talk to the person next to us, but somehow it's different on the phone. Considering all the times I was nearly hit by a distracted driver talking on the phone, I don't know how people do it. Dialing while driving is impossible, at least on my phone. The buttons are pretty tiny, I noticed on other models the keypad is bigger. (The phone does have a memory, which I assume does help dialing.) 2) The clock is deceiving: I am billed from [send] to [end] in whole minutes. It takes a few seconds to release the call after you hit [end] which can add another minute to the call. If you think the party didn't answer and they did, you are billed for the call. 3) No quick hangups: From the wired phone, I often call people who I know have answering machines, and hang up after 3 rings if I don't feel like leaving a message. You can't do that on a cell phone because of the [end] delay. 4) Ringing delay. When someone calls me, they'll hear at least 3 rings before the cell phone starts to ring. A lot of people these days don't let phones ring very long before hanging up. I must instruct any callers to let it ring a long time. If I'm driving, I'll need a moment to get the phone out and to answer it. In a crowded location, I may not hear the phone. 5) No charge for phone off. I once called someone's cell phone via the roaming number long distance and was billed even though his phone was off. However, I called myself from a pay phone with the phone off, got the recording, and got my money back. Callers can be assured no one will be billed on either end if the cell phone is turned off. 6) Be careful charging/recharging. NiCad batteries the phone uses can develop a memory if not fully discharged then fully charged. They suggested I leave the phone on to run down, then fully recharge it. That makes sense to me, although it is a pain since it does require some advance planning to allow one day to run down and one night to recharge. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 23:02:05 -0400 From: Greg Monti Subject: Do AMPS or PCS Cell Sites Send Site IDs? In many areas, wireless phone companies have set up tracking systems which can be used by law enforcement to "find" cellular callers who have dialed 911 but who don't quite know where they are. Since the cellular company keeps track of which cell site is communicating with a call in progress, they can go to some sort of lookup table and estimate the mobile user's location by looking at the sequence of coverage areas from particular cell towers (or sectors within those towers). Now, I have the opposite question. Does a cell site (or a PCS site for that matter) send out its site ID periodically? I am interested in a receive-only application would need to know periodically where it is located in a general sort of way -- such as the city or county. I am already aware that cellular towers send out a System ID, which tells all the mobiles what company is serving that area. For my purposes, the System ID is not accurate enough (some systems are huge, sprawling affairs that cover several states, every tower of which may send the same System ID). Reply privately to me unless you think there is interest on the NewsGroup. Thanks. Greg Monti Jersey City, New Jersey, USA gmonti@mindspring.com http://www.mindspring.com/~gmonti ------------------------------ From: aboritz@cybernex.net (Alan Boritz) Subject: Compuserve Spams Own Customers, Refuses To Stop Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 05:33:24 -0400 Ever have a service provider who insists you read their spam email, while YOU'RE paying connect time charges, and they refuse to stop after you tell them nicely? Compuserve appears to be doing that now. A couple of weeks ago they started sending me the electronic version of the magazine they've been sending me as junk (paper) mail for years, for an account I have there. I emailed customer service and told them to stop sending *any* unsolicited junk email, and they responded that they don't know who sent it (it had their CIS id in the header), but they'd get on it and get back to me. That was on 9/23, and I haven't heard a word since. Then CIS followed up with some propoganda on their AOL purchase deal, and then again with more junk mail about alternative billing plans. I called a customer service person to ask if my witholding payment on my credit card would encourage them to take my request seriously. Although she was able to see that I've been on that system for a long time (almost 17 years), she said that that wouldn't help, and they have no way to stop it (curious, since it's coming from a Compuserve administrative address). Although simple arrogant carelessness may be a convenient description of Compuserve's recent spamming binge, could a feeble attempt to pump up revenues by forcing customers to spend more on connect time be in preparation of the Worldcom/AOL sale? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 13:49:37 -0500 From: david.jensen@teldta.com (David Jensen) Subject: OAN Tries to Keep Up With Integretel PAT- Integretel isn't the only bottomfeeder out there. Last week our local phone bill included a charge of $5.10 for a _local_ collect call. I have no idea why anyone in our company would accept any collect call, but I had our local telco get us the number of OAN and called their customer service number. Well, it cost them some money on their 800 number, but customer service has a completely different meaning to OAN. After five minutes on the phone with their poor customer service wretch, I had learned that the alternate operator service might have been called Americom, but the CSR was mumbling everything, so I really couldn't be sure. I did learn the remarkable facts that (1) this AOS does not have a phone number and (2) there were no supervisory personnel at the call center at 3pm CDT. She assured me that a supervisory person would call back, but since that was four days ago, I've quit holding my breath. After this totally useless phone call, we asked our LEC to bounce the charges back, which they agreed to and I have decided that no one who deals through OAN will get paid until they have been approved as qualified vendors. Now, here is what the FCC can do: 1. All providers must provide a decision-maker's number to call centers and billing organizations. 2. Call centers must provide that number to customers. 3. LECs need not bill for companies that hide behind billing organizations like OAN and Integretel. 4. All collect service providers must clearly announce who they are and what the charges will be: "This is AOS-the ripoff specialists. We have a collect call for anyone from Michael Foobar. If you accept, the charges will be $5.00 for the first three minutes plus $.75 per minute thereafter. To accept, press 2 and state your name. If you do not accept, please hang up now." No one else is allowed to bill you for something that you are not allowed to know the price of, why did the FCC drop the ball on this? ------------------------------ From: J. DeBert Subject: POTS Acronym Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 10:05:28 -0700 In "Keeping Up With The Times" I suggest a small modification to the acronym "POTS": Currently POTS is known as "Plain Old Telephone Service". But there's also "Plain Old Terminal Service" which, of course, can be represented by the same acronym. Rather than having POTS refer to only one specialised segment of telecom (telephone services) it should refer to generic telecom services such as data and other telecom services as well, hence "Plain Old Telecom Services". Why? Telecom starts with a "T" and it covers every form of remote communications. A POTS terminal, for example, cannot show more than one display-full of information, such as a VT terminal. Likewise, POTS telephone service cannot do more than one thing at a time. POTS is the old-style, single-session, single-user, one-thing-at-a-time kind of service in every area of telecommunication. What do you think? This occurred to me after my experiences trying to use such limited ("Glaucomic"?) services as single-window VT terminals in a work environment as well as telephone services that will not do what I needed to do, such as view several different screens of data simultaneously, which I could do easily with X/Windows -- but _NOT_ with MS Windows -- and as try to contact several different people by phone at the same time. In an environment where you cannot use (read "Prohibited from using") paper to take notes from one screen to compare with other screens of info, it gets exceedingly frustrating, having to call up different displays while trying to remember all the details of all the other screens -- this is from my experiences with Consilium's Worsktream on VAX/VMS -- and trying to keep notes for all the people on the phone as well -- on a dedicated 5E PBX switch -- as well. (example: What takes 1-2 hours with POTS terminals takes me 10-30 minutes with X/Windows, even with paper for notes.) Quick personal opinion: In a job where one is expected to do several things at once, and quickly, POTS wastes a lot of time and money! Let's get out of the single-screen, single user, per use Legacy mentality. jd ("opinionated, aint he?") jdebert@hypatia.com Don't read Spam! EAT IT! ------------------------------ From: Telic Subject: Communications Technology Magazines Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 02:20:25 GMT Organization: NETCOM Canada Some titles have been added to this list of free publications... # Data Communications: Global Enterprise Networking. # Communication News: Solutions for Today's Networking Decision Makers. # Wireless Telecom. # Satellite Communications: International Satellite Business Journal. # Sound & Communications: The Magazine for Contractors and Consultants. # Computer & Communications OEM: Opportunities, Technology, Strategies. # Portable Design and Communications: Strategies, Technologies, and Products for Mobile Computing. # Access Control & Security Systems Integration. # NetworkWorld: Networking Strategies for the Enterprise. # LAN Times: The Newsmagazine of Enterprise Distributed Computing. # InfoWorld Canada: End-User Solutions for Business. # Computing Canada: The Newspaper for IT Management. # ComputerWorld: The Voice of the I.S. Community. # BackOffice Magazine: The Independent Guide to Windows NT Computing. # VAR Business: Products, Technology & Business for Solution Selling. # Canadian Computer Wholesaler: The Monthly for Resellers. # CIO Canada: Insights for Information Executives. # TeleProfessional: The Forum For Call Center Information. # Vision Systems Design: Imaging & Vision Technologies for Engineers and Integrators. # Laser Focus World: Optics, Electro-optics, and Optoelectronics. # Security Technology & Design. # Control Engineering: Control, Instrumentation & Automation Systems. # Buildings: Facilities Construction and Management. # Systems Contractor News: The Newsmagazine for the Sound, Video, and Electronic Systems Business. # Design News: America's Best-Read Design Engineering Magazine. # Design Product News (DPN). # EE Product News: Product News for Prototype Design. # Computer Design: Information, Intelligence, and Insight for Electronic Design Decision Makers. # EDN: The Design Magazine of the Electronics Industry. # Electronic Products and Technology (ep&t). # Canadian Electronics: News and Products Journal. # Electronic Engineering (EE) Times. # Military & Aerospace Electronics. # Microwave Journal. # Test & Measurement World: The Magazine for Quality in Electronics. # Evaluation Engineering: Electronic Evaluation and Test. # Compliance Engineering: For International Regulatory Compliance. # Integrated System Design: Incorporating IC & EDA Technologies. # Solid State Technology. # Real-Time Engineering: For 32- & 64-bit Real-Time Software Developers. # RTC: For the Embedded and Real-Time Open Systems Computer Industry. # Security Distributing & Marketing (SDM). # Security Sales: Management Resource for the Professional. The only requirement for receiving any or all of these periodicals is for you to send a qualified application form to the publisher(s). You receive the publications, never paying a subscription fee -- even for subsequent renewals. For copies of all Free Subscription Application Forms, for the above 40+ publications, send your clearly printed name and address with $5 USA funds, cheque or money order (NOT CASH) to... TELIC 37 Fuller Avenue, 2nd Floor, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M6R 2C4 ** Sorry, no PO's, Credit Cards, or C.O.D. ** Please allow up to 4..6 weeks postal delivery ------------------------------ From: roamer1@pobox.com (Stanley Cline) Subject: Re: Payphone Prices Going Up Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 03:11:32 GMT Reply-To: roamer1@pobox.com On Sat, 11 Oct 1997 01:47:45 -0700, in comp.dcom.telecom Linc Madison wrote: > "Effective 10/7/97, local calls 35 cents" was plastered on the phone > near the coin slot. Sure enough, I had to pay $0.35 for this call. *Already*?! Was this a LEC payphone, or a COCOT? Around here (Atlanta), I checked about five payphones over the past two days, and all were still charging 25c/call. Granted, Atlanta's local calling areas, rates, etc., are somewhat different than California's, but still ... > California law is explicit and clear: local payphone calls are to be > no more than $0.20 for the first 15 minutes. However, the federal law > now pre-empts local authority, even though that pre-emption is > blatantly unconstitutional: a local call is clearly INTRAstate There are isolated cases where a local call can be intERstate (Chattanooga, Memphis, etc.), but traditionally these have been handled by agreements between the PSCs/PUCs of the states in question (TN/GA for Chattanooga, etc.) I still agree that local payphone rates are a local matter, just like local residence/business line rates are, and deserve handling by the STATES, withOUT FCC interference. One concern I have (and one the COCOT authorities at the GA PSC also share) is that it will be much harder to police the uniform application of local call rates at COCOTs, such as the ones that treat numbers in NPA 706 local to Atlanta as "toll". Now, a COCOT owner could, say, charge 25c for calls inside 404/770, and charge 35c/min to Jasper 706-692, and *supposedly* the PSC could do nothing about it -- even though Jasper is as local as Marietta or Newnan, according to the GPSC's edicts. (Argument: "Market rate" ... "If Jasper can pull in 35c/min, let's charge it.") This seems like it may lead to rate abuse in California, Chicago, and other "zone rate" states/areas, or local calling areas that straddle NPAs, such as Atlanta and Chattanooga (where I've seen the same damn thing, with certain local NXXs being charged as toll.) Hopefully the FCC will understand that in flat-rate calling areas, such as Atlanta, all *local* calls must be charged the same, regardless of distance, and will allow the GPSC and other regulators to fine/turn off COCOTs that "overcharge" on specific local calls, such as the 706-local areas. For zone/band rates, the application of rates must still be uniform -- calls to point A in band C should be charged the same as calls to point B in band C, even if they are in different NPAs, etc. > And today we see the FCC continuing with its ridiculous rules on > reimbursement to payphone owners for calls to toll-free numbers. COCOT owners do not deserve windfalls, particularly when they have been at best ignorant and at worst scummy scam artists, over the years. > First of all, the per-call charge is ridiculously high, even at $0.28, Even 28c/call won't guarantee that COCOTs will allow 888/877/etc... (some in Atlanta STILL DO NOT ALLOW 888 AS FREE, AND CHARGE AS MUCH AS $3/CALL, IN CLEAR *DEFIANCE* OF GPSC AND FCC ORDERS!) > and secondly, it shouldn't be a flat fee per call. I think that a > rate of $0.05 for the first minute and $0.01 per additional minute At the very least, there should be reduced rates for paging carriers. Requiring calls to pager numbers to carry the same charges as to other numbers is messy and could result in substantial increases in pager charges, or paging carriers blocking 800 access from payphones. One solution suggested has been to implement a "caller-pays-from-payphone" 8xx NPA; that defeats the purpose of 8xx NPAs, to allow calls withOUT coins or additional payment to the caller. > Payphone deregulation has been an unmitigated failure, far beyond any > problems with deregulation of other aspects of the telephone system. > What benefits has the CONSUMER seen from payphone deregulation?? Absolutely NONE. The COCOT, and associated inmate-calling and AOS, industries are among the sleaziest, worst-telecom-educated parts of the telecom industry. Payphone "deregulation", IMO, amounts to a license to abuse the public, even more so than it already has. It cannot be allowed to happen. Stanley Cline somewhere near Atlanta, GA, USA roamer1(at)pobox.com http://scline.home.mindspring.com/ spam not wanted here! help outlaw spam - see http://www.cauce.org/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 00:49:35 -0400 From: blw1540@aol.com (Bruce Wilson) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Payphone Prices Going Up In article , Telecom@Eureka.vip. best.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) writes: > California law is explicit and clear: local payphone calls are to be > no more than $0.20 for the first 15 minutes. However, the federal law > now pre-empts local authority, even though that pre-emption is > blatantly unconstitutional: a local call is clearly INTRAstate > commerce, and thus not subject to federal regulation. Congress and > the FCC have unquestionably overstepped their legal authority. For many years the toll separations process (revenue sharing) between the LECs and AT&T recognized that local exchange plant was both that and an integral part of the long-distance network; and the Federal government's long taken the position that anything which affects or is affected by interstate commerce is fully within its jurisdiction. (FWIW, I agree with you that the Feds should keep their noses out of any aspect of setting local rates, including the cost of making local calls from pay phones.) Bruce Wilson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #283 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Oct 16 22:25:09 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA19360; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 22:25:09 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 22:25:09 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199710170225.WAA19360@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #284 TELECOM Digest Thu, 16 Oct 97 22:25:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 284 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson San Diego LEC Competition "A Mess" (Tad Cook) New US West Calling Card (73115.1041@compuserve.com) Employment Opportunity: Network Management Tech in Chicago (M. Kennedy) Question re: ROLM CBX (Lincoln DeCoursey) Re: "Sky Word Plus" - How Does it Work? (Ben Combee) Re: New Cellular Phone Experience So Far (Brett Frankenberger) Re: New Cellular Phone Experience So Far (Jay R. Ashworth) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: San Diego LEC Competition "A Mess" Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 22:55:18 PDT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) San Diego Area Local Telephone Competition a Mess, Watchdog Group Says By Bradley J. Fikes, North County Times, Escondido, Calif. Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News SAN DIEGO--Oct. 15--Competition for local telephone service has turned into a confusing mess for consumers, according to a report released Tuesday by the watchdog Utility Consumers Action Network. Poor customer service, hard-to-understand pricing structures and inaccurate information bedevil San Diegans who want to choose another local carrier than the previous monopoly, Pacific Bell, said Barry Fraser, a UCAN staff attorney who prepared the report. Sprint, MCI and AT&T "seem to be fumbling the ball" in the local markets, Fraser said at a press conference Tuesday. "They're providing mediocre customer service, they don't seem to be geared up and ready to market these services. They lay some of the blame on Pac Bell, Pac Bell lays some of the blame on the competitors. I think the blame needs to be spread everywhere," including the regulators who failed to plan adequately for competition, he said. The report recommends creating an independent entity to keep an eye on local telephone service and provide low-cost information on services and prices. This information, in turn, would allow California consumers and businesses to easily compare the service provider offerings, thus aiding market forces to drive down prices and increase service quality. The cost would be $850,000 annually for the first five years, and gradually phased out during the next five years, the report estimated. After that time, the entity "will have developed the required expertise and authority to either sell its information or secure private grants," the report stated. UCAN normally receives two or three complaints a month on local service, Fraser said, but the numbers began rising after local telephone competition was introduced last December. UCAN received 31 complaints over the summer, according to the report. Fraser said the increase in complaints was mirrored at the California Public Utilities Commission. "We're concerned there's going to be so much confusion in the marketplace and so much perception of confusion in the marketplace that people are simply going to decide it's not worth it to even look at the competitors," Fraser said. The report blasted the local call rate structure, which include arcane terminology such as "local toll calls", "zone use measure," "mileage bands" and "IntraLATA." These make it difficult to make an apples-to-apples cost comparison. "The `transaction costs' involved in researching and then switching service far outweigh most of the saving available to small customers," the report stated. However, Fraser said, even under the current system, many consumers who do their homework and compare the various plans can gain"significant cost savings." "San Diegans who make a lot of calls to Oceanside and other outlying areas... I would encourage those people to make the switch and test the waters," Fraser said. The report ranked MCI as the best local carrier. MCI was praised for having the best prices for daytime toll calls of 17 miles or more and the lowest monthly fee. Pacific Bell got the worst rating, criticized for having the highest rates for local service and the most complicated rate price structure. But even MCI's rating left room for improvement. Moreover, UCAN staff attorney Charles Carbone said he was transferred to MCI's long distance service without permission or "slammed," when he signed up for MCI's local service. Despite repeated calls to MCI, Carbone reported, the problem had not been corrected. UCAN will ship a price and service comparison guide free to those who send a self-addressed stamped enveloped to UCAN headquarters at 1717 Kettner Blvd. 105, San Diego CA 92101. False or erroneous billing by third parties is a common complaint in the report. It said Pacific Bell allowed billing of customers for calls fraudulently placed from prisons and mental institutions, using a long distance carrier, ZPDI. Pacific Bell told those who complained to contact ZPDI to apply for refunds, "thus forcing many customers to deal with an out of state company with even worse customer service procedures than Pacific Bell." UCAN reported that a member's survey of 20 neighbors revealed 16 had received an erroneous billing from ZPDI, as well as members of UCAN staff and Pacific Bell employees. After the scam was reported in the press, Pacific Bell said it had forced ZPDI to issue a large amount of refunds, but has not disclosed how many refunds were issued, the UCAN report said. ZPDI is far from the only company that bills unauthorized charges, according to the report. "These charges are often labeled `conference service' or `collect' call, but are generally connected to overseas phone scams, sex-line calls or scams similar to that accomplished through ZPDI," the report said. "Generally, if customers complain to Pacific Bell, the charges are removed. However, many customers either do not see the charges or consider the $1-$5 as too small to bother contesting. Because it may take repeated calls to get through to a Pacific Bell representative, many customers have little incentive to take the time necessary to contest a charge." Pacific Bell termed the report, while well-intentioned, "misleading," because many of the problems it referred to have in fact been solved. "The bottom line is, there is competition," said Pacific Bell spokesman Maurice Luque. "You can change your local service tomorrow." Pacific Bell has the capacity to handle daily about 4,000 customer requests for service with a competitor, and now gets about 2,000 daily, Luque said. Pacific Bell's parent company, SBC Communications, has spent about $1.2 billion dollars to ensure its service areas are opened to competition, Luque said. Beside obeying the law, Luque said Pacific Bell has an economic incentive to ensure fair competition in its markets: it can only offer long distance service when regulators decide competition is effective at the local level. ------------------------------ From: 73115.1041@NOSPAMcompuserve.com Subject: New US West Calling Card Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 02:21:38 GMT I received an unsolicited "calling card" in the mail from US West. (Well, I didn't ask for the one they sent six months ago either, but since I'm a residential subscriber I suppose they just assumed ...) Anyway, it appears that US West is trying to cash in on the debit calling card fad. They've redesigned the traditional embossed "calling card." The new card no longer has embossed numbers and names, but rather uses printed data. (I've noticed this on a number of other non-credit cards I have received recently. I wonder if it's cheaper to produce the card or are they trying to avoid anyone attempting to use the card in a retail transaction? The card still has the standard mag stripe on the back.) The letter enclosed makes a big deal about US Wests .20/minute anywhere rate. Which actually isn't bad for a card that doesn't have to be prepaid. Closer inspection reveals this not to be such a good deal. Local Calls within US West Region: .50/flat rate (Coin Calls are .25 now, likely to go up as US West has managed to get .35 in most other states) Local Calls elsewhere: .20/minute Long Distance .20/minute Directory .95/limited to two requests Message Delivery .95/message (I suspect this is where they intercept after 3 or 4 rings) Conference Call .40/minute/participant SpeedDial .20/minute (No explanation for this.) So far, so good. The local rates aren't great but basic calls are ok. But then the fine print: All calls other than US West local are surcharged 80 cents. Ouch. That makes calls less than 5 or so minutes very expensive. They also caution that these rates only apply if you use the US West 800 number. Calls using the traditional 0+ are billed at the rates of the carrier handling the call. Oh, and one final item. The letter that came with the previous card made a big deal about how secure the card was because the PIN was not printed on the card. This card has a special area on the back reserved to allow you to write your PIN on. Go figure. Ken ------------------------------ From: Michael Kennedy Subject: Employment Opportunity: Network Management Technician in Chicago Date: 14 Oct 1997 20:57:30 GMT Organization: Great Lakes Technologies Great Lakes Data & Voice Technologies - a leading Value Added Reseller of network communications products and services across the USA - is looking to add to our Network Management Center in downtown Chicago. May you know someone or yourself that would be interested in this position. Thanks :-) http://www.greatlakestech.com Employment Requisition: NMC-0997 Description: Network Management Technician Type: Full Time Location: Chicago, IL. Date Required: Immediate Requestor: Don Franklin 312/258-0600 Ext. 17 Mailto: D.Franklin.GLT@worldnet.att.net This position requires a self-motivated person with excellent organizational skills who is experienced or educated in Wide Area Network (WAN) applications. Exceptional written and verbal skills are necessary, as the position requires extensive client interface. Basic knowledge of Microsoft Office Suite, Microsoft Project and Visio are helpful. Experience or knowledge of Local Area Network applications a plus. The Network Management Technician is responsible for remote monitoring, analyzing and troubleshooting client WAN's. The WAN's typically are hybrid applications that may consist of voice, data and voice over frame relay applications and incorporate a variety of manufacturer's products including, but not limited to, 3COM, Micom, Hypercom, Bay Networks, Cisco, ADTRAN and Paradyne. PC knowledge and ability to quickly grasp various management applications is necessary. Additional duties include product configuration and light shipping and receiving. This is a position in a fast paced environment that requires a quick thinking individual that works well independently and who is able to be decisive under pressure. If you or someone you know is interested in this position, please respond via e-mail to requestor. ------------------------------ From: ldecours@frontiernet.net (Lincoln DeCoursey) Subject: Question re: ROLM CBX Date: 13 Oct 1997 16:07:51 GMT Organization: Frontier Internet Rochester N.Y. (716)-777-SURF My employer, a 50+ store grocery chain in western New York has a PBX in each location to handle in-store phone communication, as well as dial-in and dial-out. Additionally, the stores and offices are networked together in that from any phone in any of these systems, you can dial any given phone in any one of the systems by dialing 80-SS-XXX where SS is the store number and XXX is the extension to dial in that store. The phones utilized are standard AT&T analog phones. Each has a sticker on it which identifies the system as "ROLM CBX," and contains general instructions for picking up calls, transfering calls, holding calls, parking calls, etc. My question deals with the interconnectivity in the system and how it is achieved. I am unsure whether calls made to other premises are carried over the analog telco lines, or if there is some leased line implementation for the system, but I am intrigued by the ability to directly ring any given phone in any system. I would speculate that each system has an incoming line which picks up and then accepts some instruction (perhaps DTMF) as to the destination extension. My caller ID identified the number which the system used to generate an outgoing call from the system to my house. In redialing this number, I get a high pitched tone upon connection. I'd like to be able to identify how this interconnectivity works, and how to get into a location's system through this back-door, as opposed to the published phone number which connects to the receptionists. Any resources or instruction would be greatly appreciated. Lincoln DeCoursey ldecours@frontiernet.net ------------------------------ From: combee@techwood.org (Ben Combee) Subject: Re: "Sky Word Plus" - How Does it Work? Date: 16 Oct 1997 03:08:54 GMT Organization: Techwood Broadcasting Foundation -- Austin Bureau Reply-To: combee@techwood.org First, while I do work for Motorola's Paging group, these comments are strictly my own opinion and knowledge and do not represent the official voice of the company. On Tue, 14 Oct 1997 13:53:28 GMT, J.D. Baldwin wrote: > Obviously, this pager *must* be transmitting something. (Right?) I > imagine that it sends some sort of "here I am" code periodically, and > if it receives an acknowledgment, it "knows" it's in Full Service, > otherwise it makes its determination according to whether it can > "hear" other transmissions. > Any information or pointers would be greatly appreciated, and probably > interesting besides. Your description of the system is very close to reality. The protocol these guys use is called ReFLEX (TM), an adaptation of the FLEX (TM) protocol for two-way use. Each two-way and one-and-a-half-way pager has a small low-power transmitter on it that periodically sends a "I'm here" message to the system. It also sends back page acknowledgments and can negotiate redelivery of pages. The basic service areas are those locations that don't yet have receivers installed, so the pager can't communicate back to anyone. ReFLEX (TM) usually is deployed in the 900 MHz paging bands, what is called narrow-band PCS. It was originally setup for the Tango pager in Skytel's two way system that was started in 1996. However, poor sales and slow infrastructure investment caused them to suspend new customers for that. The 1.5-way pagers, since they put a lower burden on the network than 2-way pagers, were seen as a way to use that network while they were continuing their build-up. One thing to notice -- SkyTel is offering nationwide SkyWord Plus for a lot less than nationwide 1-way paging. This is possible because of lower transmitter usage. If your pager tells the system its in one area, the system can direct pages to just those transmitters instead of firing all the transmitters in the country! That saves a lot on bandwidth congestion. Benjamin L. Combee (combee@techwood.org) ...if the highlight of your day is prowling through signatures looking for pithy quotes or neat phrases, then consider a career with the IRS or NSA... ------------------------------ From: brettf@netcom.com (Brett Frankenberger) Subject: Re: New Cellular Phone Experience So Far Organization: Netcom On-Line Services Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 12:07:38 GMT In article , Lisa Hancock wrote: > 6) Be careful charging/recharging. NiCad batteries the phone uses can > develop a memory if not fully discharged then fully charged. They > suggested I leave the phone on to run down, then fully recharge it. > That makes sense to me, although it is a pain since it does require > some advance planning to allow one day to run down and one night to > recharge. This is a very common, and very unsubstantiated, urban legend. Under carefully controlled laboratory conditions, where you repeatedly partially dischange the cells to the *same level* each time, you can sometimes get a memory effect to appear, after a lot of cycles. Under normal random usage, in which you never fully discharge the batteries, but always discharge to a different level, the memory effect does not appear. (Also, most newer phones won't fully discharge the cells, prefering instead to shut themselves off when the voltage drops below a certain level.) Note that you have (probably) for years been partially discharging your car battery everytime you start your car, and then immediately recharging it (with the output of the alternator). It doesn't develop memory. (Of course, it's not NiCad either.) Brett Frankenberger brettf@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us (Jay R. Ashworth) Subject: Re: New Cellular Phone Experience So Far Date: 16 Oct 1997 15:15:50 GMT Organization: Ashworth & Associates On 15 Oct 1997 02:02:56 GMT, Lisa Hancock wrote: > Recently I got cellular phone service. I previously posted my experiences > dealing with the sales people. Now here's some notes on usage ... > > 1) How do people drive and talk? > For me at least, there's no way I can drive my car and talk on the > phone, it's simply too distracting with traffic. Yes, I know when we > drive we freely talk to the person next to us, but somehow it's > different on the phone. Considering all the times I was nearly > hit by a distracted driver talking on the phone, I don't know how > people do it. I can drive pretty decently while talking ... the problem for _me_ is navigation. I often hang up and discover that I was headed to somewhere I _often_ go, rather than where I was _actually_ going. ;-) > Dialing while driving is impossible, at least on my phone. The buttons > are pretty tiny, I noticed on other models the keypad is bigger. > (The phone does have a memory, which I assume does help dialing.) Yeah. I originally had one-touch dialing off on my PrimeCo phone. I changed my mind. My theory on this is that we develop a habit of ignoring the outside world when we press a phone receiver to our ear; this is usually a Good Thing ... but obviously, not in a car. Handsfree kits seem to mitigate this. > 2) The clock is deceiving: I am billed from [send] to [end] in whole > minutes. It takes a few seconds to release the call after you hit [end] > which can add another minute to the call. If you think the party didn't > answer and they did, you are billed for the call. Poor AMA on the part of your carrier. _My_ frustration is that the timer on my _digital_ CDMA phone from Qualcomm by way of PrimeCo _could_ give me actual time ... they just didn't _bother_ to engineer the system correctly. > 3) No quick hangups: From the wired phone, I often call people who I know > have answering machines, and hang up after 3 rings if I don't feel like > leaving a message. You can't do that on a cell phone because of the [end] > delay. Again; system level crappy engineering. > 4) Ringing delay. When someone calls me, they'll hear at least 3 rings > before the cell phone starts to ring. A lot of people these days don't > let phones ring very long before hanging up. I must instruct any > callers to let it ring a long time. If I'm driving, I'll need a moment > to get the phone out and to answer it. In a crowded location, I may > not hear the phone. This is a phone-hunting problem ... newer types of networks are better about it. > 6) Be careful charging/recharging. NiCad batteries the phone uses can > develop a memory if not fully discharged then fully charged. They > suggested I leave the phone on to run down, then fully recharge it. > That makes sense to me, although it is a pain since it does require > some advance planning to allow one day to run down and one night to > recharge. Not really. It's not "memory", per se. I've finally found a _good_ treatise on what's actually going on here. Check the sci.electronics FAQ, here: http://www.paranoia.com/~filipg/HTML/FAQ/BODY/F_Battery_info.html It explains what "memory effect" really means. Cheers, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "People propose, science studies, technology Tampa Bay, Florida conforms." -- Dr. Don Norman +1 813 790 7592 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #284 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Oct 17 23:33:03 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id XAA07120; Fri, 17 Oct 1997 23:33:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 23:33:03 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199710180333.XAA07120@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #285 TELECOM Digest Fri, 17 Oct 97 23:33:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 285 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson New C.O. in Madison, WI (Tad Cook) Book Review: "Doing More Business on the Internet" by Cronin (Rob Slade) Book Review: "Advancing HTML: Style and Substance" (Rob Slade) Answer Supervision? (Doug Terman) Re: Question re: ROLM CBX (Tom Watson) Re: Question re: ROLM CBX (Bill Ranck) Re: Question re: ROLM CBX (John Saxe) Re: Question re: ROLM CBX (John R. Levine) Re: New Cellular Phone Experience So Far (Peter Simpson) Re: New Cellular Phone Experience So Far (Bill Walker) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: New C.O. in Madison, WI Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 00:00:17 PDT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) New Ameritech Switching Center Opens in Madison, Wis. By Judy Newman, The Wisconsin State Journal Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News Oct. 17 -- Ameritech customers probably never missed a dial tone, but as of this week, their calls are now being handled by a sophisticated new switching center in Madison that cost $4.5 million, used one million feet of wire and took nearly six months to install. Picture the stacks in the University of Wisconsin Memorial Library, with row after row, floor upon floor of huge racks filled with books. That's what the old telephone equipment looked a bit like at the Ameritech switching center in downtown Madison. Wires and relay devices jammed the racks instead of texts and treatises, filling two floors of the seven-story building near the Capitol Square. Each time a customer made a phone call, a relay activated, making for thousands of constant clicking sounds. "This floor would just be banging away," said Ned Burkhalter, field operations group manager. The old equipment, containing 43,000 telephone lines, was installed starting in 1969. It worked in tandem with manual operators with cord switchboards, the kind satirized by comedienne Lily Tomlin's "Ernestine" character, who connected toll calls to rural parts of Dane County and the state until the mid-1970s. Each time a new service option was added, such as call-waiting, more hardware was shoved into the racks, Burkhalter said. That entire function, the switching center for 43,000 Ameritech lines from phones in downtown Madison, is now housed in a single cabinet bay, 41 feet long. It looks more like a line of lockers at a health club. It is the "central brain" for every phone call made into or out of the central city, except for government and UW offices. Beside it are seven additional cabinets. These coordinate calls that originate or terminate throughout the 608 area code, including those from long-distance carriers. They are sleek, smaller and modern because the system is now entirely digital, said Randy Pickering, director of customer business services. And if customers add new features, such as Caller ID or three-way calling, they're just programmed inside the switch. "It's all in the software," Pickering said. The modernized equipment needs only two employees to oversee it, half as many as the older version, Burkhalter said. The Downtown facility is the last of the six switching centers in Madison to go digital, and the most complicated, since it also houses equipment for the entire area code. Similar centers around the state also are in the process of digital conversion, which is expected to be completed by the end of 1998. And what happens to the miles of now-outdated phone wires and relays? They go to recycling centers, where the copper and gold they contain will be extracted. Ameritech could get $35,000 for the scrap metal, Burkhalter said. "We can recover quite a bit of money from a center like this," he said. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 10:37:52 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Doing More Business on the Internet" by Cronin BKDBSINT.RVW 970401 "Doing More Business on the Internet", Mary J. Cronin, 1995, 0-442-02047-3 %A Mary J. Cronin %C 115 Fifth Ave., New York, NY 10003 %D 1995 %G 0-442-02047-3 %I Van Nostrand Reinhold %O 800-842-3636 212-254-3232 fax: 212-254-9499 jjeng@vnr.com kydel@vnr.com %P 368 %T "Doing More Business on the Internet: How the Electronic Highway is Transforming American Companies" If not the original Internet business book, Cronin's "Doing Business on the Internet" is very close to it. Having suffered through dozens of ill-advised and basically ignorant tomes on the same subject, I approached this one with some trepidation. (Despite the difference in title, this is, essentially, a second edition.) I am left with a surprising question: with this very solid guide as a model, how did those other turkeys get so far off track? Cronin does not demonstrate a personal familiarity with the net, but the book is a compilation of experience from those with an Internet background. Solid advice is provided from those who have succeeded and, sometimes, those who failed. The orientation is businesslike, even in terms of net history. The material is comprehensive, covering everything from connectivity to personal use of the resource by employees. In the intervening years since the first publication, some of the examples have failed, and some have evolved. Gopher and WAIS (Wide Area Information Server) have taken a back seat to the Web, which now, at least, gets mentioned. Overall, though, this is still a classic reference for commercial activity on the net. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKDBSINT.RVW 970401 roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca slade@freenet.victoria.bc.ca link to virus, book info at http://www.freenet.victoria.bc.ca/techrev/rms.html Author "Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses" 0-387-94663-2 (800-SPRINGER) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 10:39:57 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Advancing HTML: Style and Substance" BKW3JI21.RVW 970401 "Advancing HTML: Style and Substance", World Wide Web Consortium, 1997, 0-56592-264-6, U$29.95/C$42.95 %A World Wide Web Consortium %C 103 Morris Street, Suite A, Sebastopol, CA 95472 %D Winter 1997 %E Rohit Khare khare@w3.org %G 0-56592-264-6 %I O'Reilly & Associates, Inc. %O U$29.95/C$42.95 800-998-9938 707-829-0515 fax: 707-829-0104 nuts@ora.com %P 254 p. %S World Wide Web Journal, Vol. 2, Issue 1 %T "Advancing HTML: Style and Substance" Not having a TV, I haven't seen the ad that has two geeks enthusing over dancing images and flaming fonts on the net, until they finally realize that neither has ever used any of these "kewl" sites. I can, however, fully sympathize with the sentiment being expressed. In fact, I was recently asked by this very company to comment on one of their Web sites, and pointed out that Lynx users were confronted by a column of uninformative "[IMAGE]" tags and not much else. So, I can heartily recommend those articles in this issue which anticipate the Sixth International World Wide Web Conference's theme of accessibility: those on usability, access for disabilities, and appropriate uses. So much for the substance part of the title. Many authors raced HTML (HyperText Markup language) 3.2 titles into print in anticipation of the official adoption of the standard. The pieces in this issue (particularly the overview by Musciano) at least have an official sanction. The specification for Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) has been less heavily promoted but may be more significant. As usual, there are other matters dealt with, such as the new Opera and Amaya browsers, and MNG (Multiple image Network Graphics). copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKW3JI21.RVW 970401 DECUS Canada Communications, Desktop, Education and Security group newsletters Editor and/or reviewer ROBERTS@decus.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca BCVAXLUG Envoy http://www.decus.ca/www/lugs/bcvaxlug.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 11:38:28 -0400 From: Doug Terman Subject: Answer Supervision? Dear Telecom Gurus, We have a T-1 which runs to a first tier carrier's POP. We are running a particular application that, based on an email msg., triggers our equipment to dial an overseas number through our switch. Once connected, our equipment calls -- again through our switch -- a second telephone number here in the States which has a database our client is trying to access. The two calls are then conferenced together by our switchgear. (I might add, however, this conferenced connection could be just an ordinary voice call and it's not relevant that we're feeding data to the overseas party.) Normally, in the past (about 20 days ago), when the line overseas was manually hung up, our equipment waited for a disconnect signal -- I believe what is called, "the bits go high." Typically, this signal arrived at our equipment about 13 seconds after the connection overseas was hung up. This then signaled our connection to the US number that was feeding data to also hang up. Both connections were then broken. However, starting sometime around the 20th of October, an inspection of our switch's call-progress logs showed that from the time the overseas party actually hung up until our equipment got the "bits go high" signal had magically increased from 12 to 32+ seconds. Just to insure that it was not the foreign PTT who had increased the timer from 12 to 32 seconds, I placed a couple of calls through another carrier on a POTS line. No problem. I got the reorder tone in 12 seconds. So what's going on? Is my wonderful first tier carrier "padding" the call by delaying "all bits go high" for another 15 to 20 seconds after receiving it from the foreign PTT? After all, since I'm still connected, even though the called party has hung up, so I'm paying for that connect time, even though no "information" is being converyed. I fully understand that answer supervision isn't "immediate" line cutoff when the called party hangs up, and I could live with 12 seconds, but I can't live with 32 seconds. Not with 100,000 minutes a month worth of international billing. Normally, I'd ask that any respondents reply directly to my email address, but this might be highly educational for the telco-savy- impaired listers (myself included) among us. Best to all, Doug Terman Operations Manager Antilles Engineering, Ltd. Tel. (802) 496-3812 Fax. (802) 496-3814 Snail Mail: PO Box 318 Warren, VT 05674 ------------------------------ From: tsw@cagent.com (Tom Watson) Subject: Re: Question re: ROLM CBX Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 11:35:32 -0700 Organization: CagEnt, Inc. In article , ldecours@frontiernet.net (Lincoln DeCoursey) wrote: > My employer, a 50+ store grocery chain in western New York has a PBX > in each location to handle in-store phone communication, as well as > dial-in and dial-out. Additionally, the stores and offices are > networked together in that from any phone in any of these systems, you > can dial any given phone in any one of the systems by dialing > 80-SS-XXX where SS is the store number and XXX is the extension to > dial in that store. > The phones utilized are standard AT&T analog phones. Each has a > sticker on it which identifies the system as "ROLM CBX," and contains > general instructions for picking up calls, transfering calls, holding > calls, parking calls, etc. > My question deals with the interconnectivity in the system and how it > is achieved. I am unsure whether calls made to other premises are > carried over the analog telco lines, or if there is some leased line > implementation for the system, but I am intrigued by the ability to > directly ring any given phone in any system. I would speculate that > each system has an incoming line which picks up and then accepts some > instruction (perhaps DTMF) as to the destination extension. My caller > ID identified the number which the system used to generate an outgoing > call from the system to my house. In redialing this number, I get a > high pitched tone upon connection. > I'd like to be able to identify how this interconnectivity works, and > how to get into a location's system through this back-door, as opposed > to the published phone number which connects to the receptionists. > Any resources or instruction would be greatly appreciated. Three answers: For the caller ID thing: I suspect that outbound from the PBX is directed to trunk lines that are "one way" configured in the PBX. When you get a call from the PBX, it goes out on these trunks which are different from the inbound trunks that are listed in the phone book. Upon calling these trunks back, you may get into the maintence area of the PBX, or a modem external (even internal) that picks up instead of the PBX. For the dial '80...' thing. What happens is that every store has an internal program that absorbs the store number and the extension. Based on the store number it picks a trunk. If the two stores are directly connected, it siezes the trunk, and forwards the station number down the line. The receiving PBX takes the digits (on the "tie trunk") and connects to the station requested. If the two stores aren't connected, the PBX probably routes the whole thing to a PBX that is further up the org chart (home office?) which is connected to the store in question. The procedure continues from there. Mostly it is a matter of setting up the routes for a given dial pattern. Back doors. It depends. Sometimes there is an outside number that answers and gives out the "dial tone" of the PBX. You then dial into it as an "extension". At times these ports need passwords (4 digit numbers). Since these ports (there is a fancy name for them I don't remember) allow one to (possibly) dial out of the PBX, they are not typically given to anyone but those "in the know". Sometimes experimentation (and possibly social engineering) can yield these. As always "use with care" because if something goes wrong, YOU will be blamed for the problem (experience here!!). tsw@cagent.com (Home: tsw@johana.com) Please forward spam to: annagram@hr.house.gov (my Congressman), I do. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think you are referring to 'DISA' which means Direct Inward Service Access' or something like that. And believe me you, those backdoors can be a real can of worms or nest of hornets if the 'wrong person(s)' find out about them. If they are present in your application, change the password on a very regular basis. United Airlines, based here in the Chicago area, had a backdoor into 'Unitel' which was their corporate phone network back in the 1970-80's. By dialing a seven digit number in the north- west suburbs of Chicago, you got dialtone returned to you from the corporate switch. No passwords required to use it ... nothing. Just start dialing. There were *dozens* of three-digit 'tie-line' codes which gave connection to the tie-lines between the corporate office and airports all over the USA. Once on the centrexes (in some cases, and PBXs in other cases) at those airports, one could then dial '9' and go out locally as desired. Most of them had WATS lines accessible with some code, however you could also use corporate's WATS lines without bothering to first grab a tie-line to one of the branches. In addition to '9' at corporate level which did almost nothing outside the town of Elk Grove, IL where it was located, corporate had metro lines for Chicago, FX lines for New York, Denver and a couple other places, all the aforementioned tie-lines to airports everywhere, their own set of WATS lines, etc. Pick any three digit number off of that back door dialtone it seems, and you got a new dial tone from somewhere. A couple of phreaks sat down and actually charted it all out, making a list of every three digit code and where it went. In a few cases the only way they could tell was by dialing three digits off of the back door dialtone, getting a new dialtone, dialing the 0 operator and asking 'who are you?' ... and some of the responses were downright strange. One code connected to a sort of bizarre, old-fashioned dial tone which then would only accept two digits. They never could get an answer no matter what two digits they dialed, nor from dialing the operator. Finally one day, one of the calls there got answered by someone saying 'hello'; they had reached an aircraft hangar in Nevada somewhere which according to the person answering the phone was not occupied 'very much' or used regularly. Then one tie-line code allowed dialing '0' and the operator who answered said she was the operator at 'city hall, in Reno, Nevada'. Why a tie-line from United's corporate office to city hall in Reno? I have no idea. Almost every one of the airports reachable via a three digit tie-line code themselves had tie-lines going various interesting places. Some were just tie-lines back to corporate, but others went to things like the local Federal Aviation Administration's offices. Off of the centrex at the airport in Seattle one code produced a dialtone to which when dialed an operator responded 'Boeing Aircraft, may I help you?' Checking out her tie-lines (reached by dialing the tie-line from Seattle airport to Boeing) got various Boeing sales offices in the USA; got a dialtone that was later identified as 'Canadian WATS', and a few other charming things. If you went out from one of the airports to the FAA's centrex, there would always be a few tie-lines waiting for you there. Generally the audio quality stayed good for about three levels deep; that is you were able to break the dial tone with accuracy to about the third tie-line down in the web; from the corporate back door to an airport to something else beyond that. As a comparison, imagine today's World Wide Web and all the links you might visit, and every link offers a few more links at the press of a couple keys. That was Unitel; dial any link you wanted and there were always a couple more at the distant end waiting to be examined. **And no passcode at all on the backdoor**. Just wide open; because I suspect the executives at UAL would have been burdened having to learn a passcode. The first order of business on discovering this fountain of comm- unications potential was to detirmine *what number* was used for the outgoing side of the extender. Both the incoming side and the outgoing side were simply centrex extensions at corporate. That was easily detirmined by placing a call out to 9-0+ some long distance number; telling the operator to make it person to person to a fictious name, and requesting that she 'leave word' if the party was unavailable. The operator called the number, asked for Mr. Jones, and on not reaching him told the person answering to leave word for him to call 'Operator 7 in Chicago' (meaning charge the number being called) and ask for (phone number). Thank you operator, now the phone nunmber for the outgoing side of the extender is known. So after a few months, when the simpletons finally came to the conclusion their extender was being abused what did they do to thwart the phreaks? Simply flip it around and reverse the inbound and outbound lines. Of course, when the phreaks saw they were no longer getting an answer -- just open ringing -- from the number they had been using, they started dialing the other number instead and were 'back in business' the same day. Finally security people at Illinois Bell got involved after a couple million dollars in fraud calls had gone through. IBT made an example of a couple phreaks and told United to get their act together also. Shortly after that Unitel underwent a major overhaul. The old system known as 'progressive dialing' (one dialtone leads to the next dialtone) was abandoned in favor of a new computer which required not only a passcode (easy enough to obtain by social engineering) but also a full seven digit number before it would go away silently and act on your request before opening the talk path. The airports all had three digit prefixes of the form '732' (as in SEAttle) and '673' (as in ORD/Ohare) followed by four digit extensions, and no more jumping off at the distant end, thank you, and using *their* 9-level or *their* WATS. There were in the 1970-80's some absolutely unmitigated disasters where phreaks and 'WATS extenders' were concerned. Every major corporation was hit with millions of dollars in fraud. General Motors took it very hard as did United States Steel, Montgomery Ward and others. It is rare you see one these days, but in the event your company actually uses them, I can only recommend *extreme* caution in where they connect and who is allowed to get near them. PAT] ------------------------------ From: ranck@joesbar.cc.vt.edu (Bill Ranck) Subject: Re: Question re: ROLM CBX Date: 17 Oct 1997 12:38:55 GMT Organization: Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia Lincoln DeCoursey (ldecours@frontiernet.net) wrote: > can dial any given phone in any one of the systems by dialing > 80-SS-XXX where SS is the store number and XXX is the extension to > dial in that store. > The phones utilized are standard AT&T analog phones. Each has a > sticker on it which identifies the system as "ROLM CBX," and contains > general instructions for picking up calls, transfering calls, holding > calls, parking calls, etc. Are you *sure* those are standard AT&T analog phones? I ask because my university has a Rolm CBX and the phones are definitely not standard analog phones, although it is possible to have analog lines in the system so maybe you are correct. > My question deals with the interconnectivity in the system and how it > is achieved. I am unsure whether calls made to other premises are > carried over the analog telco lines, or if there is some leased line > implementation for the system, but I am intrigued by the ability to > directly ring any given phone in any system. I would speculate that > each system has an incoming line which picks up and then accepts some > instruction (perhaps DTMF) as to the destination extension. My caller I doubt your speculation. We have several switches on campus, and one or two located on the other end of the state, and the interconnects between them are all dedicated. In the case of the off campus nodes it is via a leased line (T1 or better I think). Your system is probably similar. > ID identified the number which the system used to generate an outgoing > call from the system to my house. In redialing this number, I get a > high pitched tone upon connection. What the switch presents as caller-ID info is programmable in the switch. It may bear no relation to anything. > I'd like to be able to identify how this interconnectivity works, and > how to get into a location's system through this back-door, as opposed > to the published phone number which connects to the receptionists. > Any resources or instruction would be greatly appreciated. What, does this newsgroup look like alt.2600 to you? Bill Ranck +1-540-231-3951 ranck@vt.edu Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, Computing Center ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 09:08:15 -0400 From: John Saxe Subject: Re: Question re: ROLM CBX Why am I reminded of the time I headed off our receptionist from transferring a call to "extension 10xxx"? This sounds like a cracker surfing for a dial tone to me. ------------------------------ Date: 17 Oct 1997 02:58:16 -0000 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Question re: ROLM CBX Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y. In article you write: > My employer, a 50+ store grocery chain in western New York has a PBX Hmmn, Wegmans? Or maybe Tops? > I'd like to be able to identify how this interconnectivity works, and > how to get into a location's system through this back-door, as opposed > to the published phone number which connects to the receptionists. > Any resources or instruction would be greatly appreciated. It sounds like they're using a system known as DISA (Direct Inter System Access or something like that.) When you call a DISA number, it answers with a tone at which point you, or more typically a calling PBX, send a DTMF passcode followed by the extension number desired. It's a very common facility used to allow direct extension dialing among PBXes in multiple locations, since it can use regular phone lines with no special features from the telco. It's also a notorious security hole since far too often the DISA passcodes are short and easily guessed, and the class of service on DISA trunks not properly restricted so that once you've entered the passcode you can dial 9 and then call outside anywhere. Some people consider this a feature so that employees working at home can call the PBX and then make business-related toll calls through the PBX at the company's direct dial rate, but phone hackers love to look for DISA ports to abuse for outdial to exciting foreign countries. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 640 Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl, Finger for PGP key, f'print = 3A 5B D0 3F D9 A0 6A A4 2D AC 1E 9E A6 36 A3 47 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Did you know when AT&T first started selling a new PBX about 1975 called 'Dimension' it had DISA in it and even the AT&T sales reps were unaware of the 'feature'. Furthermore, every single one had its passcode defaulted to the factory code '1234'. No one told the sales reps, so none of them told the customers who bought a Dimension, usually for the purpose of replacing their old manual cordboards. Dimension PBXs were going in all over the place and each one had a seven digit number assigned to the DISA port. Phreaks found out right away and were using those remote access ports in many cases when the system administrators were **unaware that such a feature was even available and installed on their system**. Whoopee! Most were big enough accounts that reconciling the monthly phone bill took the better part of a month; most had monthly bills from Illinois Bell in the range of five to six hundred thousand dollars anyway and 'a couple thousand dollars' in fraud calls was not immediatly noticed. After Dimension had been on the street for about six months, the manure started hitting the wind stream ... as telecom admins were discovering fraud up the kazooey. Calls to their AT&T account representatives did no good; the reps did not know what they were talking about, at least at first. One victim in Chicago was the Chicago and Northwestern Railroad which got hit for about four hundred thousand in fraud over three months. Illinois Bell security guys were chasing all over the midwestern United States looking for phreaks and they finally wound up writing it off. It turns out a smart employee had been cruising around the switch area one day and filched a couple of manuals which he photocopied for other phreaks. If you have a DISA port or otherwise a way of accessing your dial tone, be very, very careful, and keep a close audit trail. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Peter_Simpson@3com.com Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 06:17:36 -0400 Subject: Re: New Cellular Phone Experience So Far In article , Lisa Hancock wrote: > 6) Be careful charging/recharging. NiCad batteries the phone uses can > develop a memory if not fully discharged then fully charged. They > suggested I leave the phone on to run down, then fully recharge it. > That makes sense to me, although it is a pain since it does require > some advance planning to allow one day to run down and one night to > recharge. And then Brett Frankenberger wrote: > This is a very common, and very unsubstantiated, urban legend. Under > carefully controlled laboratory conditions, where you repeatedly > partially dischange the cells to the *same level* each time, you can > sometimes get a memory effect to appear, after a lot of cycles. Under > normal random usage, in which you never fully discharge the batteries, > but always discharge to a different level, the memory effect does not > appear. (Also, most newer phones won't fully discharge the cells, > prefering instead to shut themselves off when the voltage drops below > a certain level.) The truth is somewhere between the above two statements. Memory is not, as Brett points out, the problem. Instead, the problem is growth of conductive "whiskers" that, over time, connect the positive and negative plates of the NiCd cell, shorting it and reducing its output voltage to zero. Whisker growth seems to be encouraged by light usage patterns. Discharging the unit completely before fully recharging (but not over charging) lengthens the time before whisker growth becomes a problem. That's what those "battery conditioners" do. Lisa's supplier gave her the right procedure, but attached the wrong name to the problem. I'm the proud owner of several NiCd powered pieces of equipment and I am acutely aware of whisker growth. A web search will probably find several detailed articles on the phenomenon. I have been able to replace the NiCds in some of my gear with rechargeable alkalines (Ray-o-Vac "Renewal" brand) and have been very satisfied with the performance. Regards, Peter, KA1AXY ------------------------------ From: Bill_Walker@qualcomm.com (Bill Walker) Subject: Re: New Cellular Phone Experience So Far Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 15:15:11 -0700 Organization: QUALCOMM, Inc. In article , jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us (Jay R. Ashworth) wrote: > Poor AMA on the part of your carrier. _My_ frustration is that the > timer on my _digital_ CDMA phone from Qualcomm by way of PrimeCo > _could_ give me actual time ... they just didn't _bother_ to engineer > the system correctly. Well, I guess you could call it bad "system level engineering", but we couldn't reengineer the business methods of the cellular carriers. Billing in U.S. cellular systems (and PCS systems, which follow the cellular model) is typically done offline by a system that reads a tape (or other media) containing Call Detail Records generated by the cellular system. This means that the cellular system has no knowledge of: 1) At what point in the call the carrier starts billing (depending on how much call setup information is reported in the Call Detail Records). 2) At what point in the call the carrier stops billing (ditto. Is it when the air interface is released, or when the PSTN side of the call is released?) 3) what rates the carrier may be charging. Now, _if_ the cellular infrastructure were expected to have that information, then I'd agree that it was a failing of system design for us to not have provided a way for the infrastructure to convey that information to the phone. Bill Walker, QUALCOMM, Inc., San Diego, CA USA Bill_Walker@qualcomm.com Support the anti-spam amendment. Join at ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #285 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Oct 20 22:42:22 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA17868; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 22:42:22 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 22:42:22 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199710210242.WAA17868@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #286 TELECOM Digest Mon, 20 Oct 97 22:42:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 286 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Sprint Slime Continues (Babu Mengelepouti) Enterprise Numbers (Stan Schwartz) Help! Interface Error With ZyXEL U-1496 (Alick Sadekov) Re: San Diego LEC Competition "A Mess" (Mike Fox) Re: New Cellular Phone Experience So Far (Frank G. Pitt) Re: New Cellular Phone Experience So Far (SimGraphics) Re: New Cellular Phone Experience So Far (Christopher Herot) Re: New Cellular Phone Experience So Far (Louis Raphael) Re: New Cellular Phone Experience So Far (Stanley Cline) Re: Question re: ROLM CBX (Chris Boone) Re: "Sky Word Plus" - How Does it Work? (Mark Brukhartz) Re: "Sky Word Plus" - How Does it Work? (Travis Dixon) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 09:07:26 -0400 From: Babu Mengelepouti Reply-To: dialtone@vcn.bc.ca Organization: US Secret Service Subject: Sprint slime continues Yesterday, I wanted to place a call to Canada. I have an account with Sprint, and have had one for many years, which I access by dialling their PIC code (10333) to place calls on that account. And I have the Sprint Sense plan. I was aware of calls to Canada being advertised at 10 cents per minute on weekends, but was wary of whether or not I actually would be charged that rate given the problems that have recently been reported in the Digest with respect to Sprint's rates on Canada calls. So I decided to call Sprint on their toll-free number (18008774646). After wading through an IVR system seemingly designed not to connect me to a human, and after frustratedly hitting "0" three times in a row (to a rude repsonse of "That is NOT a valid option!") I finally was connected to a "customer service" representative. He informed me that their "systems were down" and that he would be happy to answer any "general" questions. Well, general enough, I thought, wanting to know a rate. So I said that I was on Sprint Sense and asked if weekend calls to Canada were at ten cents per minute. "Well, I don't know," he hemmed and hawed. "When did you sign up for the program?" I told him a couple of years ago. "Well, you might not be on the NEW plan." "And what is the new plan," I asked. "Well, with the OLD plan, calls to Canada are 40 or 50 cents a minute, I don't remember which, but with the NEW plan, they're ten cents a minute on weekends." I began to smell a rat. "You mean," I asked, "that I have been a customer for years, and you're charging me more than a new customer?" "Umm... well," the Sprint rep said, as he began to get uncomfortable, "We couldn't switch you to the new plan without your telling us, we wouldn't know you WANT it ..." WANT it? Excuse me? Why would I WANT to pay "40 or 50 cents a minute" ratehr than ten cents per minute? Sprint's questionable business practices continue ... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 10:55:27 PDT From: Stan Schwartz Reply-To: stannc@no*spam.yahoo.com Subject: Enterprise Numbers The company I'm working for was rudely awakened recently to find that one of their old "Enterprise" numbers was still in service (a nice charge of over $8.00 for a 15 minute call did the trick). Of course, the number pre-dates anyone who currently works in the telecom area, and for most of those people, the only information they have about Enterprise numbers is an article from the Telecom Digest Archives (thank you!). The charge appeared on the AT&T portion of the RBOC's bill, so we're currently being bounced between the two in order to try to get an answer as to who can shut the number down (let alone tell me what the number is!). A call to the AT&T operator asking for "Rate & Route" sounded like it aged the poor lady a bit. "We haven't had Rate & Route for 30 years." I explained my problem and gave her a few company names (there have been some mergers), and I heard her checking some list or flip chart. Still nothing. Does anyone know of a nice, searchable database for these things, and/or who maintains these numbers nowadays? This trip down "Telecom Memory Lane" has been brought to you by ... Stan (remove the obvious for reply e-mail) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If the charge is on the AT&T portion of the bill, that means AT&T submitted it to the RBOC and therefore AT&T should have backup documents on it somewhere. Without referring to it as the 'Enterprise' charge simply ask the AT&T representative to provide details on the charge in question, i.e. who called you, what number were they at when they called, what number did they ask for ... Generally the few remaining billing functions of Enterprise and Zenith numbers (there have been no new ones assigned for years and the old ones still out there have long been 'grandfathered') are handled by the people who handle billing validation for 'collect' and 'third-number billing' type calls. And after all, that is all that Enterprise was: the manual, operator-handled form of automatic reverse-charge billing we now know as '800 service'. A person would ask the operator for 'Enterprise whatever-number' (mine used to be Enterprise 4790 if memory serves but I discontinued it in the early 1970's) and that meant the operator would place a 'collect' call to some number but she was not required to ask permission of the called party regards the charges; just like 800 is today. The called party has already said they would pay for any/all calls to their number. You are correct that with the exception of some very popular -- used hundreds or perhaps thousands of times per day in all parts of the country -- Enterprise numbers, they were looked up by 'Rate and Route' in the office in Morris, IL. The very well- known Enterprise numbers were located in a reference 'flip chart' each operator had at her position. But you made a mistake also by asking the operator for 'Rate and Route'. It has not been gone for thirty years, but it probably has been gone ten or fifteen years. It used to be 815+161 I believe. In any event it was never publicly accessible; the people in Morris *never* spoke directly to the caller, only to the operator handling the call. If you were going to make any inquiry at all of the oper- ator you'd have been better off to simply ask something like, "I have an old listing for an Enterprise number; are those still in service; how could I find out?". Give the operators the words and phrases they expect to hear from the public in the order in which they expect to hear them for best results. Do not act like you know more that she does; you will put her on the defensive. There is another possibility which is that it is someone else's still active Enterprise number and it was encoded or put in the system with transposed digits somehow and wound up on your bill, so you may not even have such a number. Just go back to AT&T and ask for the call details: who, what number called from/to, etc. Let them muddle around with it awhile and they will either write it off or produce some answers. Naturally, watch subsequent bills as well. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Alick Sadekov Subject: Help! Interface Error With ZyXEL U-1496 Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 21:19:09 +0300 Organization: Moscow Cellular Communications Hi ALL! Please help me. If you know "ZyXEL U-1496E Plus" with microprogramm 6.13R here is a problem. I have 2 wire leased line and I need to connect two DTE which have the next signals on their pins (see below). May be some of you know what AT commands do I have to load in order to make it work. DTE has V.24 interface, speed 2400 using noninverted bit stream. Using default profiles (for 2 wire LL), test of DTE tells me that I have interface error. Or may be it does not work at all? DTE SIDE MODEM SIDE SDL (ST7I) 25-PIN MALE CONNECTOR (MODEM) RXD ----------- 3 Recieved Data DSR ----------- 6 Data Set Ready RTS ---------- 4 Reqest to send RL ---------- 21 Remote Loop request SF ---------- 11 Select frequency RATE ---------- 23 Data rate selector GND ---------- 7 Signal ground CTS ---------- 5 Clear To Send DTR ---------- 20 Data terminal ready NC 24 Not Connected TXC ---------- 15 Transmitter Timing RXC ----------- 17 Reciever Timing TXD ----------- 2 Transmitted Data LL ----------- 18 Local Loop request DCD ----------- 8 Data Carrier Detected GND Signal ground GND Signal ground GND Signal ground GND ----------- 7 Signal ground TM ----------- 25 Loop ready NC 22 Not Connected ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 08:38:27 -0400 From: Mike Fox Reply-To: mikefox@ibm.net Subject: Re: San Diego LEC Competition "A Mess" Tad Cook wrote: > San Diego Area Local Telephone Competition a Mess, Watchdog Group Says > SAN DIEGO--Oct. 15--Competition for local telephone service has turned > into a confusing mess for consumers, according to a report released > Tuesday by the watchdog Utility Consumers Action Network. > Poor customer service, hard-to-understand pricing structures and > inaccurate information bedevil San Diegans who want to choose another > local carrier than the previous monopoly, Pacific Bell, said Barry > Fraser, a UCAN staff attorney who prepared the report. Watching local competition unfold, I have become convinced that AT&T, MCI, et. al. are fumbling it on purpose for political reasons. Basically, these would-be competitors are not getting the deep discounts in the incumbent's prices that they wanted. They are then saying that their failure to get these discounts is why they can't compete in the local market. Of course, if they were successful now, that would undermine their plea for deeper discounts, so IMO it is not in the best interests of the would-be competitors to be succesful in the local market at this time. I think they figure the cost to them in lost short-term revenue opportunity in the not-so-lucrative consumer local market will be more than made up for by the steeper discounts they plan to wheedle by pointing to their failures as a reason that they should get even sweeter deals. Mike ------------------------------ From: frankie@mundens.gen.nz (Frank G. Pitt) Subject: Re: New Cellular Phone Experience So Far Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 18:38:35 +1200 Organization: Munden's Bar, The Pit, Cynosure Reply-To: frankie@mundens.gen.nz In article , was written: > In article , Lisa Hancock > wrote: >> 6) Be careful charging/recharging. NiCad batteries the phone uses can >> develop a memory if not fully discharged then fully charged. They >> suggested I leave the phone on to run down, then fully recharge it. >> That makes sense to me, although it is a pain since it does require >> some advance planning to allow one day to run down and one night to >> recharge. > This is a very common, and very unsubstantiated, urban legend. Under > carefully controlled laboratory conditions, where you repeatedly > partially dischange the cells to the *same level* each time, you can > sometimes get a memory effect to appear, after a lot of cycles. It's not an urban legend, it's a well known fact. I spent several years running an aircraft battery room, and we had to do a deep-cycle discharge on NiCad bateries for exactly this reason. In fact, it was this additional servicing requrement that made our airforce move to gel cel lead acid batteries instead. Thing is, flattening your average cell phone battery is not enough to prevent memory effect, because to properly deep cycle a NiCad battery you have to ensure that you short _each_cell_ when it goes below 0.2 volts, to prevent the cell from being charged up in _reverse_ by other cells discharging through it. So, unless you modify your cell phone battey pack to allow you to short each cell, your battery pack will get memory effect (or worse) whether you flatten it or not, and in fact flattening it without shorting each cell can cause _more_ damage to the battery than just allowing the memory effect. Of course, manufacturers want to sell more battery packs, so they don't tell you all this, and they make it as hard as possible for you to service your batteries properly. I have recovered many RC battery packs, many portable drill battery packs, etc, purely by unsealing them and doing a proper deep cycle discharge on them. Of course, you must determine that it _is_ an alkaline cell for this to be effective, it has no great effect on gel-cel lead acids, or NiFe batteries which a becoming more common as prices reduce. > Under normal random usage, in which you never fully discharge the > batteries, but always discharge to a different level, the memory > effect does not appear. It does, actually, but you're so used to it, you don't know that you could get much better performance if you maintained the battery properly. > (Also, most newer phones won't fully discharge the cells, > prefering instead to shut themselves off when the voltage drops below > a certain level.) This is good actually, as deep discharge done wrong, which is what most users would do, does more damage by reversing the charge on some cells. > Note that you have (probably) for years been partially discharging > your car battery everytime you start your car, and then immediately > recharging it (with the output of the alternator). It doesn't develop > memory. (Of course, it's not NiCad either.) And that's why it doesn't. The Nickel-Cadmiun battery uses a completely different chemical process than your lead acid car battery. Frank G. Pitt | When in doubt, wash | fun: frankie@mundens.gen.nz Wellington | (Orlando) | frankie@ibm.net New Zealand | | profit: fpitt@nz1.ibm.com ------------------------------ From: simg@netcom.com (SimGraphics) Subject: Re: New Cellular Phone Experience So Far Organization: SimGraphics Engineering, South Pasadena, California Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 17:26:17 GMT In article , Lisa Hancock wrote: > 1) How do people drive and talk? Hello Lisa! May I suggest an educational trip to Europe, say Paris? Over there people drive, talk on the phone, shift gears and finish their coffee and cruoisant, all at the same time. Good luck, Sylvester ------------------------------ From: Christopher_Herot/CAM/Lotus@lotus.com (Christopher Herot) Reply-To: herot@lotus.com Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 14:30:04 -0400 Subject: Re: New Cellular Phone Experience So Far > 1) How do people drive and talk? > For me at least, there's no way I can drive my car and talk on the > phone, it's simply too distracting with traffic. Yes, I know when we > drive we freely talk to the person next to us, but somehow it's > different on the phone. Considering all the times I was nearly > hit by a distracted driver talking on the phone, I don't know how > people do it. My theory is that the person in the seat next to you is as caught up in the driving experience as you are. Any human-factors students out there might find it an interesting research project to see if the nature of the conversation is different whether the other party is in the car or remote on the phone. I recommend that you buy a hands-free booster kit. They are remarkably cheap ($200 installed for my Motorola Micro-Tac) for the amount of electronics involved. Not only do you get hands-free talking, but you get a place to mount the phone where it is easy to dial and to answer incoming calls. You also get better reception and the peace of mind of not having an RF transmitter inches away from your brain. > 6) Be careful charging/recharging. NiCad batteries the phone uses can > develop a memory if not fully discharged then fully charged. They > suggested I leave the phone on to run down, then fully recharge it. > That makes sense to me, although it is a pain since it does require > some advance planning to allow one day to run down and one night to > recharge. Go back to the dealer and tell them how annoyed you are they sold you an obsolete battery technology. For a few bucks more you can upgrade to a NiMH or Li-Ion battery which will last a lot longer and has no memory effect. Alternatively, if you spend a lot of time in the car, most car-mount booster kits will charge the battery enough to last until you are back in the car. If any of these options seem expensive, you obviously haven't received your first bill. It changes your entire perspective. Christopher Herot ------------------------------ From: raphael@willy.cs.mcgill.ca (Louis Raphael) Subject: Re: New Cellular Phone Experience So Far Date: 20 Oct 1997 16:07:56 GMT Organization: McGill University Computing Centre Lisa Hancock (hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com) wrote: > 1) How do people drive and talk? > For me at least, there's no way I can drive my car and talk on the > phone, it's simply too distracting with traffic. Yes, I know when we > drive we freely talk to the person next to us, but somehow it's > different on the phone. Considering all the times I was nearly > hit by a distracted driver talking on the phone, I don't know how > people do it. Judging by the number of times I would have been run over by a cellular-phone-yacking driver (if I hadn't moved out of the way), I'd say only hands-free models should be allowed for the driver in vehicles. They're a serious road hazard. Even the hands-free models are worse than talking to the person sitting next to you, as the person at the other end of the line doesn't know when one is in a tense traffic situation, and can't always be told to "shut-up" for a few minutes. I believe that hand-held cell phones have been banned while driving in some places, such as Malaysia, for this reason. Louis ------------------------------ From: roamer1@pobox.com (Stanley Cline) Subject: Re: New Cellular Phone Experience So Far Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 06:16:46 GMT Reply-To: roamer1@pobox.com On 15 Oct 1997 02:02:56 GMT, in comp.dcom.telecom was written: > 5) No charge for phone off. I once called someone's cell phone via the > roaming number long distance and was billed even though his phone That's the one bad thing about using roamer access numbers: The cellular switch has to provide answer supervision when it *gives the dial tone* (or on Motorola EMX switches, the beeps) so that you have forward voicepath to enter the phone number you're calling. > off. However, I called myself from a pay phone with the phone off, > got the recording, and got my money back. Callers can be assured no > one will be billed on either end if the cell phone is turned off. Answer supervision is normally not returned on calls placed directly to a cellphone, if the call lands up going to the no-answer, disconnect, etc. recordings. However, some carriers (I believe "USHell" [US Cellular] has had this problem) seem to return answer supervision on no-answer recordings when a phone is dialed directly (not via roamer access number) -- and I get billed for those calls. That is 100% sloppiness on the part of the cellular carrier. Stanley Cline somewhere near Atlanta, GA, USA roamer1(at)pobox.com http://scline.home.mindspring.com/ spam not wanted here! help outlaw spam - see http://www.cauce.org/ ------------------------------ From: Christopher W. Boone Subject: Re: Question re: ROLM CBX Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 09:17:26 -0500 Organization: The Walt Disney Company / ABC Radio Networks Engineering Reply-To: cboone@earthlink.net John Saxe wrote: > Why am I reminded of the time I headed off our receptionist from > transferring a call to "extension 10xxx"? This sounds like a cracker > surfing for a dial tone to me. Or a hacker asking for extn 9011 !!!!! We had several try to do that on our ROLM at my former employer ... lucky the attendants were smart enough to catch on. (It was a 3 node 9000VL CBX ... sn #2! ... it has since been replaced with a 9006i model 80 YUK!!!!) > Are you *sure* those are standard AT&T analog phones? I ask because > my university has a Rolm CBX and the phones are definitely not standard > analog phones, although it is possible to have analog lines in the system > so maybe you are correct. What you have on your campus are RolmPhones ... black or ask color ... but nowhere does the name CBX appear on the RPs ... the analog phones he describes are analog with the add on paper faceplates which has all the dialing access codes like Park, Connect, etc ... AT&T does NOT make a digital phone that is ROLM compatible. >> My question deals with the interconnectivity in the system and how it >> is achieved. I am unsure whether calls made to other premises are >> carried over the analog telco lines, or if there is some leased line >> implementation for the system, but I am intrigued by the ability to >> directly ring any given phone in any system. I would speculate that >> each system has an incoming line which picks up and then accepts some >> instruction (perhaps DTMF) as to the destination extension. My caller > I doubt your speculation. We have several switches on campus, and one > or two located on the other end of the state, and the interconnects > between them are all dedicated. In the case of the off campus nodes > it is via a leased line (T1 or better I think). Your system is > probably similar. Probably using analog tie lines as well!. Not sure but the way he describes the system, it sounds like there is one HUB switch; each CBX connects to it (it acts as a tandem) and the 80 is merely the tie line code to the HUB, then the xx is the tie line code to the distant site and the sss is the extn code. Personally it would be better to use ROLMNet with a 8-RNX-XXXX format with RNX being a 3 digit location code and xxxx being a 4 digit extn; that way it can be routed by the hub and if one path is blocked, ROLMNet can send it a different direction. (I used to program ROLM CBXs both Route Op, dial 9 and ROLMNet dial 8 for a major public utility covering four states. That's how we had our network dialing.) >> ID identified the number which the system used to generate an outgoing >> call from the system to my house. In redialing this number, I get a >> high pitched tone upon connection. > What the switch presents as caller-ID info is programmable in the > switch. It may bear no relation to anything. The CID number he got was merely the outbound CO trunk from the local CBX to his house when dialing 9 (probably a dumb access trunk code ... not ROUTE OP). Dialing back in may get an intercept tone from the CO (if the trunk is only one way) or possibly a modem at the CBX? (Stupid to do that!) >> I'd like to be able to identify how this interconnectivity works, and >> how to get into a location's system through this back-door, as opposed >> to the published phone number which connects to the receptionists. >> Any resources or instruction would be greatly appreciated. GOOD LUCK trying to get that info here; you sound like a scummy phreaker! GO jump in a pit of boiling tar first. > What, does this newsgroup look like alt.2600 to you? Kinda my thoughts exactly. Chris Former Sr Telecom Egr Tech for Entergy/Gulf States, Texas ROLM CBX 8000/9751/9200 trained and ROLM certified on 8000/9200 and Phonemail ------------------------------ From: mark_brukhartz@il.us.swissbank.com (Mark Brukhartz) Subject: Re: "Sky Word Plus" - How Does it Work? Organization: Swiss Bank Corporation Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 19:55:34 GMT I am another happy SkyWord Plus customer. It uses Motorola's ReFLEX two-way protocol. See http://www.mot.com for FLEX and ReFLEX documents. I believe that the pager transmits periodic "I am here" messages. It also acknowledges incoming pages. The system transmits pages to your last known location. If one is unacknowledged, it is transmitted nationwide, because you might be in a place with one way "basic coverage'. The pager must transmit enough power to be heard from inside of fairly opaque buildings. Every joule transmitted comes from the one AA cell. I'm actually impressed that one lasts a month. There is also a built-in NiCd battery. It is obviously charged from the AA, then discharged at transmit time. The AA apparently can't provide sufficient current for a transmission. The NiCd will probably be replaced with one of those new high-energy capacitors in a future pager. Reliable paging (with acknowledgement and retransmission) is a great service. Consumers will hear more about it as the 1900 MHz PCS phone systems come online. Most (or all) of the American digital telephony protocols also provide reliable alphanumeric paging. Mark ------------------------------ From: travisd@netresponse.com.nospam (Travis Dixon) Subject: Re: "Sky Word Plus" - How Does it Work? Date: 20 Oct 1997 18:02:35 GMT Organization: NetResponse In article , baldwin@netcom.com (J.D. Baldwin) wrote: > How far off is this picture? And how good is this thing in actual > practice? How often does the pager try to tell the network where it > is? What are the frequencies and signal strengths involved? (I > notice that this thing *eats* batteries at the rate of one AA per > month, according to SkyTel. So the transmission would seem to be a > significant power burden.) I have the full-blown Skytel two-way service with the "Wireless Access, Inc." hardware. In about two months if use I've had mixed feelings about it. The coverage is definitely spotty. When I'm home (Frederick, MD) I have little to no service. Occasionally I'll wake up and it'll have BASIC service. Never two-way. Works great at work (Arlington, VA) though. One month for batteries? Try a week. This unit sucks them down. I don't have technical specs on the protocols used but I think you're very close. By using the two-way systems Skytel can actually provide better coverage at lower rates. The system only has to transmit to the tower that you're closest to so you don't burn capacity on the system when you're out of range for instance. Only problem was the $1100 (yes, eleven-hundred dollars US) bill last *month*. Sent too much e-mail to it :). Company's idea though :) travis ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #286 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Oct 20 23:39:09 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id XAA21730; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 23:39:09 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 23:39:09 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199710210339.XAA21730@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #287 TELECOM Digest Mon, 20 Oct 97 23:39:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 287 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Compuserve Spams Own Customers, Refuses to Stop (Wolf Paul) Re: Compuserve Spams Own Customers, Refuses To Stop (Alan Boritz) Re: Compuserve Spams Own Customers, Refuses To Stop (Michael Hayworth) Re: Compuserve Spams Own Customers, Refuses To Stop (Gregory Johnson) Re: Toll-Fraud via Remote-Access to Call-Forwarding (Bruce Wilson) Re: Local Number Portability and Interconnecting Network Service (A Varney) Local Number Portability in California (Robert Lee Harris) Netizens Reviews and in Japanese Edition (Ronda Hauben) EC at INFORMS '97/Electronic Commerce FAQ (Electronic Commerce News) I Need Some Basic Telephony Knowledge (Sermkiat Vibulpatanavong) How to Ask For Internet Service? (Franky Wong) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: wolf.paul@aut.alcatel.at@aut.alcatel.at (Wolf Paul) Subject: Re: Compuserve Spams Own Customers, Refuses To Stop Date: 20 Oct 1997 06:18:54 GMT Organization: Alcatel Austria AG In article , aboritz@cybernex.net (Alan Boritz) writes: > Ever have a service provider who insists you read their spam email, > while YOU'RE paying connect time charges, and they refuse to stop > after you tell them nicely? Compuserve appears to be doing that now. I think you're being a bit unreasonable, considering that CIS allows you to see mail "From" and "Subject" lines before downloading mail. I never yet had a service provider who did not use e-mail to inform customers about important developments -- how else do you expect them to get information out to their customers? And most CIS subscribers would want to know what the implications of the AOL deal are, most would like to know about new pricing plans, etc. SPAM is unsolicited e-mail from people or companies with whom one does not have an ongoing business relationship; mail from a service provider pertinent to the service being provided can hardly be called spam. W. N. Paul/KSRU * Alcatel Austria AG * Scheydgasse 41 * A-1210 Vienna, Austria wnp@aut.alcatel.at * +43-1-277-22 x5523 (voice)/x1118 (fax) * +43-1-774-1947 (h) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 08:50:05 EDT From: Alan Boritz Subject: Re: Compuserve Spams Own Customers, Refuses To Stop Reply to note from wolf.paul@aut.alcatel.at@aut.alcatel.at (Wolf Paul): > In article , > aboritz@cybernex.net (Alan Boritz) writes: >> Ever have a service provider who insists you read their spam email, >> while YOU'RE paying connect time charges, and they refuse to stop >> after you tell them nicely? Compuserve appears to be doing that now. > I think you're being a bit unreasonable, considering that CIS allows you > to see mail "From" and "Subject" lines before downloading mail. No, Wolf, I have no opportunity to "preview" headers before downloading, without paying for the connect time to manually log on, capture info (with some horrible Windows program), and then log off. My OS/2 CIS access program does the same thing, and that's not acceptable, either. Since CIS doesn't yet support POP3, the only programs that can be used to retreive email have to be text-based, specific to CIS's system, and do NOT allow for unattended deletion of email on the host based on message headers, before beginning a batch download. For the past 10 years, or so, I've been accessing everything in batch in a dos session (dramatically reducing connect time charges), so my access program spends the absolute minimum amount of connect time to do it's thing. > I never yet had a service provider who did not use e-mail to inform > customers about important developments -- how else do you expect > them to get information out to their customers? Well, gee, maybe I expect they'll put non-critical info in the many (paper) mailings they send their customers, and ALL of the emails they've been forcing me to download out are NON-critical. > And most CIS subscribers would want to know what the implications of the > AOL deal are, most would like to know about new pricing plans, etc. How do YOU know what "most" CIS subscribers would like to know? > SPAM is unsolicited e-mail from people or companies with whom one does > not have an ongoing business relationship; mail from a service provider > pertinent to the service being provided can hardly be called spam. No, Wolf, you're not the authority on what is, or isn't, considered spam. Unsolicited commercial email traffic on a connection whose expense is time-sensitive is absolutely unacceptable. It's doubly unacceptable when that traffic doesn't stop when I ask. I'm sorry you didn't understand the original problem, but I've probably been dealing with these people a lot longer than you have (if you do, at all). It's serious stuff when a VAN service-provider fraudulently increases it's revenues by forcing it out of their customers, whether intentionally, or through simple ignorance. Alan ------------------------------ From: Michael Hayworth Subject: Re: Compuserve Spams Own Customers, Refuses To Stop Date: 20 Oct 1997 19:04:07 GMT Organization: Innovative TeleSolutions Unless you're dialing through their 800 number, or calling long distance (your choice, not theirs), you're not paying anything for the time you spend reading e-mail. Connect time charges don't apply to e-mail, customer service, and some other places. And now that they've gone flat rate, except for the game areas, you won't even have to worry about connect time on the forums, either. Business have to have a way to communicate with their customers, and I'd much rather they e-mail me than junk mail me. Nobody likes spam, but the whining level about it on the various telcom groups has reached the point where it amounts to spam itself. If you don't want to read it, delete it. Michael Hayworth VP, Technology Innovative TeleSolutions ------------------------------ From: gkj@panix.com (Gregory Johnson) Subject: Re: Compuserve Spams Own Customers, Refuses To Stop Date: 20 Oct 1997 10:23:58 -0400 Organization: Panix Public Access Internet & Unix, NYC In article aboritz@cybernex.net (Alan Boritz) writes: > Ever have a service provider who insists you read their spam email, > while YOU'RE paying connect time charges, and they refuse to stop > after you tell them nicely? Compuserve appears to be doing that now. > A couple of weeks ago they started sending me the electronic version > of the magazine they've been sending me as junk (paper) mail for > years, for an account I have there. I emailed customer service and > told them to stop sending *any* unsolicited junk email, and they > responded that they don't know who sent it (it had their CIS id in the > header), but they'd get on it and get back to me. That was on 9/23, > and I haven't heard a word since. Now that AOL has purchased CompuServe, perhaps CompuServe is adopting AOL's tactics with respect to "marketing" to their subscriber base. AOL is not in the business of providing online information services; it is in the business of delivering a market to its advertisers. In this respect, it seems AOL works a lot like the much-maligned Prodigy service of yesteryear, except that Prodigy was up-front about the fact that the advertisers are the ones who are paying for your access to their service. I use an AOL account which belongs to my firm in the course of my daily routine, and it is clear to me that AOL is uninterested in the business of actually providing information services. Their primary focus is capturing you as an online customer for the purpose of selling advertising. The principle is sort of like a cable channel. They offer content to get you to subscribe, and then you are forced to watch the sponsor's advertisements. In their re-vamping of the service this month, they mentioned that various content areas will have "anchors" (doublespeak for "sponsors"?) Tech support at AOL is unresponsive, which is unsurprising considering they have to support a legion of users "who can't program their VCR's, but they're online", to paraphrase their advertising. It seems likely that AOL will try to migrate CompuServe's subscribers to the AOL service. If you want to be a customer rather than a "target market", run, run, as fast as you can to a legitimate online service. Greg ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 21:23:52 -0400 From: blw1540@aol.com (Bruce Wilson) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Toll-Fraud via Remote-Access to Call-Forwarding In article , ctelesca@pagesz.net (Chris Telesca) writes: > An engineer with the PUC says he doesn't want to help me with this > problem, because he thinks he can use his time better. He also told > me that he thinks the phone comanies don't want to solve this problem > because it isn't worth their time to solve it (apparently it costs > more to solve it in terms of labor rates for technicians and engineers > as opposed to the charges involved). He also says I should drop the > service. I don't know what the procedure there is (or if there even is one), but Iowa starts with an informal docket handled by the staff; and the aggrieved party can appeal to the commission to make it a formal complaint proceeding before an administrative law judge if dissatisfied with the staff's response, with the findings of the ALJ appealable to the full commission and ultimately to the courts. I suggest finding out where you can go (and when) if you're dissatisfied with the staff's performance. Bruce Wilson ------------------------------ From: varney@ihgp2.ih.lucent.com (Al Varney) Subject: Re: Local Number Portability and Interconnecting Network Services Date: 20 Oct 1997 18:39:55 GMT Organization: Lucent Technologies, Naperville, IL Reply-To: varney@lucent.com In article , Mario A. Castano-Gonzalez wrote: > We at CINTEL (Centro de Investigacion de las Telecomunicaciones de > Colombia) are analyzing the problem of implementing the national-wide > interconnection of the intelligent network services provided by the > several local telcos (with special interest in how to provide local > number portability LNP). > Thus why we are interested in knowing how these problems are being > faced in USA, and the products the IN providers are currently > offering. ITU-T is currently addressing LNP in a standards context (Study Group 11). Information on USA LNP solutions is at: . Information on Canadian/Stentor LNP documents: . If you are contemplating interconnecting IN databases, not just switches that use IN, then I don't believe any of the above are following that approach. Al Varney ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 14:16:21 -0400 From: rlhrrs@aol.com (Robert Lee Harris) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Local Number Portability in California It is my understanding that with local phone service now open to long disance carrier companies (ie: MCI, Sprint, etc.) the local phone number is now supposed to have the same portability as an 800/888 number now has. Two questions come to mind, the first is a general question: How will the Central Offices handle numbers that used to belong to other service areas. If AT&T decides that it wants to point a (562) 436 #### prefix number to a CO that is outside of the "traditional" service area, will it have to be poinhted to a CO based subset of numbers? This couldn't be a free service, especially when comapared to the cost of Remote Call Forward, which before was the only option. Does this mean we will no longer be able to tell where any number goes based on it's prefix? The second question may be a real life situation: Everything that I have read in PUC articles suggests that the Customer will own the local CO number, rather than the carrier. But if the long distance carrier were to sell the customer local phone service with a specific number that is actually part of a carrier controlled DID group, can the carrier refuse to let the customer keep the phone number if they decide to switch services. It seems like a sneaky way to hold an unsatisfied customer hostage with their published phone number to me. I welcome any real life info anyone has. I'll post later with the outcome if there is any interest. Robert Lee Harris - Telecommunications Productivity Services (562) 867-3827 RLHRRS@aol.com ------------------------------ From: rh120@columbia.edu (Ronda Hauben) Subject: Netizens Reviews and in Japanese edition Date: 21 Oct 1997 00:27:30 GMT Organization: Columbia University There have recently been two reviews of the print edition of "Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet", one in the November issue of Dr. Dobbs Journal on page 103 another in the Oct. 13 issue of Computerworld. See http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/reviews.html Also, a Japanese translation of Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet was published by Chuokoron-sha last week. Ronda rh120@columbia.edu Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Ronda, keep up the good work! Your work is an invaluable part of the task of keeping our history accurate for future generations of netters. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 21:38:55 -0500 From: Electronic Commerce News Subject: EC at INFORMS '97/Electronic Commerce FAQ Electronic Commerce News Announcements October 20, 1997 Send feedback to soon@mail.utexas.edu Thank you very much. 1. Electronic Commerce Sessions at INFORMS '97 Conference (Dallas, Oct. 26-29): Participants and other EC professionals are urged to check out online information about Electronic Commerce sessions. The official INFORMS site is http://www.informs.org/Conf/Dallas97/ and Electronic Commerce sessions organized by Prof. Jan Stallaert and members of the CREC are: Electronic Commerce Cluster Sessions : http://www.informs.org/Conf/Dallas97/TALKS/C20.html Network Design/Advertising and Economics Issues http://www.informs.org/Conf/Dallas97/TALKS/S9.html 2. CREC website has been overhauled to provide easy access to EC-related announcements, news and resources. While complementing various IT/network/information sites, CREC website provides an EC-focused forum for EC-business professionals of the digital economy. CREC welcomes your EC announcements. CREC Website: http://cism.bus.utexas.edu ----------------------- 3. Electronic Commerce FAQ ----------------------- Do we really know what electronic commerce is, or how it will affect the market? Will we be watching WebTV? How should we handle spamming? Should a Website be jazzy? Do digital products have zero marginal costs? Does Microsoft really stifle competition? These and other EC questions are answered in this FAQ. See http://cism.bus.utexas.edu and follow EC Resources link. ELECTRONIC COMMERCE NEWS The Center for Research in Electronic Commerce, UT-Austin http://cism.bus.utexas.edu SEND CORRESPONDENCE TO:soon@mail.utexas.edu ------------------------------ From: Sermkiat Vibulpatanavong Subject: I Need Some Basic Telephony Knowledge Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 18:44:27 +0700 Organization: Samart Cybernet I have graduated in the Computer Science field but I had to deal with the maintainance of the server for controlling the PABX machine. Since I didn't have no knowledge about the telephony before I found it extremely difficult for me to start. Moreover, there are no expert about telephony in my organization, most of people deals with the telephony is just a technician whose knowledge is just for how to do but not why they do. And also they don't know much about how to use the computer. Would you please tell me where could I find these knowledges? Can you suggest me some books to read? Please help me. Sermkiat Vibulpatanavong sermkiat@samart.co.th ------------------------------ From: fwong@uog2.uog2.uog.edu (Franky Wong) Subject: How to Ask For Internet Service? Date: 20 Oct 1997 14:21:25 GMT Organization: University of Guam Dear fellow guru, Recently our University is interested to send out a Request for Proposal for Internet carrier (e.g. T1 line). I would like to make sure the RFP is technically sound. May I ask what requirements should I state in the RFP? For example, the followings are concerns that I could think of: 1 Price schedule for bandwidth upgrade in the future. 2 A certain ratio that would restrict the carrier from selling much more than the bandwidth that it actually has. I don't know the correct term, but I think it is not fair if the carrier sells T1 connections to ten customers when in fact it only has one T1 link to Internet. 3 When the line comes to my premise, do I have to waste a subnet when hooking it up to my router? Or is it recommended that I make use of some "IP-unumbered" feature available on CISCO or certain routers to save IP addresses? Or thirdly, is it recommended that I rent the ip address from the carrier? Please email me if you could. Thanks. | Franky C. H. Wong | Email : fwong@uog.edu | | Programmer/Analyst | Voice : +1 (671) 735-2626 | | Computer Center | 735-2635 | | University of Guam | Fax : +1 (671) 734-9422 | | 303 University Dr, UOG Station | Coordinate: 13.5N , 144.45E | | Mangilao, Guam USA 96923 | Time : GMT+10 EST+15 | | | | A LAND GRANT INSTITUTION ACCREDITED BY THE WESTERN ASSOCIATION OF | | SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES | ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #287 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Oct 23 07:04:03 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id HAA08852; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 07:04:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 07:04:03 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199710231104.HAA08852@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #288 TELECOM Digest Thu, 23 Oct 97 07:04:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 288 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: New Cellular Phone Experience So Far (Alan Boritz) Re: New Cellular Phone Experience So Far (tonypo@ultranet.com) Re: Compuserve Spams Own Customers, Refuses To Stop (Adam Atkinson) Re: "Sky Word Plus" - How Does it Work? (J.D. Baldwin) Re: Intro to Data Communications Wanted? (Robert J. Perillo) Re: How to Ask For Internet Service? (David Richards) Re: Question re: ROLM CBX (Keith Abbott) Canada Area 867 Activated Today (Charles Cremer) Caller ID: GTE California to GTE Indiana? (Tom Allebrandi) Last Laugh! Typical Telco Repair Tech Response (Michael Kennedy) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) Subject: Re: New Cellular Phone Experience So Far Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 22:32:35 -0400 In article , hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) wrote: > Recently I got cellular phone service. I previously posted my experiences > dealing with the sales people. Now here's some notes on usage ... > 1) How do people drive and talk? > For me at least, there's no way I can drive my car and talk on the > phone, it's simply too distracting with traffic. How do you walk and chew gum at the same time? > Yes, I know when we > drive we freely talk to the person next to us, but somehow it's > different on the phone. Of course it is. You need to concentrate to carry on a coherent conversation, but you also need to concentrate to drive a car. It's the subject of a whole field of psychological research. People in broadcasting seem to be able to do that well (speak or read while carrying on an unrelated activity at the same time). I did it for a living for almost 10 years. > 2) The clock is deceiving: I am billed from [send] to [end] in whole > minutes. It takes a few seconds to release the call after you hit [end] > which can add another minute to the call. If you think the party didn't > answer and they did, you are billed for the call. This is an unfortunate byproduct of the technology and implementation being used. Some conventional telephone PBX's will do one worse, and *never* let go of the call, after you thought you hung up (a Siemen switch did that to me a while ago). > 3) No quick hangups: From the wired phone, I often call people who I know > have answering machines, and hang up after 3 rings if I don't feel like > leaving a message. You can't do that on a cell phone because of the [end] > delay. How rude! Your friends are probably grumbling behind your back about the click-click-kerchunk noises you leave on their machines. > 4) Ringing delay. When someone calls me, they'll hear at least 3 rings > before the cell phone starts to ring. A lot of people these days don't > let phones ring very long before hanging up. I must instruct any > callers to let it ring a long time. This is more of a paradox, than a problem. How the switch handles an incoming call that has to search for it's destination, will depend upon the engineer's assumptions about what the caller needs to hear to know that a connection is pending (and not immediately refused). Some switches will not return a ring signal until the system find the subscriber on the system, and presents the caller with silence. Some conventional switches, like the old Northern Tel SL-1 will do the same thing when the switch is blocked. Are long periods of silence more agreeable to the user than long periods of (phony) ring tone? Some would say yes, and some would say no. > If I'm driving, I'll need a moment > to get the phone out and to answer it. Hey, wait a minute, didn't you just say you couldn't talk and drive at the same time? What are you trying to do, get into an accident? > 5) No charge for phone off. I once called someone's cell phone via the > roaming number long distance and was billed even though his phone was > off. However, I called myself from a pay phone with the phone off, > got the recording, and got my money back. Callers can be assured no one > will be billed on either end if the cell phone is turned off. That's not exactly correct (that no one will be charged for a phone being off). If the subscriber has voice mail, the caller will *always* pay for the call, the only difference being that the call goes into voicemail sooner with the phone off in the home system. The subscriber, however, will *always* pay for airtime on unanswered incoming roamer calls, since that's how most of those tariffs are set up (it's been like that since the beginning of cellular roamer service). > 6) Be careful charging/recharging. NiCad batteries the phone uses can > develop a memory if not fully discharged then fully charged. They > suggested I leave the phone on to run down, then fully recharge it. > That makes sense to me, although it is a pain since it does require > some advance planning to allow one day to run down and one night to > recharge. How you deal with the memory effect (in which Pat Townson still won't belive, BTW), depends upon how you use it (i.e. make money with it, or use it for personal convenience). You can buy a little conditioner for under $100 (like Ora's), or add a test fixture to an existing nicad tester for (probably under $1,000, but it may be much easier and convenient to merely toss the battery in the gargage and buy a replacement. ------------------------------ From: tonypo@ultranet.com.NOSPAM Subject: Re: New Cellular Phone Experience So Far Date: 21 Oct 1997 03:21:23 GMT Organization: Providence Network Partners Reply-To: bitbucket@null.nul In article , frankie@mundens.gen.nz says... > In fact, it was this additional servicing requrement that made our > airforce move to gel cel lead acid batteries instead. My cellphone has a NiCad battery that seems to be ok after seven months of usage both on and off a charger. I've only had to put it on the wall charge four or five times since I've had it since much of the time it's in the car. But I do like the little lead-acid gel-cell that's in my Sony cordless phone. The thing lasts forever and doesn't seem to have the drawbacks of the NiCad. Of course I'd like to put a Li-Ion battery on my cellphone were it not so prohibitively expensive. The battery would be worth more than the phone. Tony ------------------------------ From: Adam Atkinson Subject: Re: Compuserve Spams Own Customers, Refuses To Stop Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 09:42:41 +0100 Organization: Ericsson Reply-To: etlaman@etlxdmx.ericsson.se Michael Hayworth wrote: > Unless you're dialing through their 800 number, or calling long > distance (your choice, not theirs), you're not paying anything for the > time you spend reading e-mail. Connect time charges don't apply to > e-mail, customer service, and some other places. Unless, of course, you live in a country where local calls cost money. Such as, oh, most places. Certainly the last two countries I've lived in. > Business have to have a way to communicate with their customers, and > I'd much rather they e-mail me than junk mail me. I have to admit, though, that I very nearly agree with you. I have accounts on two ISPs, and I agree that they need to have some way to let me know about changes in terms and conditions of service, phone numbers, etc. In fact they both have internal newsgroups for announcements of this kind, which you are required to read. But I think my ISPs would be within their rights to email me to tell me they were changing their phone number or DNS number or some such thing. I'm on a lot of "product update" mailing lists to do with shareware I use, and am quite happy to be. It's very easy stuff to filter automatically, so it all ends up in a "shareware news" folder rather than in my normal "in" folder. Announcements from my ISPs could obviously be handled the same way. However, if they emailed me a LOT for silly reasons I would get annoyed. Adam Atkinson (etlaman@etlxdmx.ericsson.se) Man is a giddy thing, and this is my conclusion ------------------------------ From: baldwin@netcom.com (J.D. Baldwin) Subject: Re: "Sky Word Plus" - How Does it Work? Organization: Revealed on a need-to-know basis. Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 12:36:29 GMT In article , Mark Brukhartz wrote: > The pager must transmit enough power to be heard from inside of fairly > opaque buildings. Every joule transmitted comes from the one AA cell. > I'm actually impressed that one lasts a month. Of course, because of the ACK required before a page is cleared from the system, you can turn the thing off when you're not wearing it, or when you're out of range, and still be assured that you'll get any pages you "missed" once you turn it on. This is not possible with the SkyWord service (or other traditional paging services), since such pages are sent and just cleared without regard for whether they were received or not. (You know it's the "Information Age" when you can describe a paging service as "traditional.") Since I don't care about getting pages in the middle of the night (except for the special circumstance of being formally "on call" for a client), this is a pretty good battery-saving strategy. Others have complained that coverage is spotty. I can't speak for everywhere in the country (though if you live in Frederick, MD, you can't exactly claim to be surprised by the lack of coverage at home!), but I have been driving back and forth across southern Michigan on I-94, and the coverage throughout that entire corridor is excellent. A few spots of "Storing Messages," substantial stretches of "Basic Service," but by and large most of it is "Full Service" (i.e., two-way connectivity). My verdict on this thing: "Works as advertised." These days, that's pretty high praise for a new and highly-hyped technology. From the catapult of J.D. Baldwin |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I _,_ Finger baldwin@netcom.com |+| say, I am quite prepared not only to _|70|___:::)=}- for PGP public |+| retract it, but also to deny under \ / key information. |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer ***~~~~----------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Oct 97 00:44 EDT From: Perillo@DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL (Robert J. Perillo) Subject: Re: Intro to Data Communications wanted? > Are there any good books that provide an introduction to the realm of > data communications or bookstores that specialize in books of this > type? Most Community Colleges teach a Telecommunications Certificate program, which includes an "Introduction to Data Communications". I have listed the standard texts used, which are available through most bookstores. The Telecommunications program usually consists of five core courses: 1 - Introduction to Telecommunications, Telecommunications Survey course. Studies the major aspects of Telecommunications including history, legal and regulatory, technology, and management. Analyzes voice, data, imaging, and video systems. Describes Access-Egress, and Transmission facilities. Overviews carrier services (links and trunks), Traffic Engineering, and the OSI Reference Model. Usually requires three books: "Voice & Data Communications Handbook", Bud Bates and Donald Gregory, McGraw-Hill, 1995, $65.00 . "Signals, the Science of Telecommunications", John R. Pierce and A. Michael Noll, Scientific American Library, 1990, $33.00; A good coffee table book with lots of pictures and diagrams explaining basic telecommunications science. "Newton's Telecom Dictionary 12th edition, the official Dictionary of Telecommunications, Computer Telephony, Data Communications, Internet telephony, Voice processing, Windows 95 & NT communications, LAN, WAN, and wireless networking"; Harry Newton, 1997, $27.95 2 - Telephony Basic Voice Telecommunications, basic voice services and facilities provided by the Telco's, Centrex, PBX, Voice Mail, Wiring and Cabling, Writing an RFP, Computer Telephony, and Automatic Call Distribution (ACD). "The McGraw-Hill Telecommunications Factbook"; Joseph A. Pecar, Roger J. O'Connor, and David A. Garbin, 1993, $29.95 . 3 - Introduction to Data Communications. Explains fundamentals of data telecommunications, the technologies behind Local Area Networks (LAN's), Internet, Public/Private Data Networks, transmission methods and protocols, including Network Management and Administration, plus network security services. Most colleges in the U.S. use: "Data & Computer Communications 5th ed.", William Stallings, 1996, Prentice Hall, $68.00 . The Standard Text, an excellent comprehensive and detailed book, a mandatory reference in most offices. Most universities in Europe use: "Data Communications, Computer Networks and Open Systems, fourth edition", Fred Halsall, Addison Wesley, 1996, $59.95 . Some community colleges use a less rigorous, more introductory, more "why do we do this" text instead: "Business Data Communications, third edition", William Stallings and Richard Van Slyke, Prentice Hall, 1997, $57.00 . An excellent introduction and comprehensive overview of Data Communications. 4 - Network Facilities and Services. Explores in detail the PSTN Network Architecture, SS#7 - AIN, the business WAN architecture, Operations - Administration - Maintenance - Provisioning (OAM&P) concepts, value added features/services. Plus emerging technologies including ISDN, xDSL, Frame Relay, SONET, and ATM and how they fit into the architectures. "Enterprise Networking: Fractional T1 to SONET, Frame Relay to BISDN", Daniel Minoli, Artech, 1992, $89.00 5 - Telecommunications Management and Administration. Studies administrative issues affecting Telecommunications. Integrates the global market place, behavioral, and technical aspects along with business models for the telecommunications industry. Includes budgeting, planning, project management, financial analysis, and decision making for a telecommunications project. Usually requires two texts: "Competitive Telecommunications, How to thrive under the Telecommunications Act", Peter K. Heldman, McGraw-Hill, 1997, $35.95 . "The Art of Strategic Planning for Information Technology", Bernard H. Boar, AT&T/Wiley, 1993, $39.95 . Robert J. Perillo, CCP, CNE Perillo@dockmaster.ncsc.mil Principal Telecommunications Engineer Richmond, VA ------------------------------ From: dr@ripco.com (David Richards) Subject: Re: How to Ask For Internet Service? Date: 21 Oct 1997 05:15:23 GMT Organization: Ripco Internet, Chicago In article , Franky Wong wrote: > Dear fellow guru, > Recently our University is interested to send out a Request for > Proposal for Internet carrier (e.g. T1 line). I would like to make > sure the RFP is technically sound. May I ask what requirements should > I state in the RFP? Working with ISPs, I can state that if you put too many fiddly requirements on the service, you won't get many Ps in response to your RFP. > For example, the followings are concerns that I could think of: > 1 Price schedule for bandwidth upgrade in the future. The upgrade path from a T1 isn't entirely clear, you can go to two T1 circuits load-balanced (a lot of ISPs don't know how to do this right) or pay the local circuit carrier big bucks for fractional T3. Get prices for the circuit and connectivity on both options. Either would require a much higher-end router than a single T1 circuit, which is important if you are buying your router from your ISP- planning to go to higher capicity is one of the few reasons to consider a leased router. You might ask the ISP to specify what they would recommend as an upgrade path. > 2 A certain ratio that would restrict the carrier from selling much > more than the bandwidth that it actually has. > I don't know the correct term, but I think it is not fair if the carrier > sells T1 connections to ten customers when in fact it only > has one T1 link to Internet. All ISPs do some degree of this (overselling or over-committing bandwidth), I wouldn't try to get them to agree to a contract specifying a ratio, but instead look for a performance guarantee, if you're paying for a T1 you should get a T1's worth of bandwidth. > 3 When the line comes to my premise, do I have to waste a subnet when > hooking it up to my router? Or is it recommended that I make use of > some "IP-unumbered" feature available on CISCO or certain routers to > save IP addresses? Or thirdly, is it recommended that I rent the > ip address from the carrier? Have the ISP recommend a router configuration, and if they want to have numbered links, the subnet should come out of _their_ address space at no cost to you, in dollars or IP space. ------------------------------ From: Keith Abbott Subject: Re: Question re: ROLM CBX Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 01:16:32 -0700 Organization: ISPNews I believe Mr. Watson has the gist of it. You dont specify which Rolm CBX you have (9751?, 8000?, Redwood(YAAAHHH)) but generally speaking the '8' series of numbers is dedicated to trunk access codes that allow the switch to select specific (usually dedicated) trunks to remote (or in some cases not) sites. In this case, the 80-store number -- could indeed select either a dedicated trunk up to a hierarchy(er) switch or even (very improbable with 50 stores) the 80xxx could comprise the entire trunk-access code selecting a trunk going directly to that store. The extra digits are then passed through to the switch upline to be used to identify the station being dialed. DISA (Direct Inward System Access) would not be used in a case like this. You can see if your system is using 80 as a trunk access code by looking in your first digit table (on a 9751 anyway) ie cnfg li first_d all... As for back-dooring things, thats probably not the type of information one would be giving over a public forum; and anyway, if the system uses leased lines you'd be better off robbing gas stations ... (that's not a recommendation you start that though.) ------------------------------ From: ccremer@fc.net (Charles Cremer) Subject: Canada Area 867 Activated Today Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 05:18:52 GMT Organization: Freeside Communications The Yukon and Western Territories of Canada now has area code 867. Formerly, the region shared an area code with Alberta. Old Code: 403/819 New Code: 867 Type of Relief: Split Effective Date: 10/21/97 Permissive Dialing End Date: 4/26/98 Test Number(s): 867-669-5448 ------------------------------ From: Tom@Ytram.Com (Tom Allebrandi) Subject: Caller ID: GTE California to GTE Indiana? Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 08:28:41 -0500 Organization: TA Software Systems/Frontline Test Equipment Reply-To: Tom@Ytram.Com Hi! We have caller ID from GTE North Indiana (219-465). Generally, we are getting data from most long distance callers. Except one: A person who calls me from Lancaster, California (805-949). I get a "data unavailble" when he calls. He says that their local telco is GTE, and that he thinks that they have GTE long distance. This is particularly annoying since I work at home and use the caller ID to screen calls during the day. The guy is calling on business, but I can't tell that it is him since I am not getting any caller ID information. Does anyone know anything about this combination (805-949 calling 219-465) or who we can complain to?? Thanks! Tom Allebrandi Frontline Test Equipment | TA Software Systems | Valparaiso, IN USA tallebrandi@fte.com | tom@ytram.com | +1-219-465-0108 ------------------------------ From: Michael Kennedy Subject: Telco Joke Date: 22 Oct 1997 16:43:15 GMT Organization: Great Lakes Technologies A telco guy buys a rifle and promptly goes to his local shooting range to test his abilities. The shooting range attendant hangs a target at which the telco guy proceeds to fire six shots at. The attendant thens takes the unhit target down and yells to the telco guy, "All shots fired were misses!". The telco guy looks at his rifle, covers the end of the barrel with his hand and proceeds to blow off his finger. At which point he yells to the attendant, "Everything works fine here, it must be at your end!" ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #288 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Oct 23 07:53:05 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id HAA10580; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 07:53:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 07:53:05 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199710231153.HAA10580@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #289 TELECOM Digest Thu, 23 Oct 97 07:53:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 289 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson NYS-PSC Orders Rochester Telco to Give Service Rebates (Danny Burstein) New York Makes Slamming Illegal (Curtis R. Anderson) Spamford Canned Again! (Bill Levant) Pac Bell High Installation Charges For "HiCap" (Carlos Rimola) Canada's New Area Code (Tad Cook) Enterprise, Ringdowns, Rate & Route (Mark J. Cuccia) Old Bell System "Underground Cable" Warning Sign (Mark J. Cuccia) Toll-Free 3rd Report & Order, and NANC (Judith Oppenheimer) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 17:42:44 EDT From: Danny Burstein Subject: NYS-PSC Orders Rochester Telco to Give Service Rebates from the PSC website: STATE OF NEW YORK Public Service Commission John F. OMara, Chairman Three Empire State Plaza, Albany, NY 12223 Further Details: (518) 474-7080 http://www.dps.state.ny.us FOR RELEASE: IMMEDIATELY 97084/93C0033 PSC DIRECTS ROCHESTER TELEPHONE TO REBATE ALMOST $1 MILLION -- CUSTOMERS WILL SEE A ONE-MONTH REDUCTION IN THEIR BILLS SOON -- Albany, October 22 -- The New York State Public Service Commission today directed Rochester Telephone Corporation (RTC) to rebate $953,000 to its customers for failing to meet certain service quality standards in 1996. The rebate will appear as a one-month reduction of approximately $2.60 in customers bills beginning within 60 days of the Commissions written decision, which is expected to be issued soon. Under a restructuring and multi-year rate stability plan (commonly referred to as the Open Market Plan) approved by the Commission for implementation on January 1, 1995, Rochester Telephone is required, at the very least, to maintain a certain level of service quality based on specific annual service quality measurement categories. These measurement targets include, among other things, measuring how well the company reduces reports by customers of trouble on their line, returns service within 24 hours to customers who have lost it under normal operating circumstances, keeps appointments to repair and install service, installs new service within five business days and reduces complaints to the Commission. The almost $1 million in rebates for 1996 represents the maximum amount of penalties the company could have incurred for that year under the Plan. As the Commission moves the telecommunications industry forward into a more competitive local service environment, phone companies will have to respond to market forces that will require them to improve customer service, John F. OMara, Chairman of the Commission stated. The Open Market Plan we adopted for Rochester Telephone is designed to maintain and improve service quality for cus tomers during a transition to full competition where they will have a choice of providers. To the extent the company fails to keep its service quality high, we will continue to require rebates to customers. In addition to the rebates, the Open Market Plan requires Rochester Telephone to withhold payments of quarterly dividends to its holding company, Frontier Corporation, if annual service quality targets are not met. As a result of its failure to meet the targets in 1996, the company has paid no quarterly dividends in 1997 and must continue to withhold such payments until it rectifies the service quality deficiencies. dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 01:08:56 -0400 From: Curtis R. Anderson Organization: Gleepy's Henhouse Subject: New York Makes Slamming Illegal According to WGR radio, Governor George Pataki has signed into law two bills intended to combat the act of "slamming" committed by disreputable long distance carriers. One bill will allow the New York Public Services Commission to fine the carrier up to $1,000 per reported offense for slamming. The other bill will allow courts in the state to impose fines of up to $100,000 per day for carriers who willfully continue slamming business customers. It is reported that this is the first time such a law has been passed by any state. Curtis R. Anderson, Co-creator of "Gleepy the Hen", SP 2.5?, KoX http://www.servtech.com/public/cra/ | Illegitimus non Carborundum ftp://ftp.servtech.com/pub/users/cra/ | Don't let the bastards mailto:gleepy@intelligencia.com | grind you down ------------------------------ From: Wlevant@aol.com (Bill Levant) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 22:07:35 EDT Subject: Spamford Canned Again! According to today's (10/21/97) __Philadelphia Inquirer__, AGIS cut Cyberpromo's links again "...early Friday (10/17/97) morning, just hours after the expiration of..." the Federal Court order that got Spammy back on line last month. Presumably, this one will stick. If no one will sell Spammy access, what's he gonna do, buy MCI ? Then again, why not; most of the recent spam seems to originate on MCI.net, and everyone else is trying to buy MCI anyway. Hope they'll take his check.... :-) Bill ------------------------------ From: Carlos Rimola Subject: Pac Bell High Installation Charges for "HiCap" Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 21:07:27 -0700 Organization: Telebit, Inc. Hello, I am having a difficult time dealing with Pac Bell and would appreciate some feedback on my experience: Some background - I am a developer of ISDN drivers and protocols and for the past 3 years or so I have been using a switch simulator from Teleos (now Madge Networks) to do most of my PRI testing. The Teleos switch does quite a nice job but once in a while you need a real PRI line to verify your work or reproduce problems. As a result of this, I (and my current employer) decided to order a PRI line into my house where I do most of my work. The original quote from Pac Bell for this service was as follows: Monthly Installation ------- ------------ HiCap (T1 line) $350.00 $1267.00 PRI Interface $220.00 $750.00 2 way trunk $16.13 $70.75 Dialing plan (2) $150.00 $400.00 Trunk $16.13 $70.75 DID Block (20) $15.00 $150.00 --------------------------- Total $767.26 $2708.50 In addition to the above, we also ordered 2 BRI lines for a cost of $78 monthly and $650 installation. I agreed to all of the above and was assigned to an account rep who told me that I would eventually hear from "engineering" in regards to an installation date. About 3-4 weeks later I heard from Pac Bell "engineering" and the mode of communication quickly went from very courteous and informative to short and exasperated. The engineer who was assigned to my installation told me my HiCap (T1) line would be installed on Oct 27 and that I would need to have a trench dug up to the sidewalk near my house because I did not have enough wire pairs coming into the house. The same engineer indicated that Pac Bell would not be able to do the work on the trench and that I should be prompt because they would be ready to install the HiCap (T1) on the 27th. He told me to have the trench ready no later than the 25th. The next day, as I was starting to inquire into construction companies that would do the trench work, I got a call from the Pac Bell business office calling to let me know that my install date had been delayed to the first week of Dec. I then called my account rep to discuss the delay and she, in turn, decided to conference call the "engineer". When the latter came on the line he was clearly annoyed that I had gotten the account rep involved. After a rude "I already told Carlos I would call him with more details" he indicated that he would try to expedite the installation and would get back to me. The next day, the engineer got back to me -- via a terse legal fax stating that I would have to pay an additional $7083.71 in installation charges! Quoting from the letter - "This is to confirm arrangements made between CARLOS RIMOLA and PAC-BELL-ENGINEER (name withheld) of Pacific Bell, for the cost of special construction to provision a HICAP (copper T1) at xxx address", later on it states "CARLOS RIMOLA shall: Pay in advance a non-refundable lump sum of $7083.71...". Note that there was no discussion whatsoever of a legal agreement on the phone. (The additional install charges bring the original cost of isntallation close to $10,000) BTW, no breakdown of the additional work was provided, just the $7083.71 quote and the provision that the "offer" is only valid for 30 days. I have a couple of questions on this - 1) How common are these high additional charges and how do I know that it simply isn't an arbitrary charge by an engineer who is having a bad day? 2) What recourse, if any, does one have for having this investigated/ resolved? I would appreciate any help/feedback on this. I would specially like to hear from people who have had a T1 line installed at their residence and what their experience has been like. Thanks in advance.. Carlos Rimola Tel 408-266-1666 Fax 408-266-0170 crimola@bayarea.net crimola@itk-tele.com PS. Please copy responses to crimola@itk-tele.com ------------------------------ Subject: Canada's New Area Code Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 13:44:51 PDT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Canada's new area code for the far north covers some serious area TORONTO (AP) -- Canada's far north gets its own area code today, serving a bigger area and fewer people than any other in North America. The new code, 867, has been assigned to the Yukon and Northwest Territories, which cover 1.5 million square miles between Alaska and Greenland. The area is larger than India, but its population in the 1996 census was just 95,000. India has more than 952 million people. Anne Grainger, a spokeswoman for the regional telephone company Northwestel, said there are only about 70,000 phones in the 867 area code. Until now, the Yukon and the western part of the Northwest Territories shared the 403 area code with Alberta, while the eastern part of the Northwest Territories shared the 819 area code with northern Quebec. The change was made primarily because steady growth in Alberta had pushed the 403 area code close to its limit. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 10:04:19 -0500 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Enterprise, Ringdowns, Rate & Route In response to Stan Schwartz' article (and Pat's notes) on "Enterprise" numbers and "Rate & Route" ... Yes, such operator manually translated (looked-up) Enterprise, Zenith and 'WX' numbers still do exist, but are grandfathered-in. They are still provided to 'existing' customers by the LEC (Bell and independent) local telcos, AT&T, Alascom (now part of AT&T), probably GTE-Hawaii, and the Canadian Stentor (and local independent) telcos. Don't expect a Sprint or MCI operator to know about any Enterprise, Zenith or 'WX' number! Similarly, there are still numerous remote/rural areas (hunting/fishing lodges, ranches, isolated villages, ranger stations, etc) all over the NANP area (US, Canada, much of the Caribbean) which can only be reached by operators of the telcos/carriers mentioned in the first paragraph. If you are trying to reach such a 'ring-down' point in your LATA (or when calling from within Canada), you call your 'traditional' LEC local/toll opearator with a single '0'. If the 'ringdown' location is outside of your LATA when calling from the US, you can only use the AT&T operator, (10[10]288)-0('#'/0); or use 800-CALL-ATT / 800-3210-ATT and then cut-thru to the operator. Such calls to 'ringdown' points are billed at AT&T/LEC Operator _HANDLED_ rates! As for "Rate & Route", in today's operator environment of computerized TOPS/OSPS terminals with database lookups, the "Rate & Route" operator has been mostly discontinued over the past ten years. I think that some telcos in Canada still have their "Rate & Route" operators. NANP (Bell System) "Rate & Route" operators were (are) reached as: Kp+(NPA)+(0XX)+141+St. The 'NPA' code and toll-office 0XX routing code are indicated in parenthesis, since originating local operator dialing/routing practices sometimes required the use of such codes, but not always. In a city/metro area such as New Orleans, the local cordboard or TSPS operator would only need to key Kp+141+St. This would reach an operator (sometimes in the same large room) at a large desk with the some or all of the primary AT&T Long-Lines (Kansas City MO) produced large routing and rating documents, such as the "Distance Dialing Reference Guide" (not all that big, but still a bit too bulky to be placed at every '0' operator's position), and the _BIG_ "Operating Rate and Route Guide" and the also big "Traffic Routing Guide". The "Rate & Route" desk would also have all of the flip-cards and multi-leaf bulletins that the operator positions would have (of frequently called points nationwide, and much of the local/regional frequently requested locations) in addition to the more comprehensive documents. Sometimes, the "Area Code Handbook", a much more comprehensive looseleaf document alphabetically listing all dialable towns, villages, neighberhoods, etc. in the NANP - would be included at a "Rate & Route" desk. All three of the above mentioned routing documents were looseleaf documents were updated monthly or sometimes even more frequently. AT&T LL in Kansas City would ship out an envelope of looseleaf pages to insert (with instructions as to what to remove), to virtually every possible operator center, toll switch location, etc. in North America and to many locations in other parts of the world which had need to maintain such AT&T LL documents. The "Operating Rate and Route Guide" and the "Traffic Routing Guide" were usually mounted on a 'display-rack', similar to what might still be seen at a catalog order center, etc. if such merchants still maintain paper records. This way, the "Rate & Route" operator had the documents angled at 45-degrees and opened up, right in front of her. She didn't have to keep digging-out, opening-up and flipping-thru individual binders of looseleaf pages. She only needed to flip through to the proper section of an entire document right there in front of her. There were also tabbed-dividers to easily locate the proper section. Prior to computer terminals/databases, local directory operators had similar local number listings paper records as well. Today, Bellcore maintains much of this rate/route/numbering information (documents such as the LERG, etc), in various formats (paper, fiche) and also electronic-data. As for the originating local/toll operator, these days she only needs to key the necessary requests into her computer terminal, and a database is searched to return the proper routing and rating info, rather than reaching Kp+(NPA)+(0XX)+141+St. As for customer requests to "Rate & Route", I can remember twenty years ago in my High School days being told that "we cannot connect customers to Rate & Route", although they _sometimes_ would connect me. Sometimes, the original TSPS operator would stay on the line with me (and cut me off if I asked for information that "only operators need to know about"), other times she would simply pass me on to "Rate & Route", and release her position from the connection. As for discontinuing "Enterprise" service? I would assume that your LEC or AT&T account representative _should_ have some information to simply discontinue the 'reference' and account as an "Enterprise" number. However, the actual dialable POTS number that the operator would dial-to (and automatically bill as 'collect') might not be a number Stan's company would necessarily want to disconnect The 'translated' number might actually be a published (or even non-pub) POTS number that still needs to be called to (from other company locations or employees), as well as to place calls from! NWORLASKCG0 (BellSouth #1AESS Class-5 Local "Seabrook" 504-24x-) NWORLAIYCM1 (BellSouth-Mobility Hughes-GMH-2000 Cellular-MTSO NOL) NWORLAMA0GT (BellSouth DMS-100/200 fg-B/C/D Accss-Tandem "Main" 504+) NWORLAMA20T (BellSouth DMS-200 TOPS:Opr-Srvcs-Tandem "Main" 504+053+) NWORLAMA04T (AT&T #4ESS Class-2 Toll 060-T / 504-2T "Main" 504+) JCSNMSPS06T (AT&T #5ESS OSPS:Operator-Services-Tandem 601-0T 601+121) MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut-1-2497 WORK:__mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu|4710-Wright-Road|__(+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity-5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New-Orleans-28__|fwds-on-no-answr-to Fax:UNiversity-5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 09:31:55 -0500 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Old Bell System "Underground Cable" Warning Sign Along major roads/highways in some parts of New Orleans, I've always seen these yellow signs on utility poles indicating that there is underground wiring in the vicinity, and to please contact the utility company PRIOR to digging or dredging. About ten years ago, AT&T put up some of their own such signs (with the post-divestiture 'fried-brain' AT&T logo) to call an 800 number before digging, due to a transcontinental underground cable in the vicinity. However, some of the older yellow signs with South Central Bell's name (with 1970's and present Bell logo), but _no_ mention at _all_ of BellSouth, are still around. They refer to a number (in the Metairie suburb), to call prior to digging. It is an 83x- number (I don't remember the last four digits). TODAY, I noticed a much _older_ sign still attached to a utility pole. It had the _OLD_ (pre-1970's) Bell System logo (the one which REALLY LOOKED like a bell), and the following text: WARNING: UNDERGROUND CABLE Before digging in the vicinity, please call (collect) or notify the Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company, at LAfayette-9-9632, 520 Baronne Street, New Orleans 12, Louisiana. I don't know if BellSouth still has any numbers 504-529-9xxx, but the 52x prefix was referred to as JAckson-x in the late 1950's and 1960's. There were/are _many_ 529 (JAckson-9) numbers assigned to general customers throughout the 52x area. However, Southern Bell's 'official' numbers in the 529-8xxx and 529-9xxx ranges _were_ called _LAfayette-9_ in the late 1950's! I just dialed (504) 529-9632, but I received a 'vacant line number' recording (SIT-tones and "We're sorry, you have reached a number that has been disconnected or is no longer in service. If you feel you have reached this recording in error, please check the number, and try your call again.") NWORLASKCG0 (BellSouth #1AESS Class-5 Local "Seabrook" 504-24x-) NWORLAIYCM1 (BellSouth-Mobility Hughes-GMH-2000 Cellular-MTSO NOL) NWORLAMA0GT (BellSouth DMS-100/200 fg-B/C/D Accss-Tandem "Main" 504+) NWORLAMA20T (BellSouth DMS-200 TOPS:Opr-Srvcs-Tandem "Main" 504+053+) NWORLAMA04T (AT&T #4ESS Class-2 Toll 060-T / 504-2T "Main" 504+) JCSNMSPS06T (AT&T #5ESS OSPS:Operator-Services-Tandem 601-0T 601+121) MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut-1-2497 WORK:__mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu|4710-Wright-Road|__(+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity-5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New-Orleans-28__|fwds-on-no-answr-to Fax:UNiversity-5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 14:33:32 -0400 From: Judith Oppenheimer Reply-To: joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com Organization: ICB TOLL FREE - 800/888 news... commentary... consulting... Subject: Toll-Free 3rd Report & Order, and NANC On October 9, 1997, the FCC issued the THIRD REPORT AND ORDER in the matter of Toll Free Service Access Codes, CC Docket No. 95-155. It charged the North American Numbering Council (NANC) with finding replacement for Database Services Management Inc. (DSMI), and more ominously, asks the industry to defer to NANC in matters of industry guidelines, policy, number administration and assignment, as well as dispute resolution. The SECOND REPORT AND ORDER, issued in April, 1997, is the most industry-and-user-unfriendly ruling to date issued by the FCC, encouraged in large part by the NANC. It's worthwhile here to revisit some key elements of the April Order. The FCC declared: 1. A Presumption of Hoarding. Hoarding is defined as a toll free subscriber acquiring more numbers from a RespOrg than it intends to use immediately. Commission asserts the right to question the use of toll free numbers even if subscribers are paying their bills. Routing multiple toll free numbers to a single subscriber will create a rebuttable presumption of hoarding or brokering. Furthermore, "There is no way to determine if a subscriber is maintaining an inventory because it may soon have a need for the numbers, or if the subscriber is building a supply of numbers for possible sale, but in either scenario the numbers are unavailable for toll free subscribers that have an immediate need." Other factors that may be considered if a toll free subscriber is alleged to be hoarding or brokering numbers are the amount of calling of a particular number and the rate at which a particular subscriber changes toll free numbers." 2. A Presumption of Warehousing. Similarly, "...if a Responsible Organization does not have an identified toll free subscriber agreeing to be billed for service associated with each toll free number reserved from the database, or if a Responsible Organization does not have an identified, billed toll free subscriber before switching a number from reserved or assigned to working status, then there is a rebuttable presumption that the Responsible Organization is warehousing numbers. Responsible Organizations that warehouse numbers will be subject to penalties." 3. RespOrg Penalties. "We conclude that the Commission's exclusive jurisdiction over the portions of the North American Numbering Plan that pertain to the United States, found at 251(e)(1) of the Communications Act, as amended, authorizes the Commission to penalize RespOrgs that warehouse toll free numbers. We may impose a forfeiture penalty under 503(b). In addition, if a person violates a provision of the Communications Act or a rule or regulation issued by the Commission under authority of the Communications Act, the Commission can refer the matter to the Department of Justice to determine whether a fine, imprisonment, or both are warranted under 501 or 502 of the Communications Act. We also may limit any RespOrg's allocation of toll free numbers or possibly decertify it as a RespOrg under 251(e)(1) or 4(i). In addition, RespOrgs that falsely indicate that they have identified subscribers for particular numbers may be liable for false statements under Title 18 of the United States Code. We direct DSMI, and any successor toll free administrator, to monitor reserved numbers that are being automatically recaptured after 45 days and to submit regular reports to the Common Carrier Bureau, indicating which RespOrgs repeatedly reserve toll free numbers without having an identified subscriber." 4. Subscriber Penalties. "Toll free subscribers that hoard or broker numbers will be subject to penalties similar to those we will impose for warehousing [ie, note above: a fine, imprisonment, or both!]. The penalties may include, but are not limited to, a forfeiture penalty under 503(b) of the Communications Act. If a subscriber hoards numbers, that subscriber's service provider must terminate toll free service." As a practical matter, toll-free subscribers with multiple numbers are presumed to be hoarding, and/or brokering, and subject to all sorts of scary penalties. Although a number of petitions for reconsideration and clarification to the second order have been filed and are still pending at the FCC, by all appearances the NANC seems intent on enforcing the April order. It's activities should be closely monitored by the industry and 800 users. Judith Oppenheimer Publisher ICB TOLL FREE NEWS http://www.icbtollfree.com mailto:joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com with your name, company name and title to activate 15-day FREE trial subscription. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #289 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Oct 23 23:05:06 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id XAA02172; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 23:05:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 23:05:06 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199710240305.XAA02172@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #290 TELECOM Digest Thu, 23 Oct 97 23:05:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 290 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Continued Billing Problems in Massachusetts (oldbear@arctos.com) Signaling, Routing and General Confusion (Brian Silver) County Criticizes Medic Alert Over 209 (Tad Cook) $5 LD Directory Assistance Charges? (Michael Hayworth) The NANP's New Manager: Lockheed Martin (Greg Monti) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 18:47:02 -0400 From: The Old Bear Subject: Continued Billing Problems in Massachusetts Pat: The following item comes to me from Terrance Beale who is the telecommunications manager for TIAC, a 65,000+ account ISP serving the east coast from Washington, DC to Portland, Maine. This may be of interest to you and TELECOM Digest readers because it is indicative of the problems which can occur when the RBOC local exchange company is unable or unwilling to achieve a smooth integration with the new-entrant LECs. In this particular example, Bell Atlantic appears to have found a way to generate revenue for itself by incorrectly billing calls to CLEC Nxx- numbers. Specificially, it has become apparent that a number of Massachusetts customers with "unmeasured" residential phone service are being improperly billed by Bell Atlantic for what should be unmeasured local calls within their contiguous calling area. Massachusetts has tarriffed three primary residential rate plans: measured, unmeasured and metro. Measured treats every call on a message unit basis against a limited number of included units. Unmeasured provides unlimited calling to one's own town and each contiguous (abutting) town, then charges message units for calls beyond that. Metro provides unmeasured service to most places in the Boston metro area. Message unit calls are billed a call set-up fee plus a message unit charge computed based upon call duration and 'zone' (1, 2 or 3) being called. The problem appears to arise because Bell Atlantic has not correctly programmed its billing system to recognize CLEC Nxx's in adjacent towns. Instead of treating these as part of the unmeasured service, they are treated as 'Zone 1' calls (as if they were in the same zone but non-abutting) and billed as non-itemized 'measage units.' For the consumer, it is impossible to determine the source of message units because Bell Atlantic does not print information on the number called on the phone bill and claims to not keep records of this information. However, customers seem to be getting large message unit bills on phone lines which are used exclusively for modem access to particular ISP numbers provided by CLECs in continguous towns. This is what has made this problem visible. (Interestingly enough, in the correspondence cited below, this problem appears to have been occuring in calls to Bell Atlantic Nxx- numbers as well as to CLEC Nxx- numbers. One may draw one's own inferences as to whether this represents an intentional overbilling or just incompetence and confusion.) The following provides more information on this nasty little RBOC practice, which at a few dollars a month over many tens of thousands of customers may be adding significant 'found' dollars to the corporate bottom line: ---------- begin included text ---------- From: terrence@tiac.net (Terrence Beale) Subject: Re: NYNEX?Bell Atlantic overbilling for ISP access Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 05:36:15 GMT Organization: The Internet Access Company It is possible that you were billed as zone1 other or zone2 for calls that should have been zone1 local from your rate center. The TIAC Metro hunt lines are provided by Worldcom, a competitor to Nynex/Bell Atlantic. When dialing any number, your local switch generates billing information. This information is programmed locally at the switch. It is possible that your local switch was misconfigured to consider the Worldcom Nxx of 588 to be something other than zone1 local to your exchange. I have been doing all I can to identify these anomalies and get them corrected. I would like to think that the fact that your billing seems to be normal now is the result of my efforts, but this claim would be difficult to quantify. Getting problems like this resolved does not happen in the commonplace repair environment of opening tickets and following up through repair channels. It is more or less a hit and miss game of bitching at everybody you can get your hands on until you score. However, the thing is that when Nynex uncovers a problem like this, they invariably decline to admit it, they just fix it and hold firm in their contention that they found nothing and fixed nothing. Magically, the problem is gone. The problem consumers such as yourself have been experiencing is that Nynex, being deeply entrenched in decades of monopolistic tradition, does not have a system in place that fully accommodates the existence of a competitor. So, when Mr. Consumer calls the business office to correct a billing error such as this, the rep will ask for call detail. But, zone1 other and zone2 calls are not detailed on the bill, they are simply lumped as total zone1 other and total zone2. So, you have no way of saying "x number minutes to this number at this time and date". So then they ask "ok what exchange were you calling ", and you say "588". They look up 588, and the system doesn't recognize the existence of 588, because it is not a Nynex Nxx. They then go digging into a system that apparently does not generate consistently accurate information. When you called, you were told that the exchanges you claimed to be Medford and Cambridge were actually Boston Central, the Lexington number is really in Waltham, and that Lexington and Bedford were not the same rate center (a sign that the person you spoke with was lacking clue). However, Mr. Snow also called the business office (yes, the business office, not people with more clue who we could have called like one of our contacts at Nynex Systems Marketing or one of the market area centers or even one of my engineering contacts, he called the same number that Joe Consumer would call). He asked the same questions about the same exchanges and got from the rep he spoke with 100 percent correct answers. Nxx's are assigned by Bellcore, an orginazation which operates independently of its owners, the seven Regional Bell Operating Companies (did I say seven? Oh my of course I mean six. Don't get me started on my thoughts on how letting one RBOC buy another is conducive to the spirit of divestiture and expanded competition in the telecommunications industry ). It is Bellcore's role to dictate which Nxx is assigned to which community. If Bellcore says 588 is Cambridge, than anyone up to and including your favorite flunkie at Nynex Atlantic who says otherwise is nothing other than dead wrong. I am not convinced that Nynex has at this time has completely eliminated bogus billing spews from every switch in regards to Worldcom Nxx's. I would appreciate any feedback on this issue from any TIAC customer who feels he has been inappropriately billed for calls to the Metro Hunt. The Metro Hunt exchanges are (508)861, (617) 249, 531, 588, 831, 992, (781) 480, 658,778,852, 970, and (978)964. Terrence Beale Manager of Telecommunications The Internet Access Comapany in response to: From: Jay Hersh Subject: NYNEX/BELL Atlantic over billing for ISP (TIAC) access Date: 21 Oct 1997 14:54:01 GMT Organization: The Internet Access Company, Inc. Lines: 115 I'm writing to describe an incident which has been ongoing over the last several months. It is a little bit complicated so I hope that you'll bear with me. I have discovered that I have been being billed by Bell Atlantic for local calls as if they were zone 1 calls. The calling plan which I possess is known as unlimited local residence which allows me to make calls in an unlimited manner to telephone numbers in towns which are physically adjacent to the one I live in, namely Arlington. I'm make very few local calls other than those to my Internet service provider, however I do make a reasonable number of calls to them, typically one each evening of about 5 to 10 minutes duration. As far back as I can determine up until the most recent bill I have been charged by NYNEX (now Bell Atlantic) at zone 1 rates for what I now know should have been local calls. What caused me to initially notice this was that my Internet service provider introduced a new access number located in Cambridge. Prior to that I had been using an access number located in Bedford. I was at the time under the mistaken impression that the Bedford number (275-0331) was not a local call and that was why I was being billed for the zone 1 calls. [OB note: While the town of Bedford is separated from the writer's location in Arlington by the town of Lexington, the Bedford central office is considered to be a Lexington exchange historically for tarriff purposes. The Bedford number in question is a Bell Atlantic (not a CLEC) Nxx, too.] Therefore in order to avoid being billed for zone 1 calls I switched over to accessing my Internet service provider via the Cambridge number (588-8422). I expected that this would greatly reduce or eliminate the number of zone 1 calls for which I was being billed. I found however that this was not the case. Even after changing over to the Cambridge access number I was still being billed for zone 1 calls when dialing this local number. It was at this time that I began contacting representatives from NYNEX to ascertain what the problem was. Initially I spoke directly with customer service representatives. Receiving no accurate information from them, I then escalated the calls to customer service managers. In July I spoke with a Mr. Attella who indicated to me that even though my Internet service provider (The Internet Access Co. aka TIAC, of Bedford) listed these phone numbers as local (I inquired about access numbers listed for Cambridge, Bedford, Lexington and Medford since these are all physically adjacent to Arlington) that these phone numbers actually existed at different billing exchanges than what TIAC identified them as. Specifically he indicated that the phone numbers listed as Cambridge and Medford were Boston Central exchange, that Lexington was actually a Waltham exchange, and that Bedford was not physically adjacent to Arlington despite the fact that the NYNEX phone books themselves indicate that Bedford is considered part of Lexington for billing purposes. I subsequently contacted TIAC to relay this information to them. I spoke with a person there named Brad Snow [who is the TIAC employee responsible for physically locating remote points of presence for TIAC]. He indicated several things to me. He indicated that upon contacting NYNEX he received entirely different information regarding the location of the access numbers both physically and with respect to billing. At my request he also investigated the possibility that the third party companies which provide them their phone service might not actually be providing the service which TIAC thought they were getting. Specifically it might be that TIAC thought they were getting local phone numbers in various towns but were actually getting a forwarding service whose toll charges got billed back to the caller. Brad was able to verify that this was not the case. This led me, after several weeks of delay due to vacation and personal reasons, to once again try contacting NYNEX for an explanation of these erroneous billing practices, and a credit for the overbilled amounts. On the subsequent contact I spoke with a Ms. Fowler. Ms. Fowler indicated that both the Bedford and Cambridge numbers should indeed be local calls and she had no explanation as to why I was being billed for them as if they were zone 1 calls. She took my contact information and indicated she would call me back, something which she has not done over the last 14 days despite my having called and left messages inquiring about the status of this investigation. Since my conversation with Ms. Fowler I have received another phone bill from Bell Atlantic. This bill finally reflects my actual zone 1 usage in that rather than being billed for some 50 or 60 zone 1 calls for some 250 to 300 minutes I was billed for only two dozen calls totaling 74 minutes. There has been no change in my actual calling habits and I still contact my Internet service provider's access numbers almost daily. I can therefore only conclude that whatever previous billing error was being made has now been corrected. I have not however been credited for the approximately $3 to $4 per month (approximately 25 calls of 10 minute average duration billed at 1.6 cents per call and 1 cent per minute) over billing which has occurred over the last 10 to 15 months. NYNEX has to this point insisted that because these zone 1 calls are not itemized that it is not possible for them to ascertain whether these calls were actually made by me, or whether they have been billing me erroneously for well over a year now. Of course given that there is no itemization of these calls the only concrete proof that I have is the variation between bills for the month in which I was on vacation and therefore made no access calls to my Internet service provider, and the most recent bill from Bell Atlantic which represents a significant drop in both total number of zone 1 calls placed by me as well as the total number of minutes those calls comprise despite no change in my actual calling habits. At this point I intend to contact both some of the local consumer advocate people on television (such as at WBZ TV) and the attorney general. However if you believe you have also been erroneously over billed and would like to be a party to this complaint please email a brief (hopefully briefer than mine :-) synopsis of your situation along with name, address, telephone number and email information. I will forward these along with my complaint. If any of the consumer advocates or the attorney general does begin a formal inquiry into what appears to be a systematic over billing of customers by Nynex, then they will probably contact you regarding the outcome of your individual complaint. Thanks for your attention, Jay [Note from The Old Bear ] Shawn Lewis of XCOM provides some additional insight into the problem with NYNEX/Bell-Atlantic's billing problems: From: "Shawn Lewis" Subject: Re: NYNEX?Bell Atlantic overbilling for ISP access Date: 22 Oct 1997 11:08:48 GMT Organization: XCOM Technologies, Inc Maybe I can be of some assistance here. The number in which you are dialing, though reaching TIAC, the actual phone service is supplied to TIAC by a CLEC (Competetive Local Exchange Carrier) - In other words another phone company competing with NYNEX. I myself work for XCOM, which is also a CLEC. BA/NYNEX is known for this gross billing problem, and just last week, under emergency relief and consideration from the the Mass. Department of Public Utilities - filed by a petition submitted by my company -- a meeting was held between NYNEX/BA, XCOM and the DPU. Well, NYNEX got slammed real hard. The DPU is the controlling party of regulated entities:ie MFS, TELEPORT, XCOM, etc. All you need to do is contact the DPU explain your problem to them, (my meeting was with the DIRECTOR of the DPU, so he is very aware of the problem) As well, TELEPORT has filed a petition supporting XCOM and complaining of the same problems with BA/NYNEX. Now that this problem has been brought to light, watch how fast the DPU will get NYNEX to credit you ALL that is do you, and if you should still have problems, feel free to EMAIL me personally, as NYNEX was mandated to provide me with a single point of contact for these disputes. Granted, we were granted this person to handle any NYNEX customers calling our customers and being billed incorrectly, but I think I can pass along the Directors name within NYNEX. TIAC, and the rest of the ISP's are not the ones at blame, and believe me, their intentions are 100% honorable. Unfortunately, NYNEX/BA would love everyone to leave there current LOCAL isp, and move on over to the new BA Internet Service. They will probibly stop at nothing. Please take into consideration the ISP has a love/hate relationship with BA/NYNEX and I am sure TIAC did everything in its power to help remedy the problem, but they were not to blame. Good luck. Shawn Lewis slewis@xcom.net 617-500-0000 XCOM Technologies, Inc 617-500-0001 VP/Chief Operating Officer ------------------------------ From: Brian Silver Subject: Signaling, Routing and General Confusion Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 15:33:06 -0400 Organization: DECthreads I'm curious about the "stuff" that happens when I call my ISP using my modem. I have read all the info I can get my hands on (can't seem to find a FAQ, a pointer would be great!), and I have a few questions. The way I see it is that my modem goes off-hook. This signals my CO switch, and I get a dial tone. This tells me (or my modem) to send the address information, the number. So the CO swtich gets the address information, and lets say for the sake of the argument, that the ISP (or destination number) is located on another switch. So, my CO switch then *finds the next switch that it needs to send the address information to*. Question #1. How does this happen? My understanding is that based on the number, the switch has a routing table that tells it based on time of day, and trunk availability what switch to go to next. So if the switch sees an area code, it knows "Hey, that call needs to go InterLATA, so this is the next switch in line", if it sees an exchange, it knows based on that what trunk to use. Right? Just switch configuration, or does SS7 have something to do with this? Ok, so the first switch now knows what switch to go to next. It must signal that switch, telling it it has an incoming call. Now, I think there are a number of signaling methods, but lets focus on Robbed Bit and SS7 and MF. My understanding is that using MF signaling, the first switch would assert the proper tone on the trunk to the next switch. Does this happen in one time slot in a TDM trunk? If the signaling is robbed bit, does it just assert the bit? I'm a bit unclear on how signaling happens on T-carrier trunks. Also, how does this happen using SS7? Does the first switch send a request to an STP, and address the information with just the destination phone call? How does SS7 tell the first switch what trunk the call needs to go out? I'm a bit confused when it comes to call routing and SS7. Does SS7 even play any role in call routing? Ok, so the first switch signals the second, and then second winks back, telling the first that its ready for address information. This process happens all down the line until the last switch is reached. The last switch then says "Ah! This call goes to this number, and its on me!". I assume that switches are configured to tell the switching tables "This number == This Line"? Now here is where the fact that I'm calling my ISP comes into play. My ISP gets a T1, lets say. The switch then hunts for a TDM slot on the trunk for the call, right? And it uses robbed bit signaling (unless ISDN, when it uses Q.931 ...). Question #2. (Ok, more like question number 800 ...) Does the single bit for signaling represent the presence/absence of the old-fashioned 2600Hz tone? The way I see it working is the ISP RA box sees the signal bit on the incoming DS0, and knows to pick up the phone (equivilent of a ring). But how does off-hook get signaled? Needless to say, I'm a bit confused, but I've gotten this far and I'd really like to know how all of this works. I know that I'm probably asking someone out there for a dissertation on the phone system, but a pointer to a book or what not where all this is outlined would be great. All the books I have read separate routing and signaling, but it seems to me that the two are somewhat linked since MF signaling set up the route at the same time the signal was propagated. Thanks. Feel free to mail directly, if you'd rather. Brian Replace ! with @ for email address: silver!zko.dec.com ------------------------------ Subject: County Criticizes Medic Alert Over 209 Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 15:21:45 PDT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) County criticizes Medic Alert in attempt to keep 209 area code By Joe Bigham Associated Press Writer FRESNO, Calif. (AP) -- Fresno County is trying to keep the 209 area code by criticizing Medic Alert, the medallion identification service cited as a key reason to retain 209 in the northern San Joaquin Valley. Three emergency medical workers, including the county's emergency medical director, said they've never used Medic Alert's emergency telephone number and have never seen anyone else do so. The declarations were among material the county gathered and presented to an administrative law judge for an appeal hearing Thursday and Friday in a last-ditch effort to retain the 209 telephone area code. The PUC already has decided to keep the 209 area code in the northern valley counties of San Joaquin, Stanislaus and Merced and adjacent Sierra counties. A new 559 area code is to be assigned to Fresno, Tulare, Kings and Madera counties in late 1998. The administrative law judge is expected to decide by the end of the year whether to uphold the PUC decision. Officials of Turlock-based Medic Alert said changing the area code in the north could endanger 3 million people in North America whose bracelets or necklaces carry the group's 209 telephone number. They feared doctors or nurses would be unable to get through to learn additional information beyond that carried on the patient's medallion. "We cannot, even with our best efforts, reach our total membership to change their emblem's call number," said President Tanya Glazebrook. "Emergency responders will be confused and frustrated. Members will be in danger." But Fresno County's appeal is largely based on a contention that few medical providers call Medic Alert even if they check the medallions for data on ailments or medications to which a patient is allergic. That was the substance of written declarations by a nurse, paramedic and Dr. Gene Kallsen, chief of emergency medicine at the formerly county-run hospital and head of the county's emergency medical system. "In my 20 years as an emergency room physician, I have never used the telephone number provided on the Medic Alert medallion for any purpose," Kallsen wrote. But in oral testimony Thursday, Kallsen called information on Medic Alert medallions "very helpful." And Kallsen said emergency physicians nationally endorse Medic Alert. He added, "I endorse it as well." Medic Alert spokesman David M. Roth said the nonprofit group receives 20,000 emergency calls a year. Roth called Fresno County's attack on Medic Alert "a desperate and ill-considered strategy." The county suggested technical methods to let the southern counties use 209 but keep it in the north just for Medic Alert. Fresno County's appeal also contends the southern counties should keep the 209 area code because they have more residents than the north. But H. Douglas Hescox, the California area code administrator, wrote in a declaration that the number of residents and Medic Alert were not the main reasons 209 is being kept in the north. Hescox said the decision was made because there are more telephone prefixes in the northern end of the valley, indicating the north has more telephone customers. As of September, the north had 295 prefixes and the south 280, Hescox wrote. "I estimate that if the north had to change its area code instead of the south, about 150,000 additional customers would need to change their numbers," he added. ------------------------------ From: Michael Hayworth Subject: $5 LD Directory Assistance Charges? Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 17:45:26 -0500 Organization: Innovative TeleSolutions I've got two AT&T directory assistance charges on my Lubbock, TX office's phone bill -- one is for $4.95 and the other is for $3.95. The AT&T customer service office claims that "we have different charges to different areas of the country for long distance directory assistance". Did I miss something here? We don't use it often, but I don't recall paying more than about $.75 for LD directory assistance in the past. Michael Hayworth VP Technology Innovative TeleSolutions ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 21:50:09 -0400 From: Greg Monti Subject: The NANP's New Manager: Lockheed Martin On page 37 of the October 20, 1997, issue of _Network World_, buried at the bottom of a story entitled, "New Pay Phone Ruling Upsets AT&T," is a note that the U.S. Federal Communications Commission has picked a new North American Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA). It will be "a division of Lockheed Martin Corp." The story says that the decision ends a five-year process to name a successor to replace Bell Communications Research (BellCoRe) which was "judged to be too partial" toward the five Bell Operating Companies who own it. Greg Monti Jersey City, New Jersey, USA gmonti@mindspring.com http://www.mindspring.com/~gmonti ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #290 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Oct 26 19:55:04 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id TAA10171; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 19:55:04 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 19:55:04 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199710270055.TAA10171@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #291 TELECOM Digest Sun, 26 Oct 97 19:55:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 291 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Need Help Asynchronous and BISYNC (Felix Leung) Is Southwestern Bell Allowed to do This? (Ravi Prakash) Bell Canada Set to Announce New Area Codes (Jeff Smith) Any Problem Running Voice and Data Over Frame Relay? (Thomason Fan) New OK Area Code (Tad Cook) InTRA-LATA Carrier Verification (Bill Levant) New York Times on Net Day (Ronda Hauben) Tower Site Leases (Allison Hift) Report: Net Telephony Potential Drain For Telcoms (Eric Florack) Cellular Dialing in MA Due to New Area Codes (David E. Sheafer) Phone Problems in Nebraska? (TELECOM Digest Editor) Re: Enterprise, Ringdowns, Rate & Route (John David Galt) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Felix Leung Subject: Need Help Asynchronous and BISYNC Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 16:04:23 -0500 Organization: University of Winnipeg Does anyone can give me a hints about my answer for the question below? Any suggestion would be appreciated. A sender has two messages of 25 characters and 100 characters to send. He understands that asynchronous protocol involves a start bit, a parity bit, and a stop bit for each character that is sent. For BISYNC protocol, the whole message can be sent in a block and it involves an overhead as follows: Line bid of 3 characters: SYN SYN ENQ Line acknowledgement of 4 characters: SYN SYN ACK0 Framing of 6 characters: SYN SYN STX ETX plus 2 for BCC Data acknowledgement of 4 characters: SYN SYN ACK1 Assume seven-bit characters for each case. 1) Determine for each message: i) The number of bits which are transmitted using Asynchronous protocol ii) The number of bits which are transmitted using BISYNC protocol 2) Given that: Efficiency of a protocol = data bits/(data + overhead bits) Determine the efficiencies of the two protocols for each of the messages. Draw your conclusion as to what protocol to use for each message. Answer: 1.) i.) 3 control bits per char. * 25 characters = 75 controls bits 25 characters * 7 bits/char = 175 bits Total = 75 bits + 175 bits = 250 bits are transmitted using Asynchronous. 3 control bits per char. * 100 characters = 300 controls bits 100 characters * 7 bits/char = 700 bits Total = 300 bits + 700 bits = 1000 bits are transmitted using Asynchronous. ii.) SYN SYN ENQ + SYN SYN ACK0 + SYN SYN STX message ETX BCC + SYN SYN ACK1 + SYN SYN STX EOT BCC + SYN SYN ACK0 = (3*7) + (4*7) + (3*7 + 25*7 + 3*7) + (4*7) + (6*7) + (4*7) = 21 + 28 + 21 + 175 + 21 + 28 + 42 + 28 = 364 bits are transmitted using BISYNC. SYN SYN ENQ + SYN SYN ACK0 + SYN SYN STX message ETX BCC + SYN SYN ACK1 + SYN SYN STX EOT BCC + SYN SYN ACK0 = (3*7) + (4*7) + (3*7 + 100*7 + 3*7) + (4*7) + (6*7) + (4*7) = 21 + 28 + 21 + 700 + 21 + 28 + 42 + 28 = 889 bits are transmitted using BISYNC. 2.) 175 data bits / 250 total bits = 70% efficient 700 data bits / 1000 total bits = 70% efficient 175 data bits / 364 total bits = 48% efficient 700 data bits / 889 total bits = 79% efficient Using asynchronous to send a small message will be much more efficient than the technique that used by BISYNC, because the size of overhead bits is increased proportional with the size of the message. However, when using BISYNC technique for sending message, it is good for sending a very large size message, because the overhead bits is constant regarding the message size. As we can see from the previous efficiency figure, 79% was obtained by using BISYNC method when sending a large message, which is more efficient than the method which used by Asynchronous. The conclusion of sending each message will be as follow: 25 characters --> Asynchronous 100 characters --> BISYNC Felix Leung University of Winnipeg Business of Computing http://www.uwinnipeg.ca/~cleung1 ------------------------------ From: ravip@utdallas.edu (Ravi Prakash) Subject: Is Southwestern Bell Allowed to do This? Date: 25 Oct 1997 02:58:35 GMT Organization: Univ. of Texas at Dallas A friend of mine has joined University of Texas at Arlington's graduate school this fall and is sharing an apartment with some other international students in Arlington, TX. The local service provider in that area is Southwestern Bell. When my friend initially called to get a telephone connection, Southwestern Bell asked for some kind of identification. When he explained that he was a new international student they asked him for his passport number, citizenship, etc. and gave him a telephone connection. Recently, he received the following letter from Southwestern Bell (I have deleted my friend's name as well as the name of the Southwestern Bell person who signed the letter): ======== Dear Customer: XXXXXXX, We are unable toverify the information you provided to us at the time you applied for our new service. Therefore we request to provide the following information to our office: a) Picture ID (driver's license or Texas I.D) b) Social Security card c) Lease for your present address or the tax records if you own the property. Please send photocopies of the above 3 items to the following address: SWB TEL Co, PO Box xxxx, Four Bell Plaza, 10th floor, Dallas, TX 75393-0170. To avoid interruption of your telephone service, the information must reach our office no later than 10/24/97. If service is interrupted, a reconnection charge of $14.85 per line will apply. Sincerely, XXXX YYYY Rev. Management Representative. ========== My friend has applied for his social security number. But, the card hasn't arrived yet. Moreover, since getting the telephone connection, he has been regularly paying all the telephone bills. My question is: Is Southwestern Bell within its rights to disconnect the telephone? After all, he provided them will all the identification information they requested. Isn't it their responsibility to verify the information? Moreover, he has never defaulted on any bill payments. I would greatly appreciate your input on this matter. Thanks, Ravi Prakash (ravip@utdallas.edu) www.utdallas.edu/~ravip Computer Science Program Erik Jonsson School of Engineering and Computer Science The University of Texas at Dallas ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 09:30:59 -0400 From: Jeff Smith Subject: Bell Canada Set to Announce New Area Codes Bell Canada is set to annouce 4 new area codes for the GTA. (New Metro Toronto). 1. Durham Region - will move to a new area code 2. Peel & Halton - will move to a new area code (these regions will share area code until split is needed) 3. York - will retain the current 905 area code - the rest of 905 not in the GTA will move to a new area code. 4. (new) Toronto - will either get an overlay or a split of the current area code or maybe wireless services to move to a seperate area code. By 2002 the GTA - will be called Metro will compose of Five Cities. Namely: 1. City of Toronto 2. City of Durham 3. City of Peel 4. City of York 5. City of Halton People are saying Bell has applied for more area codes to get the regions ready now! ------------------------------ From: Thomason Fan Subject: Any Problem Running Voice and Data Over Frame Relay? Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 19:06:29 +0800 Organization: Asia On-Line Limited, Hong Kong. We are a multi-national company having multiple locations. Currently, we are using TDM multiplexer to connect our WAN circuits over International least lines for voice and data routing. We are now facing requirement to expend our network to have more locations and some existing location requires upgrade on bandwidth. Since TDM is not as efficient as FRAD on bandwidth utilization, we are considering replacement of our entire TDM multiplexer to FRAD multiplexer. We are not experts on this area, and would like to seek advice from you. Currently, we have short-listed four vendors: ACT, MICOM (Marathon), NETRIX (2210) and NUERA (F120 and F200). Our criterias are voice quality, compression rate, voice delay, bandwidth utilization and stability under heavy voice and data traffic. We network topology is mesh network. So, ability to provide fault tolerance and load balance on multiple paths is a must. Is there any problem about that ? (Most circuits are 64k bandwidth.) Some paths are public and some are least line running frame relay. Would that introduce any trouble? Any comment? Thanks in advance, Thomason ------------------------------ Subject: New OK Area Code Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 17:11:14 PDT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) New Area Code Taking Effect in Oklahoma By Shaun Schafer, Tulsa World, Okla. Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News Oct. 25--Callers dialing a 405 area code number outside of Oklahoma City after Friday are going to hear a "Hello," but they are getting much closer to hearing, "We're sorry, your call could not be completed as dialed. ..." A new era in state telecommunications begins on Saturday as the first of two new area codes for the state goes into effect. Nov. 1 marks the start of the five-month transitional dialing period for the new 580 area code. Callers have five months to get used to dialing 580 for calls to the Panhandle and northwestern and southern parts of the state. The 405 area code will continue to serve Oklahoma City and central Oklahoma. The area covered by 918 is unchanged. Dialers have until midnight March 31 to adjust to the new number. At that point, those dialing 405 for a call into the new 580 area will receive the "We're sorry ..." message. Other than learning the new numbers, the impact will be limited. The new code doesn't affect emergency 911 services, long-distance charges or local service rates. If a call was a long-distance call, it continues to be a long-distance call. If it was a local call before the change, it still will be a local call. During the transitional dialing period, Oklahoma telecommunications service providers will be conducting an educational campaign to inform customers about the new area code. The campaign includes a variety of customer mailings, bill inserts, news announcements and other communications. "All of the telephone companies are required to notify their subscribers," said Pat Petree, Oklahoma Corporation Commission spokesman. "Beyond that, they really don't have to do anything." During the transition, customers dialing from the 918 area code in northeastern Oklahoma can use either the 405 or 580 code and their calls will be completed. Telecommunications companies said they also hope the transition period will allow businesses time to adjust to the change. They encouraged all business customers in the state to contact their private branch exchange vendor to make sure their systems are programmed to send and receive calls using the new generation of area codes -- like 580 -- that do not have a "1" or a "0" as a middle digit. Additionally, Oklahoma businesses can begin making the necessary changes to company letterhead, advertising, promotional materials and business cards to reflect the new code. Telephone customers also are being asked to reprogram residential and business speed dial and auto dial services on telephones and fax machines. While the telephone companies may at some later rate case request a hike to cover the costs of the change, customers immediately will have to bear whatever business costs -- such as new stationery -- the change brings. The corporation commission, which was responsible for overseeing the process of adding a new area code, said it has received a small number of calls from concerned citizens. Many of those callers, however, have asked for reimbursement, Petree said. The 580 code was assigned by Bellcore, the administrator of codes throughout North America, after the corporation commission's June 26 ruling in favor of implementing a new code through a geographic split of the current 405 code. A plan to overlay the area with the new number, allowing 405 and 580 to work simultaneously in one area, was rejected. Without the change, 405 would have run out of new numbers by September 1998. Although not yet under the gun, the 918 area code is facing the same pressures from the rapid growth of cellular phones, faxes, modems, pagers and additional phone lines. Commission staff estimated a number covering the rural area outside Tulsa would have to be assigned before the first quarter of 2001. That new code for northeastern Oklahoma has not been picked. ------------------------------ From: Wlevant@aol.com (Bill Levant) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 21:15:21 EDT Subject: InTRA-LATA Carrier Verification We had some trouble in my office this week with inTRA-LATA toll calls. We just switched from ATX (10008) to Worldcom (10555) and calls to certain nearby toll points were being misrouted by Bell Atlantic (which SWORE that our PIC codes were all correct; they weren't, but THAT's another story ...) preventing us from completing those calls, except by using an IXC, at ungenerous rates). At one point, Worldcom told us to dial 700-4141 (we're in area code 610) to verify our inTRA-LATA toll PIC assignment. I did; it works just like (700) 555-4141. I've never seen that mentioned here; does it work anywhere else? BTW, if you're lucky (?) enough to have BA inTRA-LATA toll, dialing 700-4141 gets you the dulcet tones of James Earl Jones thanking you for using CNN, er ... BA. It's ALMOST worth switching to BA just for that ;-). By the way, Worldcom offers UNTIMED calling to the entire metro Philadelphia area at about .07/call; BA charges (at best) .04/minute during the day. How does Worldcom do this and not go broke (I assume that they **don't** re-sell BA). Bill ------------------------------ From: ronda@panix.com (Ronda Hauben) Subject: New York Times on Net Day Date: 26 Oct 1997 15:55:54 -0500 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC An article in Saturday's {New York Times} (10/25/97) "Internet's Value in U.S. Schools Still in Question" (page 1) described the 2nd annual netday and showed the prejudice of some of the press against the educational use of the Internet. While the {New York Times} has had many glowing accounts and hype about how the Internet is crucial for business and the commercial world, when it comes to describing or discussing the importance of the Internet for schools, they have trouble finding reasons to support the educational development and spread of the Net. They raise the question "Will the teaching of basic skills be harmed or helped by the cyber-revolution?" giving the impression that kids who can't use computers and the Internet will be able to survive in a world where computers and the Net are becoming an increasingly important part of the lives of those who do have access. One wonders why the {New York Times} reporter doing the story wasn't asked to interview teachers or students in the New York City area who are using and finding the Net valuable. (Though New York City does seem to be very behind other areas in the country and world who are trying to get students access to the Internet as soon as possible.) I have learned of schools around the country where students in intermediate school are getting Internet lessons and being encouraged to be on the Internet. While here in NYC this seems the exception rather than the rule. The story begrudgingly reported that "And many techers report that writing E-mail to students in other communities and other countries, for instance, seems to motivate students to want to write and read." However, the NYT story basically fails to understand that the importance of the Internet is "communication". That people are able to communicate with each other and all gain in the process. Instead the story seems to think of the Internet as only a one way media with people being swamped by information they don't know how to deal with. It is disappointing to see such reporting continue by the {New York Times} at a time when there is a great need among the public to have real information about how the Internet is being used in schools around the world (and the U.S. is quite backward in this regard) as well as in the U.S. Instead it seems their pro commercial line that the Internet should be reserved for business and making money has interferred with their raising the necessary public questions as to the appropriate public policy for the future development of the Internet. Ronda ronda@panix.com Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook also in print edition ISBN 0-8196-7706-6 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 15:23:54 EDT From: Allison Hift Subject: Tower Site Leases Does anyone have information on the average term (initial and renewal) of PCS tower site lease agreements that have been entered into in the past year? What are the average rental values (of course, this is very fact-specific) in residential areas, urban areas -- for placing a tower on government property? Private property? Allison K. Hift, Pending Bar Admission Leibowitz & Associates, P.A. 1 Southeast First Avenue, Suite 1450 Miami, Florida 33131-1715 http://www.library.law.miami.edu/~hift hift@cobra.law.miami.edu (305) 530-1322 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 06:06:47 PDT From: Eric Florack Subject: Report: Net Telephony Potential Drain For Telcoms From INTERNET DAILY: The Internet could cost telephone companies as much as $8 billion over the next four years as consumers turn to the Net for voice and fax services, Bloomberg news reported. A Falls Church, Va.-based consulting firm. Action Information Services, issued a report saying the lower costs of the Net will also prompt phone companies to lower their prices. The report said international long distance companies will be hit the most, perhaps amounting to as much as 4.5 percent of the total revenues from telephone business between countries by the year 2001, the Bloomberg report said. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 09:52:09 -0400 From: David E. Sheafer Subject: Cellular Dialing in MA Due to New Area Codes With the recent change of area codes in Massachussets, Bell Atlantic Mobile required some customers to change their entire cellular number and are now using exchanges that are just for exclusively cellular, prior to the area code change, some exchanges were mixture of landline and cellular. Eg. my number was 508 989 XXXX which was both landline and cellular, my new number is 508 523 xxxx. The difference is cellular exchanges, at least in Massachusetts are a local call from anywhere in within the area code boundaries, currently 508 523 xxxx is a local call from anywhere within 978 and 508. The question is will it remain local in the 978 area code and how will it be dialed. They way to dial local calls out of area code because is NPA-NNX-xxxx, but no 1, within area code, it is just NNX-xxxx. But currently the only way the call works from either area code is 523-xxxx, calling either 508 523-xxxx or 1 508 523-xxxx from the 978 area code results in a recording saying the call was not dialed correctly and to "call repair service or check your owners manual". When I called Bell Atlantic Mobile to ask them the proper dialing they said to call the LEC, which is Bell Atlantic. Bell Atlantic couldn't tell me either. As 508 523 xxxx is local to the 508/978 boundaries and I presume will remain that way, as all local call should remain the same, just dialing practices will change. My question is what should be the proper dialing procedure for calling 508 523 xxxx from 978, does anyone have any thoughts. Thanks for your input, David dsheafer@necc.mass.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 16:22:35 EST From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: Phone Problems in Nebraska? I needed to call someone in the Omaha, Nebraska area (actually west of Omaha about forty miles) on Sunday and after several attempts to get through and getting only busy signals, fast busies or nothing at all I found out that phone service was at a crawl in that area due to a very massive storm Saturday. Apparently two or three feet of snow, some extremely high winds and other conditions knocked out a lot of circuits. Does anyone have an update? I guess this condition was all over that area with Colorado also affected quite heavily. I can tell you that from the looks of things outside here today, fall has definitly arrived, or maybe it is winter :( ... rain and very high winds all day and not a bit of sunshine. It is one of those days where the cold and dampness seem to get into everything; everyone has either a stiffness in the neck (like me), is crabby or otherwise indisposed to do much other than sit in a semi-darkened room close to the radiator with a cup of soup and think back to better days and times. I am listening to Beethoven's Ninth Symphony being performed on Family Radio this afternoon. Earlier they did a bunch of the Handel Coronation Anthems, the works written for the coronation of Queen Caroline. For whatever reason, Handel always cheers me up. :) PAT ------------------------------ From: jdg@but-i-dont-like-spam.boxmail.com (John David Galt) Subject: Re: Enterprise, Ringdowns, Rate & Route Date: 26 Oct 1997 18:00:55 GMT Organization: Sacratomato Cynics Quoth Mark J. Cuccia : > Similarly, there are still numerous remote/rural areas (hunting/fishing > lodges, ranches, isolated villages, ranger stations, etc) all over the > NANP area (US, Canada, much of the Caribbean) which can only be > reached by operators of the telcos/carriers mentioned in the first > paragraph. If you are trying to reach such a 'ring-down' point in your > LATA (or when calling from within Canada), you call your 'traditional' > LEC local/toll opearator with a single '0'. If the 'ringdown' location > is outside of your LATA when calling from the US, you can only use the > AT&T operator, (10[10]288)-0('#'/0); or use 800-CALL-ATT / > 800-3210-ATT and then cut-thru to the operator. Such calls to > 'ringdown' points are billed at AT&T/LEC Operator _HANDLED_ rates! Here's something I've wondered about for awhile: why not allow customers to dial these points themselves (using the 88x pseudo-NPAs)? (This would ring the same manual operator point it does now, but would bypass the earlier operator step used now. Billing would work as if it's an automatic exchange.) Is there some technical reason this can't be done, or is it the way it is because the union wants to preserve needless jobs? John David Galt [TELECOM Editor's Note: You may be correct about the union. One case I remember from several years ago involved a little town in northern Minnesota. The name Grand Portage comes to mind. It was listed as an operator handled call, with the operator to dial 218 plus 446(?) plus four-D. In other words, the operator could dial the number but the public presumably could not. As an experiment I tried dialing direct 218-446-number and got through just fine. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #291 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Oct 28 07:34:04 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id HAA22943; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 07:34:04 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 07:34:04 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199710281234.HAA22943@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #292 TELECOM Digest Tue, 28 Oct 97 07:34:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 292 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Paging Firm Collapses (Tad Cook) Modem Users, Who You Gonna Call?; Not Bell Atlantic (Robert J. Perillo) Book Review: "The Internet Unleashed" by Ellsworth et al (Rob Slade) Slamming: Some Results (Jim Youll) Gilder Says Reno Attacked Microsoft Too Late (Eric Florack) Bell Atlantic Still ISDN Clueless (Ken Levitt) Employment Opportunity: Software Engineer Wanted (James A. Gayhart) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Paging Firm Collapses Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 11:50:41 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) California Bay Area Pager Service's Collapse No Surprise By Jon Healey, San Jose Mercury News, Calif. Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News SAN JOSE, Calif.--Oct. 27--The collapse of EconoPage Inc., the largest outlet for pagers in the Bay Area, has prompted a confusing din of finger pointing and recriminations. But the key cause of the trouble is clear: EconoPage gave its customers better rates than it could afford. The San Jose paging services reseller used low prices and heavy advertising to fuel an astonishing boom, going from scratch in late 1995 to an estimated 250,000 customers in four states today. So attractive were its bargain-basement rates that EconoPage single-handedly drove down the cost of paging across the board in the Bay Area, competitors say. Now, with the company having abruptly closed its stores Wednesday, there is debate about whether EconoPage was doomed from the start. Its pitch was $89 for a pager and one year of unlimited paging on a local number, $119 for two years and $139 for three years. But because EconoPage was paying suppliers approximately $60 for these pagers and $24 or more for each year of service, it's difficult to see how it expected to cover costs, said Danny Lee, a top executive at Future Paging and Cellular Inc. of San Francisco. The company's two main suppliers, on the other hand, say that EconoPage's strategy for generating revenue could have worked. As they portray it, EconoPage hoped to lure customers with low initial costs and then raise the prices when they renewed their contracts. The problem fingered by the suppliers was on the other side of the ledger: how much EconoPage spent. EconoPage's offices remained closed Friday, and its executives could not be reached for comment. In a private conference Wednesday, EconoPage told its creditors that it was closing its stores because it could not pay its bills. Its customers stand to lose as much as $7 million worth of prepaid service, while its other creditors are owed about $4 million. Angry customers flooded the Santa Clara District Attorney's office with complaints Friday, and Assistant District Attorney Robin B. Wakshull said the office was looking into the situation. She added, though, that the office did not have enough information yet to decide whether to take action. Meanwhile, an attorney in San Francisco said his firm is investigating legal action on behalf of EconoPage's customers, whose prepaid contracts for paging service are being terminated by the company's suppliers. The firm, Chavez and Gretler, specializes in consumer class-action cases, attorney Alexander Trueblood said. As a reseller, EconoPage did not operate a paging network; instead, it resold the pagers and services it bought in bulk from some of the nation's largest paging networks, including PageNet and PageMart Inc. of Dallas. Lee, whose company was the largest reseller of paging service in the Bay Area before EconoPage arrived, said he had warned his suppliers that EconoPage could not survive at the prices it was charging. He accused EconoPage of engaging in a pyramid scheme, taking money from a steady stream of new customers to cover the losses associated with previous customers. David Quintana, president of Beeper City Inc., said, "They were promising customers things that no one in the industry thought they could deliver. They put their prices too low. With the type of overhead that you need with the product, the customer service, the overhead of the stores, you can't continue to do business profitably." Other resellers dropped their prices to compete with EconoPage, but Lee said that Future Paging stayed on safe financial ground by paying suppliers in advance if they would accept prepayment. EconoPage's competitors also spent far less than EconoPage did on advertising, running smaller and less frequent ads, Lee said. Stas Wolk, a vice president at PageNet, said his company had doubts about EconoPage's pricing strategy, but those doubts were overcome last year when EconoPage explained its strategy. Although the company advertised a one-year rate of $89, the average customer went for a more expensive one-year plan that was more profitable for EconoPage, Wolk said. "They were were talented at (selling) people additional pieces of equipment, accessories and services," Wolk said. He added, however, that PageNet had no insight into how EconoPage spent the money it collected from customers. PageNet is now in the process of cutting off service to customers who purchased paging contracts through EconoPage, but it is also offering them a discount rate of $60 to continue their service for another year. Eligible customers are those whose pagers have a PageNet logo. EconoPage's biggest growth spurt came in the last six to 12 months, after it had opened more than 30 retail outlets, Wolk said. About five months ago, though, checks that EconoPage had written to PageNet for pagers started to bounce. Wolk said that PageNet soon barred EconoPage from activating any new PageNet pagers. The two companies also worked out a payment schedule in June for EconoPage's past-due bills, which amounted to more than $1 million, according to papers filed with the Secretary of State's office. Bridget Cavanaugh, a spokeswoman for PageMart, said her company had a similar experience with EconoPage. It also worked out a payment plan with EconoPage and barred the company from activating any new PageMart pagers, Cavanaugh said, although that did not stop EconoPage from signing up new customers through other suppliers. EconoPage's financial picture improved over the summer, Wolk said, but things took a sudden turn for the worse in late August. PageNet took no action at first, hoping that EconoPage could work out a sale to Source One, an Illinois-based paging company. PageMart, however, started terminating its EconoPage customers in mid-October because of the unpaid bills. In the midst of this turmoil, EconoPage continued to sign up new customers and renew old ones. In fact, it paged some customers and urged them to renew early at a discount: $89 for two years, instead of the usual charge of just under $120. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Oct 97 16:17 EST From: Perillo@DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL (Robert J. Perillo) Subject: Modem Users, Who You Gonna Call?; Not Bell Atlantic Bell Atlantic has recently angered some customers with its new policy not to honor its inside-wire wire-maintenance plans for data or modem problems on its telephone lines. This decission is seen as a marketing move to stimulate demand for ISDN lines, and assymetrical digital subscriber line service (ADSL) when it becomes available next year. Bell Atlantic, has stated, that its regular repairmen are not equipped to resolve line data problems, and can rarely solve the problem resulting in a wasted service call. Under the new scheme, with a hefty per-visit service charge, they will send a specialist, line/data technician who might be able to fix or improve the service. These charges will still apply even if the problem or fix is found to be on the Bell Atlantic portion of the facilities. This questions the advisability of subscribing and paying the extra monthly fees for these wire-maintenance plans? Many Telecommuters, or business World Wide Web users were paying these fees as insurance to allow them to operate their PC at home without costly interruption. Also, Bell Atlantic seems to be saying that it considers its normal telephone lines as "voice only" services or facilities? ------------------------- "In a letter to all customers of its wire-maintenance plans, Bell Atlantic said the plans will no longer cover ''malfunctions in the dial tone resulting from the use of voice-grade lines to transmit or receive data or signals which exceed the operating capabilities of the line.'' In effect, the Bell Atlantic policy means subscribers to the optional wire-maintenance plans will not be covered for service calls that involve problems resulting from modem use on a standard voice line. Of the 21 million access lines in Bell Atlantic's territory, 13.2 million are residential. The company would not disclose how many customers use its wire-maintenance plan. According to Bell Atlantic, ''a service charge may apply when a repair person is dispatched and the problem is with the transmission or receipt of data or signals which are beyond the operating capabilities of the dial-tone line.'' ". "Bell Atlantic instituted the new policy because its support staff can rarely solve problems on its voice-grade lines that slow down or disrupt data transmissions, said John White, executive director of outside plant technology and standards at Bell Atlantic. The problems are especially acute with 28.8-Kbps modems, which ''use more bandwidth than we've designed the network to provide,'' White said. Users of 28.8-Kbps modems typically do not get 28.8-Kbps performance because of the limitations of Bell Atlantic's voice-grade circuits, he said. Standard voice lines operate at 300 to 3,000 hertz, but a 28.8 modem requires a range of 465 to 3,520 hertz, he said." "Other service providers do not plan to follow Bell Atlantic's lead. ''We provide customers with communications services, and a phone line provides both voice and data,'' said Gordon Reichard, acting president of Ameritech Advanced Data Services. ''To go in and tell customers that their line is specialized for voice applications is off base.'' " Reference: InternetWeek (formerly CommunicationsWeek), "Bell Atlantic To Modem Users: Don't Call Us", John Rendleman, Monday, October 13, 1997. Robert J. Perillo, CCP, CNE Perillo@dockmaster.ncsc.mil Principal Telecommunications Engineer Richmond, VA ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 19:49:49 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "The Internet Unleashed" by Ellsworth et al BKINTUNL.RVW 970521 "The Internet Unleashed", Jill Ellsworth et al, 1997, 1-57521-185-8, U$49.99/C$70.95/UK#46.95 %A Jill Ellsworth %A Billy Barron %C 201 West 103rd St., Indianapolis, IN 46290 %D 1997 %G 1-57521-185-8 %I MacMillan Computer Publishing %O U$49.99/C$70.95/UK#46.95 317-581-3535 800-428-5331 %P 1269 %T "The Internet Unleashed" This book is very "net-like" in a way: it seems to have been produced the way the Internet is run, by consensual anarchy. No one is taking responsibility here; there isn't even an editor listed. Individual items in the book are excellent. Overall, there is a tremendous resource of Internet information. Unfortunately, there are also inconsistencies in the quality, style, audience, and technical level of the material. One chapter may contain an in-depth analysis of certain RFCs and specifications, while the next is a "gee-whiz- isn't-this-neat" puff piece. There are fifty-four chapters, three appendices, a generally well done "yellow pages", and a detailed table of contents which takes up twenty-seven pages, alone. The three chapters of part one is the usual conceptual and historical introduction. Part two is a guide to access and connection: generally pretty useful but often apt to leave you in the lurch just as you get into trouble. Parts three, four, and five cover communication, including mail, mailing lists, Usenet news and real time chat systems. Some of the chapters give great detailed documentation on, for example, various UNIX mail readers, but related chapters give little coverage of the use of mail for information gathering and dissemination. Part six deals with both access tools for obtaining information, and resource tools for finding information. Seven through ten all really deal with various aspects of the World Wide Web; even those chapters on specific topical uses of the net deal mostly with browsing through related sites. The volume of paper does not correspond to an equal volume of material. There is much duplication of content. The duplication of actual chapters has been reduced, but you can still tell that this is a "committee" book. I would recommend this as a resource, but not necessarily as a sole source. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1994, 1997 BKINTUNL.RVW 970521 DECUS Canada Communications, Desktop, Education and Security group newsletters Editor and/or reviewer ROBERTS@decus.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca BCVAXLUG Envoy http://www.decus.ca/www/lugs/bcvaxlug.html ------------------------------ From: jim@newmediagroup.com (Jim Youll) Subject: Slamming: Some Results Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 22:45:45 -0500 Organization: Agent Zero Communications My business lines were slammed last month by a Sprint reseller called "LDC" based in Oldsmar, Florida. I'll summarize: This took over 15 hours of work to sort out, between Sprint's non-cooperation/disinformation, the inability to reach anyone at LDC, and the time spent explaining, re-explaining, and handling all the followup calls from those carriers which were helping me. Sprint accepted NO responsibility and would not even tell me anything about the reseller except the company's TOLL phone number. I asked for, and received, "the company's toll-free number" but the number I was given was for a completely different reseller who told me he's tired of acting as whipping-boy for all of Sprint's ill-behaved resellers. Two Spring operators hung up on me when I asked for a supervisor. Sprint would not remove the charges, pay to have the problem resolved, or contact the reseller. The president's executive assistant told me it was my problem, that she would not help me, and that I shouldn't call there again. AT&T (my chosen LD carrier) took an interest, and has also been proactively contacting customers when it becomes aware that their PIC has been changed (one of my clients was slammed by these same guys this month / AT&T made him aware of it). But AT&T can't do anything to penalize the offender. AT&T's pandering calls became a little annoying, as they phoned to "reassure me" and so forth. I UNDERSTAND the process - that's why I knew I'd been slammed before anyone else did. A lawsuit by AT&T against LDC would satisfy me. Apparently they're not going to do that. Too bad for everyone. GTE (my LEC), and I admit I'm surprised to say this, was the most helpful of any of the involved parties. While they had LOST my PIC restriction (which allowed this to happen) they did expedite the signature form to me, called today to followup, didn't call with pandering niceties, promised to remove the PIC-change charges, will recourse all LD charges back to Sprint for the slammer period, and flagged my account for a followup in a few weeks. LDC Telecomm -- "Says here we had a voice authorization. There's nothing we can do about it.". Enough said, except that they only work 9 to 5, if that, and you can't talk to anyone but the receptionist. (STOP acting surprised by their response). BTW, if you've had problems, their "Street address is proprietary" (yes, that's a quote from Chris Knox of LDC)... but I have it: LDC Telecommunications, Inc., 391 Roberts Rd., Suite 4, Oldsmar, FL 34677. The Florida Attorney General's office is acquainted with the company's antics. LDC President Henry Rodriguez was not taking calls when I phoned. Their registered agent is Shelley Weber, 1245 Court ST., Suite 102, Clearwater, FL 34616. Weber represents the phone company, something called Shirley Weber Inc, and three kaput corporations including a closed paintball park. FCC -- e-mailed instructions for filing a complaint, and is VERY aware of LD slamming and the problems it causes. I sense they are quite fed up with this crap. Ohio Attorney General -- clueless, and useless. Referred me to the Better Business Bureau. I'm working on referring myself to court instead. My only regret is that our AG is a "good ol' gal" from my county, and my friends there probably helped her win this office. Conclusion: To hell with Sprint. As for the rest, I'll let you know how the court case goes if I take it there. It appears that I have several options under Ohio law. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 04:51:56 PST From: Eric Florack Subject: Gilder Says Reno Attacked Microsoft too Late From INTERNET DAILY: ** Gilder: Reno attacked Microsoft too late Technology futurist George Gilder thinks this week's Justice Department complaint against Microsoft Corp. is "irrelevant and too late." Antitrust regulators are seeking a $1 million-a-day fine against Microsoft for allegedly violating a 1995 agreement barring the company from anti-competitive practices. He said "the contest will be settled by the success of Sun Microsystems and IBM in perfecting Java, rather than by the success of Janet Reno in collecting fines against Microsoft," according to CMP's Network Computing magazine. Gilder also predicts that Java-based browsers ultimately will outperform Windows integrated browsers when it comes to network applications. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I don't think Ms. Reno is very good at math. Let's pencil this out: how many shares of Microsoft does Gates own? How much is the value of each share? His net worth now is around 48 billion I think. Given a fine of a million dollars per day, Gates will be broke in 101 years ... ... allow of course for interest to accrue on the remaining billions before she is allowed to get her hands on his money. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 11:58:27 From: Ken Levitt Subject: Bell Atlantic Still ISDN Clueless In case any of you in Massachusetts thought that the recent radio commercials for ISDN by Bell Atlantic means they are ready to really sell it, think again. I have a customer with two offices in different towns (five miles apart). They need a data connection up all day, so I decided to price out ISDN service for 2 B channels. Here is what happened: 1. I call BA business line department, and I'm told I need to talk to the ISDN department. 2. I am connected to the ISDN department where they ask me for the phone number of the business. Me: I don't have the phone number of that location, I have the business name and address. BA: We can only search by phone number. Me: Why don't you just look up the number. BA: I'm not able to do that. 3. I hang up, call directory assistance to get the number, then call back the ISDN people at BA. BA: What is the area code and exchange? ME: 978-957 BA: I can't find that. Can you tell me what the old area code was? ME: 508 BA: There is no direct ISDN, but there may be "Virtual ISDN" if you are within 18,000 feet of the Lawrence Hub. Me: Can you tell me if this location is within 18,000 feet of the Lawrence Hub? BA: No, the only way to find out is if you place an order for the line. 4. I did not place the order, but I did get prices for installing and using an ISDN line at each location. Note, prices do not include the $135/hour charge for inside wiring. Install: 2 * $328 = $656 Monthly costs: Monthly fee: 2 * $70 = 140 usage costs for 160 hours = 307 ===== Total monthly cost $447 Would anyone really pay this much? Ken Levitt kl21@usa.nospam (replace .nospam with .net) ------------------------------ From: James A. Gayhart Subject: Employment Opportunity: Software Engineer Wanted Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 04:33:02 -0800 Organization: The Silver JAGuar, Inc. Reply-To: Emperor_ACE@SilverJAGuar.com BAJA Systems Job Description: Software Engineer Department: Software Development and sustaining engineering Title: Software Engineer Reports To: Senior Software Engineer Primary Function: A Software Engineer's primary responsibility is as a team member in the design and development of products that make up the BAJA Systems product line. In addition to this is the responsibility of sustaining engineering on existing products for addressing the needs of the customer. This requires a thorough understanding of MS Basic, Pascal, or Visual Basic languages in a Client/Server environment. In addition, a working knowledge of Data Base programming, Data communications, and Cellular swithc interfaces is helpful. A BAJA Systems Software Engineer must have a dedication to our client base to provide the best service and support possible. Major Duties and Responsibilities: Assist the team in project planning and scheduling. Assist the team in developing documentation in the areas of Functional and Design Specifications, Test Plan, and Operational Instructions. All code written must be written to adhere to BAJA coding standards. All code written must be tested in accordance with approved test plan. Customer support must be handled with a "Do Whatever It Takes" attitude. Some travel may be required (up to 25%). Education Required: BS in Computer Science or equivalent experience. Experience Required: At least two years software engineering experience in MS Basic, Pascal, or Visual Basic development or sustaining engineering. Experience in Data Base, Data Communictions, Telecommunications is a definite advantage. Make all replies to: General Manager 146 Wikiup Drive Suite D Santa Rosa, CA 95403-7756 (707) 575-9984 (707) 575-3705 Fax softcell@microweb.com James A. Gayhart AKA Emperor ACE The Silver JAGuar, Inc. http://www.silverjaguar.com mailto:Emperor_ACE@SilverJAGuar.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #292 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Oct 28 08:29:05 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id IAA25481; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 08:29:05 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 08:29:05 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199710281329.IAA25481@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #293 TELECOM Digest Tue, 28 Oct 97 08:29:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 293 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: New York Times on Net Day (Thomas G. Spalthoff) Re: Signaling, Routing and General Confusion (Al Varney) Re: Tower Site Leases (John Driscoll) Re: Tower Site Leases (Marty Bose) NiCad Memory Effect (was: New Cellular Phone Experience) (Bob Keller) Re: InTRA-LATA Carrier Verification (Lee Winson) Re: InTRA-LATA Carrier Verification (Marty Tennant) Re: Is Southwestern Bell Allowed to do This? (Bruce Wilson) Re: Is Southwestern Bell Allowed to do This? (Louis Raphael) Re: Phone Problems in Nebraska? (Jason Forst) Re: Phone Problems in Nebraska? (Bruce Wilson) Re: Phone Problems in Nebraska? (Greg C. Ashley) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: spalthof@at_umdnj.edu (Thomas G. Spalthoff) Subject: Re: New York Times on Net Day Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 12:59:10 GMT Organization: New Jersey Medical School In article , ronda@panix.com (Ronda Hauben) wrote: > An article in Saturday's {New York Times} (10/25/97) "Internet's Value > in U.S. Schools Still in Question" (page 1) described the 2nd annual > netday and showed the prejudice of some of the press against the > educational use of the Internet. While the {New York Times} has had > many glowing accounts and hype about how the Internet is crucial for > business and the commercial world, when it comes to describing or > discussing the importance of the Internet for schools, they have > trouble finding reasons to support the educational development and > spread of the Net. Counter-examples? I, for one, am an advocate of using the Internet in schools where appropriate. What we're seeing today, though, is a headstrong rush into wiring all schools without understanding why this is so necessary. For me, it's a clear case of coders just deciding to do it, without the engineers figuring out what we're trying to accomplish. > They raise the question "Will the teaching of basic skills > be harmed or helped by the cyber-revolution?" giving the > impression that kids who can't use computers and the Internet > will be able to survive in a world where computers and the Net > are becoming an increasingly important part of the lives of those > who do have access. I don't agree. First, the issue is primarily about money. Vast sums of scarce educational resources are being spent to wire schools, many times depriving other programs of the resources to survive. Is Internet access more important than, say, art or music classes? Second, the Internet is a tool. It is not an end in itself. Certainly it is a great equalizer as it gives many people access to rich and varied information. However, without the basic skills to understand and appreciate what they can discover, it will end up being a great time-waster. > One wonders why the {New York Times} reporter doing the story > wasn't asked to interview teachers or students in the New York > City area who are using and finding the Net valuable. (Though New > York City does seem to be very behind other areas in the country > and world who are trying to get students access to the Internet > as soon as possible.) The cases of this are spotty, in my experience, which I admit to being limited. Only where an educator has gone to great lengths in his or her personal life to learn how to navigate the net are these results realized. The efforts to wire schools are so expensive that many schools have money for the access, but then spend a negligible amount of resources on training. For a similar scenario, check out how many schools have PCs running only Windows, with no applications, and the teachers never turn them on because they've never been trained to use them. > The story begrudgingly reported that "And many techers report > that writing E-mail to students in other communities and other > countries, for instance, seems to motivate students to want to write > and read." However, the NYT story basically fails to understand that > the importance of the Internet is "communication". That people are > able to communicate with each other and all gain in the process. > Instead the story seems to think of the Internet as only a one way > media with people being swamped by information they don't know how to > deal with. There needs to be more reasons to have every school wired other than writing email to one another. The educational gain here has not been proven, to the extent that it could be, from everything I've read. > It is disappointing to see such reporting continue by the {New > York Times} at a time when there is a great need among the public to > have real information about how the Internet is being used in schools > around the world (and the U.S. is quite backward in this regard) as > well as in the U.S. Instead it seems their pro commercial line that > the Internet should be reserved for business and making money has > interferred with their raising the necessary public questions as to > the appropriate public policy for the future development of the > Internet. Actually, I believe they're a voice of reason, saying "whoa, what are we spending all of this money for?" Certainly there are compelling reasons for doing this, lets just make sure we've got our eyes open and our priorities right. "Because everyone's doing it" should not be the reason when monies for education are so scarce. For me, I would much rather see schools getting wired for the teacher's benefit. Educators typically communicate within the confines of their own building or, at best, local school district. To give them a tool to enrich their classroom and coursework makes sense to me. Then, once the advantages are more clear, you would have an environment that would allow teachers to start using the technology as an instructional aid. Computers haven't been the silver bullet to improving education that everyone thought they would be. We should move very cautiously when spending more educational dollars on technology without some clear direction and proven results. Thomas G. Spalthoff spalthof at umdnj.edu ------------------------------ From: varney@ihgp2.ih.lucent.com (Al Varney) Subject: Re: Signaling, Routing and General Confusion Date: 27 Oct 1997 04:51:34 GMT Organization: Lucent Technologies, Naperville, IL Reply-To: varney@lucent.com In article , Brian Silver wrote: [dials number located on another switch, then...] > So, my CO switch then *finds the next switch that it needs to send the > address information to*. > Question #1. How does this happen? My understanding is that based on > the number, the switch has a routing table that tells it based on time > of day, and trunk availability what switch to go to next. So if the > switch sees an area code, it knows "Hey, that call needs to go > InterLATA, so this is the next switch in line", if it sees an > exchange, it knows based on that what trunk to use. Right? Just switch > configuration, or does SS7 have something to do with this? In most cases, the "routing table" is queried using the first three digits of the dialed number (while you are dialing the remainder of the number), and the information from that particular entry in the table is examined. If you are dialing a seven-digit number (as determined from the entry), the switch patiently waits for you to finish dialing. The entry would also supply a "route index". This is used to look up the first-choice trunk group (group of circuits to a common destination) to the next switch. Also, the type of charge record would be determined from the entry. If the first three digits appear to be an NPA, the entry may indicate to reject the call or may indicate seven more digits are needed. This decision is also affected by "prefix" digits (0, 1, 10XXX, etc.) that you may have dialed. So "222" may be recognized as an office code, but "1+222" may be recognized as an NPA. Also, the entry in the routing table may indicate "interLATA" based on only the particular NPA, or may indicate that three more digits must be examined before determining the "interLATA", "route index" and type of charge for this call. SS7 is a signaling mechanism -- it isn't involved in the decision of trunk selection. > Ok, so the first switch now knows what switch to go to next. It must > signal that switch, telling it it has an incoming call. Now, I think > there are a number of signaling methods, but lets focus on Robbed Bit > and SS7 and MF. My understanding is that using MF signaling, the first > switch would assert the proper tone on the trunk to the next > switch. Does this happen in one time slot in a TDM trunk? If the > signaling is robbed bit, does it just assert the bit? I'm a bit > unclear on how signaling happens on T-carrier trunks. Ahh, Signaling. Confusing term by itself. In telephony, there is Address Signaling and Supervision Signaling. You have to know from context which is being discussed. Sometimes Supervision Signaling is just called Supervision. Address Signaling may be called Outpulsing when applied to trunks. On your touch-tone (officially DTMF) line, you signal Supervision by going off-hook (a change in current flow in the line). You signal Addresses using pairs of AC tones that are interpreted as keypad digits. On MF trunks, Supervision is signaled using a variety of methods. Switches may use two extra leads (E&M) to signal over, but the circuit outside may use in-band tones or current reversals or what-ever to actually reach the other end. On digital MF circuits (your TDM trunk), robbed bits are typically used for signaling Supervision. There are actually two (A&B in SuperFrame) or four (ABCD in Extended SuperFrame) signaling indicators available in each direction for each 64kbps channel. Address signaling uses pairs of tones, different from touch-tone, and signals these tones over the channel used for the call, prior to connecting you to the channel. This is called in-band signaling. > Also, how does this happen using SS7? Does the first switch send a > request to an STP, and address the information with just the > destination phone call? How does SS7 tell the first switch what trunk > the call needs to go out? I'm a bit confused when it comes to call > routing and SS7. Does SS7 even play any role in call routing? SS7 is for signaling (both Addresses and Supervision). Routing is something a switch does inside itself. (Well, CCIS6 was an exception, but it's no longer used.) Think of routing as picking a trunk based of digits. SS7 identifies switches (and other nodes) using Point Codes (like IP Addresses). Trunks are identified by Circuit Id Codes (like port numbers) plus the Point Codes at each end. Once routing in the first switch identifies an idle trunk in the appropriate trunk group, it also knows the Circuit Id and far-end Point Code of the next switch. This information is sent to an STP, along with the Called number, the Calling number, Billing information, desired Bearer Capability, etc. The STP uses the destination Point Code to determine where to send the message. The switch receiving this message will locate the appropriate incoming trunk based on the Circuit Id Code. > Ok, so the first switch signals the second, and then second winks > back, telling the first that its ready for address information. This > process happens all down the line until the last switch is reached. True for MF signaling -- SS7 doesn't usually send anything to the preceding switch until destination switch is reached and an idle line is rung. If busy, the originating switch will just get a RELease message with a "user busy" cause value, play a busy tone to the caller and idle the outgoing trunk. > The last switch then says "Ah! This call goes to this number, and its > on me!". I assume that switches are configured to tell the switching > tables "This number == This Line" The incoming address is translated through the routing tables. In the case of a terminating number, the routing table entry will be something other than a "route index". Usually it is associated with an office code. Other tables are then used to identify the actual line based on telephone number. > Now here is where the fact that I'm calling my ISP comes into play. My > ISP gets a T1, lets say. The switch then hunts for a TDM slot on the > trunk for the call, right? And it uses robbed bit signaling (unless > ISDN, when it uses Q.931 ...). > Question #2. (Ok, more like question number 800 ...) Does the single > bit for signaling represent the presence/absence of the old-fashioned > 2600Hz tone? The way I see it working is the ISP RA box sees the > signal bit on the incoming DS0, and knows to pick up the phone > (equivilent of a ring). But how does off-hook get signaled? If you mean off-hook from the ISP end, it has its own signaling bit(s). Digital facilities have two independent directions of transmission and signaling. (2600Hz only worked for one-way trunks). For digital trunks, the ISP would recognize a particular A/B bit pattern as "alerting to you" and the ISP would signal the switch with an A/B bit pattern that means "I'm ready for the call". The patterns will differ depending on call direction and the particular type of interface. > .... All the books I have read separate routing and signaling, but > it seems to me that the two are somewhat linked since MF signaling set > up the route at the same time the signal was propagated. Nope, MF signaling is used AFTER a route is selected. Routing and signaling can be thought of in a switchboard context. Routing is what the operator does in figuring out which jack to plug into. Signaling is what the operator does AFTER the plug is in the jack, exchanging information with the other end of the connection. You ROUTE (figure out which phone to use). You SIGNAL (off-hook, digits). The switch receives SIGNALs, ROUTES (picks a trunk) and SIGNALS (sends off-hook, address, winks). Next switch receives SIGNALs, ROUTES (picks a trunk or terminating line) and SIGNALs (sends off-hook or ringing, etc.). I'm not sure how routing (selection of a facility) can overlap with signaling (setup over a facility). You could look for some books by Amos Joel if you want more information on telephone switching history, which is where most of the current terminology originated. Al Varney ------------------------------ From: John Driscoll Subject: Re: Tower Site Leases Date: 27 Oct 97 05:30:07 GMT Hi Allison; Having done this for a few companies, I can give you answers relative to the greater Boston area. Average term is for five years on an existing structure, longer terms if the carrier must build their own tower. Both normally have multiple renewal options for a length equal to the original term. Average rental value can vary widely, there is much wheeling and dealing, but for existing structures in Boston it ranges from $2000 to $3000 per month with annual CPI increases of no less than 5% (for a full blown PCS/cellular site, less for 'micro-cells'). Where the carrier must build a tower and lease the land, it can also vary widely, but it is generally much lower: $500 - $1500 per month depending on location. Government property is usually the same, although Federal property I have not dealt with. I would also recommend that anyone contemplating doing business with a carrier use their own lease - the carriers lease is usually very restrictive and can cost the property owner money. One carrier in Boston used a lease which stated that any future tenants must be approved by them -- which approval was generally denied for anyone they considered a competitor! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 21:20:44 -0800 From: Marty Bose Subject: Re: Tower Site Leases I'm disappointed to see TELECOM Digest publishing a troll request like this one. When I worked for a PCS carrier this was a typical request from a lawyer trying to find a way for his client to bust a lease that the owner had second thoughts about. On the average they would come back and request a new lease at four to ten times the original lease, usually after construction had started. I hope that no one will respond to this, as this guy may go to work for one of your clients next! Marty Bose ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 08:09:00 -0500 From: Bob Keller Subject: NiCad Memory Effect (was: New Cellular Phone Experience So Far) In TELECOM Digest V17 #284, Brett Frankenberger wrote: > This is a very common, and very unsubstantiated, urban legend. > Under carefully controlled laboratory conditions, where you > repeatedly partially dischange the cells to the *same level* > each time, you can sometimes get a memory effect to appear, > after a lot of cycles. Under normal random usage, in which you > never fully discharge the batteries, but always discharge to a > different level, the memory effect does not appear. I would not go so far as to put "memory effect" in the urban legend category; it is something I have personally experienced under decidedly uncontrolled, non-laboratory conditions. Having said that, I have found that the compulsive need to "fully discharge" batteries actually causes more frequent and severe problems than the potential memory effect it is intended to prevent. Some users seek to discharge the pack to levels even lower than the point where the host device stops working properly. If you do that, one or more of the cells in the pack can actually reverse polarity. If the overall pack reverses polarity you are really in a fix. Not only is the pack virtually useless at that point, it can damage equipment to which it is attached (depending on the nature of the equipment). That is one of the reasons why: > (Also, most newer phones won't fully discharge the cells, prefering > instead to shut themselves off when the voltage drops below a certain > level.) Bob Keller (KY3R) rjk@telcomlaw.com www.his.com/~rjk/ ------------------------------ From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson) Subject: Re: InTRA-LATA Carrier Verification Date: 27 Oct 1997 01:37:11 GMT Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS Calculating local and near-local calling costs must be tough, especially when considering competitive carriers, in regards to the posting. First off, as I see it, in the Phila area you have at least three classes of calls: Purely local: In the "measured use" table, this are those marked 1 unit. The main thing is these calls cheap and also UNTIMED. If you are routing calls through an alternative carrier who times you, you could potentially pay more -- depending on your call mix. (If you make a lot of quick brief calls, this could not apply.) Measured Service: These are those within the "Metropolitan Philadelphia Calling Area", which is the City of Philadelphia and nearby suburbs. The phone book has a map and list of towns/exchanges. For these calls, you have to balance your carrier against the Measured Service table. Timings vary by distance and time of day. For high volume users, you'd probably need to do a computer analysis, figuring every single call by Bell's rates and the competition's rates. The differences are cents, but at high volume it adds up. In the old days, some businesses would have foreign exchange lines so their customers could call them for free and likewise. Generally, a suburban location would have a city number. Plenty of businesses still do this Toll service: If the call goes beyond the "Metro Phila Calling Area", it's toll. Does anyone know if Bell Atlantic offers business customers deals on measured service or toll? Residential customers, for a steep price ($40-50 per month) can get unlimited Metro area calling. ------------------------------ From: Marty Tennant Subject: Re: InTRA-LATA Carrier Verification Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 20:35:47 -0500 > At one point, Worldcom told us to dial 700-4141 (we're in area code > 610) to verify our inTRA-LATA toll PIC assignment. I did; it works > just like (700) 555-4141. > I've never seen that mentioned here; does it work anywhere else? I tried dialing only 700-4141. No go, "your long distance carrier cannot complete your call as dialed". I then tried 1-803-700-4141, since I am in NPA 803. It worked, but said "thank you for using GTE". GTE is not my intralata carrier, but they are my local exchange carrier. I don't get bills from them anymore for intralata, but they tried to bill me once for a call that was also billed by my real intralata carrier. Never could figure that one out. Anyone else with intralata presubscription out there with anything to report on this new verification code? marty tennant - president - low tech designs, inc.(tm) "Bringing Technology Down to Earth"(sm) 1204 Saville St., Georgetown, SC 29440 803 527-4485 voice / 803 527-7783 fax ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 06:48:42 -0500 From: blw1540@aol.com (Bruce Wilson) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Is Southwestern Bell Allowed to do This? In article , ravip@utdallas.edu (Ravi Prakash) writes: > My question is: Is Southwestern Bell within its rights to disconnect > the telephone? After all, he provided them will all the identification > information they requested. Isn't it their responsibility to verify > the information? Moreover, he has never defaulted on any bill > payments. Questions such as this should be directed to the state Public Service/Utility Commission which regulates such matters. The staff can advise the customer how far the company's permitted to go and intervene if it's gone too far. Bruce Wilson ------------------------------ From: raphael@willy.cs.mcgill.ca (Louis Raphael) Subject: Re: Is Southwestern Bell Allowed to do This? Date: 28 Oct 1997 05:22:50 GMT Organization: McGill University Computing Centre Ravi Prakash (ravip@utdallas.edu) wrote: > My friend has applied for his social security number. But, the card > hasn't arrived yet. Moreover, since getting the telephone connection, > he has been regularly paying all the telephone bills. Aren't SS#s supposed to be for tax purposes, and *not* for this kind of stuff? My guess would be that they've got absolutely no business asking for this kind of information. > My question is: Is Southwestern Bell within its rights to disconnect > the telephone? After all, he provided them will all the identification > information they requested. Isn't it their responsibility to verify > the information? Moreover, he has never defaulted on any bill > payments. The way things are done here is that if you aren't considered "trustworthy," you can be made to make a deposit as a guarantee that you'll pay your phone bill. I would assume that the telco is *not* within its rights to deny service so easily, as a regulated utility. I suggest that your friend check with the Texas PUC for an answer. BTW, I take it that telco isn't also his LD provider -- and that's probably the only place that they can really take a significant loss. Possibly, they'd be reasonable and accept a small deposit as security, but somehow I doubt it ... Louis ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 12:50:41 -0600 From: Jason Forst Reply-To: forst_NO_@us.ad_SPAM_vantis.com Subject: Re: Phone Problems in Nebraska? TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: > I needed to call someone in the Omaha, Nebraska area (actually west of > Omaha about forty miles) on Sunday and after several attempts to get > through and getting only busy signals, fast busies or nothing at all I > found out that phone service was at a crawl in that area due to a very > massive storm Saturday. Apparently two or three feet of snow, some > extremely high winds and other conditions knocked out a lot of > circuits. Does anyone have an update? I guess this condition was all > over that area with Colorado also affected quite heavily. Pat, I grew up in OMA, and talked to a close friend there on Sunday morning. They had about 12-16 inches of very wet and heavy snow, and since the trees had not yet lost their leaves (very little turn in color, in fact) the trees suffered very heavy loading, causing very large power outages as the trees collapsed. My freind had been without power for awhile, and was surprised that the telephone was working. The inter-office plant in the area used to mainly be on arials, but that was a number of years ago (ten). I also have relatives in the Des Moines area, one had phone service, the other, in a small town about ten miles west, did not. The number out of service was busy always. This is the same as an earlier confirmed outage, where USwest actually remote forwarded the residential line to a business so that calls could be completed for the residential customer. This went on for a few days. Anyway, most probably weather related. jason ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 06:48:44 -0500 From: blw1540@aol.com (Bruce Wilson) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Phone Problems in Nebraska? In article , ptownson@massis.lcs. mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) writes: > I needed to call someone in the Omaha, Nebraska area (actually west of > Omaha about forty miles) on Sunday and after several attempts to get > through and getting only busy signals, fast busies or nothing at all I > found out that phone service was at a crawl in that area due to a very > massive storm Saturday. Apparently two or three feet of snow, some > extremely high winds and other conditions knocked out a lot of > circuits. Does anyone have an update? I guess this condition was all > over that area with Colorado also affected quite heavily. Des Moines got about 6" of VERY WET snow, with areas to the south of it getting as much as 10" of the stuff. With the trees still full of leaves, trees were snapping and falling all over the place, often taking utility lines with them. (We were without power for about 11 hours; and some areas of town won't have service restored until sometime Monday.) Reports are that some areas of Colorado got something on the order of 4 FEET of the stuff; and it seemed something like 80% of utility customers in Omaha-Council Bluffs were without power at one time. The only positive aspect of the situation is that daytime highs are to start in the 40s and move up to the 50s by the end of the coming week, so we'll have the snow out of the way while we're cleaning up the mess. Bruce Wilson ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Oct 97 06:38:21 GMT From: gashley@uswest.com (Greg C. Ashley) Subject: Re: Phone Problems in Nebraska? Pat, things are pretty bad here in Omaha. I think we've got as much damage (or more) than was caused by our famous May, 1975 tornado. Hopefully we'll get on top of it fairly quickly. Greg C. Ashley gashley@uswest.com Mass Markets & Design Services Analyst NE/IA US WEST Communications, Inc. Omaha, Nebraska ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #293 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Oct 28 09:26:12 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA29012; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 09:26:12 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 09:26:12 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199710281426.JAA29012@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #294 TELECOM Digest Tue, 28 Oct 97 09:26:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 294 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Bell Canada Set to Announce New Area Codes (Linc Madison) Re: Bell Canada Set to Announce New Area Codes (Chris Farrar) Re: InTRA-LATA Carrier Verification (Dave Stott) Re: InTRA-LATA Carrier Verification (Rich Greenberg) Re: Report: Net Telephony Potential Drain For Telcoms (Tony Pelliccio) Re: "Sky Word Plus" - How Does it Work? (Barry F. Margolius) Re: "Sky Word Plus" - How Does it Work? (Dave Close) Re: Need Help Asynchronous and BISYNC (Toby Stidham) Re: Caller ID: GTE California to GTE Indiana? (Rich Courtney) Employment Opportunity: ACD Manager Needed (unicomp@onramp.net) Quick Question Regarding a Recent Post (Bob Collie) More on Compuserve Spam (Mike Pollock) Re: Help! Interface Error With ZyXel U-1496 (Doug Rorem) Re: Canada Area 867 Activated Today (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: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Telecom@LincMad.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Bell Canada Set to Announce New Area Codes Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 00:47:28 -0800 Organization: LincMad Consulting; change NOSPAM to COM In article , Jeff Smith wrote: > Bell Canada is set to annouce 4 new area codes for the GTA. (New > Metro Toronto). > 1. Durham Region - will move to a new area code > 2. Peel & Halton - will move to a new area code > (these regions will share area code until split is needed) > 3. York - will retain the current 905 area code > - the rest of 905 not in the GTA will move to a new area code. > 4. (new) Toronto - will either get an overlay or a split of > the current area code or maybe wireless services to move to a > seperate area code. > By 2002 the GTA - will be called Metro will compose of Five Cities. > Namely: 1. City of Toronto > 2. City of Durham > 3. City of Peel > 4. City of York > 5. City of Halton > > People are saying Bell has applied for more area codes to get the > regions ready now! This is almost certainly incorrect. First of all, there is no "City of Durham" in Toronto. Durham, Ontario, is a town north of Kitchener, in the 519 area code. "Metro Toronto" consists of the City of Toronto, York, East York, North York, Etobicoke, and Scarborough. Those six cities currently share area code 416. The same six cities are being proposed for merger into "Megacity Toronto." More importantly, York is not currently in 905, so it is absolutely NOT going to be moved into 905 to the exclusion of all current 905 communities. No way, no how. York is currently in 416. Lastly, there is no way that Bell Canada could possibly get NANPA approval for four new area codes at once for the Toronto region, especially if you are talking (as you appear to be) only about the area that is currently in 416. Relief proposals for 416 have focused along two principal alternatives: (A) geographic split, probably along Yonge Street (B) all-services overlay of 416 ** Do not spam e-mail me! ** Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * Telecom@LincMad-com >> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must change "NOSPAM" to "com" << ------------------------------ From: Chris Farrar Subject: Re: Bell Canada Set to Announce New Area Codes Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 14:08:16 -0500 Organization: Sympatico Reply-To: cfarrar@sympatico.ca Jeff Smith wrote: > 4. (new) Toronto - will either get an overlay or a split of > the current area code or maybe wireless services to move to a > seperate area code. The {Toronto Star} announced some time ago that the new (second) area code for Toronto will be in the form of an overlay. > By 2002 the GTA - will be called Metro will compose of Five Cities. > Namely: 1. City of Toronto > 2. City of Durham > 3. City of Peel ^^^^^^^^^^^^ Hazel McAllion of Mississauga isn't going to like that, unless of course, she gets to be mayor of it. > 4. City of York > 5. City of Halton > People are saying Bell has applied for more area codes to get the > regions ready now! Chris Farrar | cfarrar@sympatico.ca | Amateur Radio, a VE3CFX | fax +1-905-457-8236 | national resource PGPkey Fingerprint = 3B 64 28 7A 8C F8 4E 71 AE E8 85 31 35 B9 44 B2 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 07:48:24 -0500 From: Dave Stott Subject: InTRA-LATA Carrier Verification In TELECOM Digest #291, Wlevant@aol.com (Bill Levant) wrote: > At one point, Worldcom told us to dial 700-4141 (we're in area code > 610) to verify our inTRA-LATA toll PIC assignment. I did; it works > just like (700) 555-4141. > I've never seen that mentioned here; does it work anywhere else? Yes; it's the number U S WEST, other RBOCs, and most IXCs agreed upon in the early days of inTRA-LATA toll pre-subscription (Jan. 1996). (Early at least for the RBOCs). When dialed in AZ, AT&T says "Thank you for choosing AT&T for your local toll calling." U S WEST says "Thank you for choosing U S WEST as your local long distance company." Not sure how the others describe the service. Dave Stott ------------------------------ From: richgr@netcom.com (Rich Greenberg) Subject: Re: InTRA-LATA Carrier Verification Organization: Organized? Me? Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 01:53:40 GMT In article , Bill Levant wrote: > At one point, Worldcom told us to dial 700-4141 (we're in area code > 610) to verify our inTRA-LATA toll PIC assignment. I did; it works > just like (700) 555-4141. > I've never seen that mentioned here; does it work anywhere else? Doesn't work here in BellSouth 770 land. Rich Greenberg Work: Rich.Greenberg@Worldspan.ibmmail.com 770-563-6656 N6LRT Marietta, GA, USA Play: richgr@netcom.com 770-321-6507 Eastern time. I speak for myself & my dogs only. VM'er since CP-67 Canines:Val(Chinook,CGC,TT),Red(Husky,(RIP)),Shasta(Husky,TT) Owner:Chinook-L ------------------------------ From: tonypo@ultranet.com (Tony Pelliccio) Subject: Re: Report: Net Telephony Potential Drain For Telcoms Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 11:24:44 -0500 Organization: The Cesspool In article , Eric_Florack@xn.xerox. com says: > From INTERNET DAILY: > The Internet could cost telephone companies as much as $8 billion over > the next four years as consumers turn to the Net for voice and fax > services, Bloomberg news reported. A Falls Church, Va.-based > consulting firm. Action Information Services, issued a report saying > the lower costs of the Net will also prompt phone companies to lower > their prices. The report said international long distance companies > will be hit the most, perhaps amounting to as much as 4.5 percent of > the total revenues from telephone business between countries by the > year 2001, the Bloomberg report said. Personally I'd love to see the carriers lose $8 billion but I doubt it'll be that high. Why? Who owns the local loops that folks use to connect to the internet, and who provides a certain leg of the connection to an ISP's POP? But for me, until voice over the net increases in sound quality I'll be using what I currently use. If I want to hear sideband I can get on the amateur radio bands and listen to it there. Tony ------------------------------ From: bfm@pobox.com (Barry F Margolius) Subject: Re: "Sky Word Plus" - How Does it Work? Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 17:59:59 GMT Organization: INTERNET AMERICA I don't know much more than you, but I did use the service for several months, and here are my educated guesses as to how it works. The pager transmits an acknowledge message whenever it receives a page. This means that under "Full Service", messages are acknowledged with some kind of checksum and either dropped or resent by Skytel depending on whether the checksum is correct. When in "Basic Service", the pager receives but is unable to acknowledge. The pager is aware of this, so there must be some sort of "acknowledge the acknowledgement" sent from Skytel. Living in NYC, I rarely found myself in Basic Service mode. Since Skytel central thinks you are offline, it retransmits the pages later when you are in Full Service mode. The pager uses page ID and checksum to decide how to process these resent messages. In "Storing Messages" mode, nothing reaches the pager. I believe that Skytel central cannot differientate between Basic and Storing mode. Based upon a few tests, I think the pager rarely or never sends an "I'm here" message. It switches from Storing Messages to Full Service only when you are in a Full Service area _and_ you receive a new page. Thus when somebody pages me at noon, and I'm in the subway, the page is held for me by Skytel. But, if nobody pages me until 3pm, I don't get my noon page until 3pm, even if I'm above ground all day after 12:10. This can be circumvented by turning the pager off and then on; I think that causes an "I'm here" message in order to determine what mode the pager should start up. Even so, I liked the service, but I eventually cancelled because I hate the acutal pager that they were using. It's quite big, bulky, and harder to read than my advisor gold. -barry ------------------------------ From: dave@compata.compata.com (Dave Close) Subject: Re: "Sky Word Plus" - How Does it Work? Date: 25 Oct 1997 20:50:19 -0700 Organization: Compata, Costa Mesa, California mark_brukhartz@il.us.swissbank.com (Mark Brukhartz) writes: > Reliable paging (with acknowledgement and retransmission) is a great > service. Consumers will hear more about it as the 1900 MHz PCS phone > systems come online. Maybe so. But my experience with PacBell's PCS service is that they mean something different by "paging" than I mean. They mean that the system will ring your phone if it was off or out of range when some one left you voice mail. There is currently no way for someone to send me a page independent of leaving me a voice message. Dave Close, Compata, Costa Mesa CA "Politics is the business of getting dave@compata.com, +1 714 434 7359 power and privilege without dhclose@alumni.caltech.edu possessing merit." - P. J. O'Rourke ------------------------------ From: DISA5@Dhahran-emh3.army.mil (Toby Stidham) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 13:18:35 GMT Subject: Re: Need Help Asynchronous and BISYNC I just wanted to put a real world application to this: In the Military, AN/FCC-100's LSTDM's are used to mux and demux low speed data users. When we had a requirement for a new low speed user, it was necesary to calculate how much bandwidth was being used on the aggregate to make sure the new circuit could be accomodated. Async circuits took up 4 x as much bandwidth on the aggregate as their syncronous counterparts (due to syncronous conversion before multiplexing). If one didn't take this into account when figuring the total bandwidth being used, that person could knock down the whole trunk if the bandwidth wasn't available for his new circuit, killing all the other traffic on the FCC-100 (damn things were built by the Army, they'd do some freaky stuff sometimes ;-) ) FCC-100 aggregate = 9600 bps sync port 1 = 4800 bps sync port 2 = 1200 bps sync port 3 = 300 bps async port 4 = 300 bps async Aggregate Overhead = 800-900 bps (cant remember the exact figure) New Circuit = 1200 bps sync The aggregate wouldn't be able to accomodate the new circuit since the 300 async's take up 1200 bps worth of aggregate bandwidth (300 x 4). The 4 x Data Rate was a given for us. Toby Stidham Government Systems Inc. http://www.gsinet.com/home.htm ------------------------------ From: Rich Courtney Subject: Re: Caller ID: GTE California to GTE Indiana? Date: 28 Oct 1997 02:44:09 GMT Organization: Norand Corporation I think California is prohibited from sending CID. It is due to privacy issues. ------------------------------ From: unicomp@onramp.net Subject: Employment Opportunity: ACD Manager Needed Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 20:22:37 -0500 Organization: OnRamp Technologies, Inc.; ISP Reply-To: unicomp@onramp.net I am looking for an individual with some experience in managing ACD systems, administration of TotalRecall/Crystal Reports and and some basic telephony experience. The position is in Dallas. If anyone interested, please contact: Akhil Tel :972-315-1699 unicompusa@onramp.net ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 20:01:12 +0600 From: Bob Collie Subject: Quick Question Regarding a Recent Post I have searched the archives, but am convinced that I do not know the right keywords to put in to find what I'm looking for. There was a URL posted recently that pointed to a reference for the 5ess switches, configuration, maintenance, description, et al that I tried to re-visit, and could not. Do you, perhaps, know of that URL? Bob Collie, VP/CTO, Telalink Corporation mailto:bob.collie@telalink.net ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 16:48:13 -0500 From: Mike Pollock Subject: More on CompuServe Spam Here's some CompuServe Spam. As you can see, instuctions on how to remove oneself from the list are at the bottom. -------------Forwarded Message----------------- From: CSi Online Promotions Group, [70006,2201] Date: 10/27/97 10:21 AM RE: Win a Dream Vacation on CSi! Now through November 5th CSi (CompuServe) is offering a special promotion offering a world of travel opportunities -- and a chance to win a dream vacation in the On The Go Sweepstakes! Whether you're traveling on business, getting set for a family trip or planning a much needed vacation, it's time for you to be on the go. For complete travel planning with CSi, GO ONTHEGO to find the hottest vacation deals and more, including: * Book your flight, hotel and rental car all with the click of a mouse. * Keep in touch back home with everything from faxes and phone cards to voice mail and e-mail. You'll also find the best advice on financing your travels, including overseas exchange rates and online loan applications. * Check the weather of your destination--far and away--so you can pack effectively and plan your trip accordingly. * Find the best places to dine and the best sources of entertainment. From cameras to carry-ons, from sunglasses to software-- anything you need to make your travel more comfortable is available online with On the Go! And remember to enter the On the Go Sweepstakes for a chance to win a trip to a port city in the Whitbread Round the World Sailing Race. Enter every week for more chances to win. GO ONTHEGO for more details! Sincerely, CSi Online Promotions Group For information on how to add or remove yourself from CSi's special mailings list, click on the Go button (version 3.0 and above) or the Traffic Light icon (version 2.6 or below) at the top of the screen, type in MAILINGS. ------------------------------ From: rorem@mana.eecs.uic.edu (Doug Rorem) Subject: Re: Help! Interface Error With ZyXEL U-1496 Date: 26 Oct 1997 01:22:21 GMT Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago Alick Sadekov (sadekov@cell.ru) wrote: > If you know "ZyXEL U-1496E Plus" with microprogramm 6.13R here is a > problem. I have 2 wire leased line and I need to connect two DTE > which have the next signals on their pins (see below). May be some of > you know what AT commands do I have to load in order to make it work. > DTE has V.24 interface, speed 2400 using noninverted bit stream. Using > default profiles (for 2 wire LL), test of DTE tells me that I have > interface error. Or may be it does not work at all? > DTE SIDE MODEM SIDE > SDL (ST7I) 25-PIN MALE CONNECTOR (MODEM) > RXD ----------- 3 Recieved Data > DSR ----------- 6 Data Set Ready > RTS ---------- 4 Reqest to send > RL ---------- 21 Remote Loop request > SF ---------- 11 Select frequency > RATE ---------- 23 Data rate selector > GND ---------- 7 Signal ground > CTS ---------- 5 Clear To Send > DTR ---------- 20 Data terminal ready > NC 24 Not Connected > TXC ---------- 15 Transmitter Timing > RXC ----------- 17 Reciever Timing > TXD ----------- 2 Transmitted Data > LL ----------- 18 Local Loop request > DCD ----------- 8 Data Carrier Detected > GND Signal ground > GND Signal ground > GND Signal ground > GND ----------- 7 Signal ground > TM ----------- 25 Loop ready > NC 22 Not Connected Alick, Make sure when you do an AT&V0 (to get the current profile) that the modem is set with &L1 (for 2 wire leased line) &N0 (for auto speed negotiation) &K0 (for no error correction) Also one modem should be set for *M0 (the one that will originate) The other should be set for *M1 (to answer) Then, to connect type ATA on the one that's set to answer and ATD on the one set for originate. Doug Rorem University of Illinois at Chicago (312)-996-5439 [voice] EECS Department RM 1120 (312)-413-1065 [fax] 851 S. Morgan Street (312)-232-4375 [pager] Chicago, IL 60607-7053 rorem@uic.edu ------------------------------ From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Canada Area 867 Activated Today Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 04:55:27 -0700 Organization: No unsolicited commercial e-mail! In article , ccremer@fc.net (Charles Cremer) wrote: > The Yukon and [Northwest] Territories of Canada now has area code 867. > Formerly, the region shared an area code with Alberta. Old Code: > 403/819 New Code: 867 Type of Relief: Split Effective Date: 10/21/97 > Permissive Dialing End Date: 4/26/98 > Test Number(s): 867-669-5448 Actually, the western portion (all of Yukon and the western NWT) shared 403 with Alberta. The eastern portion (around Hudson Bay, Baffin Island, etc.) shared area code 819 with central and northern Quebec. (819 still serves a large territory, stretching from the VT/NH/ME border, Sherbrooke, Drummondville, Trois-Rivieres, and Hull, and up the coast of James Bay, Hudson Bay, and Hudson Strait, to the northern portion of the border with Labrador.) The new 867 area code will also include the new Nunavut Territory, which is planned to be carved out of the current NWT in 1998 or 1999. Because of a prefix conflict, 819-979 (Iqaluit, formerly Frobisher Bay, on Baffin Island) will get 867-979, but 403-979 (Inuvik, near the northern reach of the Yukon/NWT border) will change to 867-777. Further details are available at my website, http://www.lincmad.com ** Do not spam e-mail me! ** Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best-com >> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must change "NOSPAM" to "com" << ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #294 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Oct 28 21:19:04 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id VAA18551; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 21:19:04 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 21:19:04 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199710290219.VAA18551@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #295 TELECOM Digest Tue, 28 Oct 97 21:19:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 295 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Ringdowns and Other Non-Dialable Toll-Points (Mark J. Cuccia) Telecommunications Manager (TCM) Definition (Robert J. Perillo) Addendum: Psychic Spammer (of June, 97) (Michael Maxfield) Routing in the Northwest (206/425/253) (Michael Gutteridge) House Panel Questions FBI Implementation of Wiretap Law (Monty Solomon) Re: Bell Canada Set to Announce New Area Codes (smasher@idirect.com) Re: Bell Canada Set to Announce New Area Codes (Chris Farrar) Re: Modem Users, Who You Gonna Call?; Not Bell Atlantic (Jay R. Ashworth) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 17:48:35 -0600 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Ringdowns and Other Non-Dialable Toll-Points John David Galt wrote: > Quoth Mark J. Cuccia : >> Similarly, there are still numerous remote/rural areas (hunting/fishing >> lodges, ranches, isolated villages, ranger stations, etc) all over the >> NANP area (US, Canada, much of the Caribbean) which can only be >> reached by operators of the telcos/carriers mentioned in the first >> paragraph. If you are trying to reach such a 'ring-down' point in your >> LATA (or when calling from within Canada), you call your 'traditional' >> LEC local/toll opearator with a single '0'. If the 'ringdown' location >> is outside of your LATA when calling from the US, you can only use >> the AT&T operator, (10[10]288)-0('#'/0); or use 800-CALL-ATT / >> 800-3210-ATT and then cut-thru to the operator. Such calls to >> 'ringdown' points are billed at AT&T/LEC Operator _HANDLED_ rates! > Here's something I've wondered about for awhile: why not allow > customers to dial these points themselves (using the 88x pseudo-NPAs)? > (This would ring the same manual operator point it does now, but would > bypass the earlier operator step used now. Billing would work as if > it's an automatic exchange.) Is there some technical reason this > can't be done, or is it the way it is because the union wants to > preserve needless jobs? > [TELECOM Editor's Note: You may be correct about the union. One case > I remember from several years ago involved a little town in northern > Minnesota. The name Grand Portage comes to mind. It was listed as an > operator handled call, with the operator to dial 218 plus 446(?) plus > four-D. In other words, the operator could dial the number but the > public presumably could not. As an experiment I tried dialing direct > 218-446-number and got through just fine. PAT] There are some of these locations which _do_ have _non-published_ 'standard' 7/10-digit NANP numbers of the geographic NPA and the 'closest' (although it could be _miles/kilometers_ away) NXX central-office code and switch. This is the number that the operator would actually dial, but bill the call at _operator-handled_ rates. Due to the distances involved from the serving central office and/or terrain involved in providing the loop to the switch, telco might have been able to have such locations tariffed as such. The customer with the 'non-customer-dialable' service also doesn't know their non-published number, and their phones might even be designed to always reach the local telco operator to place outgoing calls (instead of a dialtone), billed at operator handled rates. I don't know how many areas still have the following type of "loop band/distance" monthly charges (I think that some remote parts of Yukon or NWT have such), but I remember seeing something like this in the Louisiana tariffs some years back. Even though the central office provided dial service, if a customer lived more than so many miles away from their serving central office, they were tariffed in the 'outer' band, and paid a higher monthly charge than those who lived within the 'limit'. This was quite common in rural areas, where a c/o switch served large sprawling geographic territory, and loops were long, and frequently crossed difficult terrain. So, telco feels that they should be able to keep some remote areas reachable only by the operator at higher rates, since the traffic volume to/from such locations is considered low, and the higher rates help keep the monthly costs to the customer with such service within 'reasonable' levels, so that they can have _some_ form of connection with the 'outside world' in case of an emergency. Many non-dialable points might still be just that - not even operator 'dialable'. The far-end operator might have to actually 'manually-ring' the desired customer. Loops might still be open-wire, ground-return, or radio channel. Some of these ringdown or non-dialable locations might even really be a 'two-way radio patch' type of service. As for customers _dialing_ the 88x pseudo-NPA's ... these 88x codes are strictly used for billing and rating purposes. For such locations which can actually be dialed by the operator using a non-pub number, remember that the non-pub number is a 'regular' _geographic_ NPA-NXX-xxxx number. But for billing and rating identification purposes, the 88X-XXX code has its own V&H co-ordinates, pointing to the particular location. Even if customers could dial the 88X, some of these non-customer-dialable locations have their next three digits (after the 88X) as 0XX or 1XX, not just NXX. The billing/rating number could be something like 889-002-1234. Most switches aren't able to handle a customer dialing a 0XX or 1XX code in the central-office-code portion of a ten-digit NANP number. When the toll-free 800 special area code was in danger of exhausting its number supply a few years back prior to introducing 888, there were some proposals to introduce "c/o" codes of the form 0XX and 1XX within toll-free 800, since dialing to 800 (and 888, 900, 500, 700, etc) numbers _always_ requires the _full_ ten-digits. There are also no RAO/CIID type calling cards which begin 800-0XX or 800-1XX, so there would not have been any other numbering conflict. And special 800 routings don't use Kp+800+0XX/1XX+(etc)+St, neither. But it was determined that some switches in use in the NANP wouldn't have been able to be easily adapted to allow customers to dial a '0' or '1' in the 'D-digit-position'. It was also determined that some people might mis-dial by leaving off the required 800 or 1-800. There would be too many misdials - many reaching an operator, or causing some other strange routing/translation due to the misdial. As for the 88x-Xxx codes to identify ringdowns or non-customer-dialable ratecenters, _THAT_ has been an issue tossed around by the industry forums. The billing-related forums wants NANPA to continue to have 88X grandfathered in as 'psuedo' NPAs for billing purposes _only_. However, the numbering-related forums have decided that dialable numbering resources are _not_ to be used for non-dialable or billing-only purposes. It _might_ be possible that the 88x-Xxx billing codes are going to be changed over to 08x-Xxx or 18x-Xxx. However, this might cause a problem, too, since RAO codes are still of the format 0XX through 5XX. But RAO codes might be considered an anachronism in today's telephone environment, except for calling-card numbers based on the RAO code. (But for that matter, non-dialable points themseleves are an anachronism!) Similarly, it has been proposed that NANP billing identification for calling to Mexico be changed from 52X to 05X. (521 through 529, since Mexico's city-codes only begin with '1' through '9', and not '0'; 520 is a valid geographic NPA for most of Arizona, anyhow). Mexico is _NOT_ part of the NANP, and probably won't be ... Mexico's own internal numbering is supposed to be expanding from eight to ten significant digits sometime next year, anyhow. But it _is_ always amazing that old, obsolete, and forgotten services still are in existance to some extent, or that old practices still apply today even if the service has been completely discontinued. MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut-1-2497 WORK:__mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu|4710-Wright-Road|__(+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity-5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New-Orleans-28__|fwds-on-no-answr-to Fax:UNiversity-5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail- [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Does anyone around here remember the radio operator based in Alma, Quebec who handled all the traffic around the far northern fringes of that province until at least some time in the 1970's? A couple hundred miles north of Quebec City on provincial high- way 169, her duties were to maintain communication with such northern outposts as Inukjuak, Salvit and Deception, Quebec. If your long distance operator checked with Rate and Route for Inukjuak for example, the routing was given as 'International Operator 419' and when dialing into that, the responding operator announced herself as 'Montreal Toll Center'. When your operator then asked for Inukjuak the Montreal operator (who had initially responded speaking French but had switched to English when she detirmined it was a call from the USA) would say that she would make a connection to 'Alma Radio' who would assist further. The Alma operator would answer in French and likewise switch to English with a *very* French accent. She always seemed to be quite amazed that someone from Chicago was calling. "Just a minute," she would say, "I will see if I can raise them." She would then key her microphone and repeat several times with a pause of a few seconds after each call, "Alma is calling Inukjuak on Channel 1". During her pause you would hear a great deal of static. After a minute or so of no response she would switch to Channel 2 and repeat her call several times. She would alternate her calls in English and French. After a couple minutes of this calling, alternating between channels in English and French with much static and hissing on the line as she waited for an answer she would finally say to the Chicago operator, "Oh, madamoiselle, I am so sorry but Inukjuack is not responding. They only promised us they would listen to the radio between 11 AM and Noon each day, and sometimes I talk to them about seven in the evening also. Shall I try for you later and call you when they respond?" The Chicago operators were amazed that such a system existed. I asked Alma the distance being covered and the type of radio communication. She said it was AM (amplitude modulation) single sideband, and she ventured a guess that the point we were calling was 'several hundred miles north'. The other main radio station covering northern Quebec was located a bit to the west in the town of Val D'or, which operated in essentially the same way. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Oct 97 13:44 EST From: Perillo@DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL (Robert J. Perillo) Subject: Telecommunications Manager (TCM) Definition I have been told that the new edition, 13th, of Harry Newton's, "Newton's Telecom Dictionary", the standard telecommunications dictionary/glossary will be available in bookstores this November. One problem that I have found with the current dictionary is that it is missing an acronym listing or definition for the common term 'TCM'. This is strange, because Newton's publications are aimed at the TCM, and his people constantly use that acronym? Attached is a definition, in mini-essay form as is common for the dictionary. ------------------ Telecommunications Manager (TCM) The TCM is the manager or the manager of the department that Plans, Controls, and Administers the telephony and telecommunications assets of the company. And ensures that the telephone and telecommunications systems are well-run and functioning smoothly. These assets may include the PBX, ISDN, T-1's, local and long distance telephone lines, telephone sets, authorization codes, cable pairs, WAN's, Fax machines, voice mail systems, automated attendants, interactive voice response systems, automatic call distribution, multiplexors, modem pools, etc. . The internal data facilities such as LAN's and routers may be under the administration of the TCM, or could be the responsibility of the Management Information Systems (MIS) department. But since the TCM has responsibility for both the inside wiring and the outside Carrier facilities, close coordination would be required if the internal data facilities are controlled by the MIS department. TCM Functions Before the Bell System divestiture, pre-1984, there were no choices and one stop shopping for telephone and telecommunications services. The telecommunications management was simple then, and in most cases relegated to the accounting or administration departments. With the advent of Other Common Carriers (OCC's) and Competitive Access Providers (CAP's), competition, and choices to save business money on their telephone and telecommunications costs, came management and administration responsibilities that require special skills and full time administration. In addition, corporate demands for a more flexible phone system requires the TCM to have knowledge of product interoperability, new protocols, data networking, and computer telephony standards. The following are the functions of the TCM; + Operating, administering, monitoring, and maintaining the existing telecommunications systems. + Dealing with the various vendors and providers, including verifying and paying the bills. + Preparing and managing the Telecommunications budget. + Keeping abreast of changes in technology, services, industry structure, and rates. + Assisting company management in developing a corporate telecommunications policy that meets business objectives. + Developing and implementing company telephone and telecommunications procedures for efficient and cost effective use, and training company employees in these procedures. + Upgrading, procurement, selecting, contracting, or purchasing a system, new system, equipment, or services. + Planning and analyzing for growth, new requirements, or future functionality. . The goal of the TCM is to provide good telecommunications services for an organization and its employees at the lowest possible cost. Robert J. Perillo, CCP, CNE Perillo@dockmaster.ncsc.mil Principal Telecommunications Engineer Richmond, VA ------------------------------ From: tweek@netcom.com (Michael Maxfield) Subject: Addendum: Psychic Spammer (of June, 97) Organization: Our Lady of Perpetual Freedom Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 23:23:20 GMT Anyone else scammed by this slime? Better late than never, but today I was going over the last three bills I have for one of my phone lines, and found a recuring charge for $46.30 billed by the long distance company USP&C. ($44.95 plus $1.35 taxes) The bill was itemized something like: ====================================== Sept 28, 1997 USP&C Total Current Charges $46.30 TAX Fed: 1.35 $1.35 CALLS - Billed on Behalf of ASP TELECOM, INC - Domestic Aug24 Call Plus 44.95 Total Calls 44.95 ====================================== The above appeared on my July, Aug, and Sept bill. "Whoops!" I remarked, for not having looked at my bills more closely sooner, especially when I was expecting some funny business from the Psychic Spammer. I called USPC and inquired about the charges (also found out that there was a fourth which I should be seeing on my next telco bill, being processed today) and was told that it was service which I had subscribed to. I asked the nice lady for the name who authorized the acceptance of this service, but she was unable to tell me because she was with USPC and not ASP TELECOM. She did however suggest that "someone" had subscribed to it by calling an 800 number from my phone. I proceded to tell here about certain FCC rules governing charges for calling 800 numbers, and the requirement for a proper agreement prior to any such billing, and I am very sure that no such agreement took place. I asked that my account be credited, and she did credit it for $179.80. (I also talked to PacBell, and told them that I will not pay for $185.20 which included the taxes. PacBell agreed that I was correct.) I also asked her for the name and address of the slime charging me. This is what I got in response: ASP Telecom, Inc 3420 Pump Road. Suite 260 Richmond, VA 23233 Since I'm not at home, where I have notes tacked to the wall regarding the one call I made to any questionable 800 number, to "sample" their wares for free, I had to use DeJaNews to gather up a secondary source of info on this call I made, which I feel is responsible for this billing. [the following slightly obscured to avoid any accidental spam filters] ========The BAIT==================== ] ] Subject: ! FRXE PSXCHIC READINGS! FRXE!! X-XXX-XXX-8048 ] From: lov @ interport. net ] Date: 1997/06/18 ] Message-ID: <5o81js$9dt$232@broadway.interport.net> ] Organization: Interport Communications Corp. ] Newsgroups: alt.beer ] ] Hear a gifted psychic speak your fortune and future ] on 1-XXX-677-XXXX our special samples line where you ] can try a psychic reading free. Don't take the word ] of others - see for yourself just how accurate they are. ] Adults over 18 only. ] ] Dial 1-800-XXX-XXXX ] =============================================================== And my posting on June 25, about my call on June 25, one day AFTER the "Jun24 CALL PLUS 44.95" billing on my Jul 28 bill. (Gee, they really must be psychic.) =============================================================== ] Subject: Re: I called the Psychic Spammer (from a payphone...) ] From: tweek@netcom.com-NO.SPAM- (Reverend Tweek) ] Date: 1997/06/25 ] Message-ID: ] Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.usenet ] ] Reverend Tweek wrote: ] >Jeffrey (Prime) Smith wrote: ] >>Today I invested some of my lunch hour and called two of the 800 ] >>numbers (XXX-8048 and XXX-3733) the Psychic spammer is using from the ] >>payphone outside work. ] > ] >FCC strikes me as one place, since they ruled within the last 18 months ] >that you cannot bill for a call to an 800 number without prior agreement ] >with the caller... ] ] Well, after posting the last, and reading as the FCC wrote it, I felt ] I was safe to call from my home phone in order to sample their wares. ] ] [I have the data relevant to when I made the call, written down should ] I require it in a dispute.] ] ] June 25, 1997, 8:10 PM PDT called (1-XXX) XXX 8048 ] The intro first "blurted" "$1.50 a billed monthly" and ] then went on to mention that this was a free sample call. It then ] asked for a name... and said "If your name is Keith Adright, say ] Keith Aldright"... since this was just a sampling, I said "Keith ] Aldright". It then gave me a personal number, which looks similar ] to an 800 number, and a personal code, a four digit PIN looking ] number... and even my own "Personal Delivery Code" so that all those ] rad chics could leave me messages. ] ] It then went into a Psycho spiel... telling me how I we all are spirits ] stuck in our bodies... bla bla bla... finally, after about five ] minutes, It gave me a Main Menu from which I could make selections... ] At that point, after the only key I would dare press was the "*" key, ] it hung up on me after a while. I suspect that any additional calls to ] that number from my phone, or the "personal number" and my PIN from any ] phone, might see an attempt at being billed by them... ] ] HOWEVER, and unfortunately, this scam appears perfectly legal and it ] does not strike me that they are forwarding the calls to an international ] number... but I'd bet they are logging every call, and will try to ] claim that any second call from any particular number is an agreed upon ] call. tweek@netcom.com tweek@io.com | "Well, you and I would differ on DoD #MCMLX tweek@ccnet.com | what's ignorance and educated." sigtst@tweekco.ness.com | - Senator Ernest Hollings ------------------------------ From: Michael Gutteridge Subject: Routing in the Northwest (206/425/253) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 10:24:39 -0800 Organization: ONYX Software Corp. Reply-To: mikeg@spam.onyx.com Hiya! We're undergoing a split of the 206 area code into three areas: 206 (Seattle), 425 (Eastside and north end), and 253 (South King County). There is an additional layer of complexity in that they are implementing ten and eleven digit dialing, where some exchanges accross areacodes are dialable using solely ten digits, and some exchanges within the areacode require the full eleven digits. They way I understand it, this is because some calls are inter-carrier (ie, a call from USWest territory into GTE requires the eleven digits). Ok, that's assumption number one. Is that correct? Now, given that, is there some reference table where I can look up the NPA/NXX combination and thereby determine what dialing scheme I need to use? I've looked at the offerings from the TRA. I suspect the data is buried somewhere in the LERG and/or NIPC. I don't have enough knowledge to extract it, and the class on interpreting the LERG isn't offered until the day after the dialing plan goes mandatory! In the LERG, I have a column called "EO" for the digits the end-office requires to terminate the call. I don't think this is any help. I suppose I could base it off of the OCN number (ie, if the end OCN isn't the same as the originating OCN). This is confused by the fact that there are several operating companies, but it's the underlying carrier that really determines the dialing scheme (eg, our service is from TCG, which is actually running on USWest service). I'm puzzled by the AT field. What is an "Access Tandem"? Could this be my holy grail? ;-) If anyone can suggest a book that describes this process, I'd be more than happy to buy it. Is this information part of the LERG subscription? I don't want to take a lot of anyone's time, but we're going to have a huge problem with some of our software once this takes effect. Thanks, Michael Gutteridge System Administrator ONYX Software Corp. mikeg@spam.onyx.com 425.519.4118 www.onyx.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 13:08:05 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: House Panel Questions FBI Implementation of Wiretap Law Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM Excerpt from ACLU News 10-26-97 House Panel Questions FBI Implementation of Wiretap Law FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Thursday, October 23, 1997 WASHINGTON -- Amid growing concerns about privacy implications and costs, a House subcommittee today questioned FBI implementation of a controversial 1994 law that forced telephone companies help law enforcement agencies gain access to digital phone lines for surveillance operations. During the four-hour hearing before the Crime Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee, two Republicans -- Bob Barr of Georgia and Steve Chabot of Ohio -- were harshly critical of the 1994 law, has implemented it, saying it represents an enormous invasion of privacy and could lead to a system of ongoing government surveillance. Seconding those criticisms, the American Civil Liberties Union said that safeguards originally implemented in the legislation have failed to protect the American public. "The hearing today clearly revealed that the FBI is embarked on a scheme to undermine the privacy of every law-abiding American," said Donald Haines, a Legislative Counsel with the ACLU's Washington National Office. "From the very beginning, the FBI has flagrantly violated both the process and the requirements set out in the legislation," Haines added. "The FBI has repeatedly sought to coerce the telecommunications industry into changing its technology so that law enforcement agencies could increase their wiretapping." The 1994 telecommunications act is far from the only effort by the FBI to gain backdoor access to private communications. In another ongoing Congressional debate, the FBI is trying to impose restrictions on the use of privacy-protecting encryption technology. "Congress must squarely confront this persistent pattern of FBI and law enforcement intrusions into our privacy," Haines said. "Congress should act immediately to repeal the 1994 law, or, at an absolute minimum, refuse to fund any implementation activities." ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 13:06:25 -0500 From: Alykhan Subject: Re: Bell Canada Set to Announce New Area Codes Linc Madison wrote: > In article , Jeff Smith > wrote: >> Bell Canada is set to annouce 4 new area codes for the GTA. (New >> Metro Toronto). >> 1. Durham Region - will move to a new area code >> 2. Peel & Halton - will move to a new area code >> (these regions will share area code until split is needed) >> 3. York - will retain the current 905 area code >> - the rest of 905 not in the GTA will move to a new area code. >> 4. (new) Toronto - will either get an overlay or a split of >> the current area code or maybe wireless services to move to a >> seperate area code. >> By 2002 the GTA - will be called Metro will compose of Five Cities. >> Namely: 1. City of Toronto >> 2. City of Durham >> 3. City of Peel >> 4. City of York >> 5. City of Halton >> People are saying Bell has applied for more area codes to get the >> regions ready now! > This is almost certainly incorrect. First of all, there is no "City > of Durham" in Toronto. Durham, Ontario, is a town north of Kitchener, > in the 519 area code. "Metro Toronto" consists of the City of Toronto, > York, East York, North York, Etobicoke, and Scarborough. Those six > cities currently share area code 416. The same six cities are being > proposed for merger into "Megacity Toronto." If you read "York" refers to York Region, that will be merged into City of York. The current city of York will be part of new Toronto Jan 1, 1998 "Durham" refers to Durham Region (which inc. Pickering etc.) Read the top of this message Linc. The New GTA consists of 5 (FIVE) regions namley 1. Halton Region 2. Peel Region 3. Peel Region 4. Durham Region 5. (new) Toronto > More importantly, York is not currently in 905, so it is absolutely > NOT going to be moved into 905 to the exclusion of all current 905 > communities. No way, no how. York is currently in 416. York region is in the 905 area code. The city of York is being merged with the city of Toronto. > Lastly, there is no way that Bell Canada could possibly get NANPA > approval for four new area codes at once for the Toronto region, > especially if you are talking (as you appear to be) only about the > area that is currently in 416. This is about the 905 region not 416!!! > Relief proposals for 416 have focused along two principal > alternatives: > (A) geographic split, probably along Yonge Street > (B) all-services overlay of 416 I have been told that the split will be as follows. It will NOT follow Yonge Street. The current (old) City of Toronto, City of York, and Borough of East York will remain in the current 416 area code. Etobicoke, North York, and Scarborough will move to the new area code. This is an attempt to keep the city core in the same area. and create an inner/outer area code similar to London, UK's 171, and 181 area code. ------------------------------ From: Chris Farrar Subject: Re: Bell Canada Set to Announce New Area Codes Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 15:51:11 -0500 Organization: Sympatico Reply-To: cfarrar@sympatico.ca Linc Madison wrote: > More importantly, York is not currently in 905, so it is absolutely > NOT going to be moved into 905 to the exclusion of all current 905 > communities. No way, no how. York is currently in 416. This depends on what he is calling "York". If he means the current City of York, soon to be swallowed into the Megacity of Toronto, you are correct. If he is talking about "York Region" which is patroled by York Regional Police, which is essentially Markham, Richmond Hill, Vaughn (sp?), Woodbridge, ie, the rest of York County outside of Toronto, which currently is in the 905 area, he may be correct. Chris Farrar | cfarrar@sympatico.ca | Amateur Radio, a VE3CFX | fax +1-905-457-8236 | national resource PGPkey Fingerprint = 3B 64 28 7A 8C F8 4E 71 AE E8 85 31 35 B9 44 B2 ------------------------------ From: jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us (Jay R. Ashworth) Subject: Re: Modem Users, Who You Gonna Call?; Not Bell Atlantic Date: 28 Oct 1997 20:20:12 GMT Organization: Ashworth & Associates On Mon, 27 Oct 97 16:17 EST, Robert J. Perillo wrote: > "In a letter to all customers of its wire-maintenance plans, > Bell Atlantic said the plans will no longer cover > ''malfunctions in the dial tone resulting from the use of > voice-grade lines to transmit or receive data or signals which > exceed the operating capabilities of the line.'' In effect, > the Bell Atlantic policy means subscribers to the optional > wire-maintenance plans will not be covered for service calls > that involve problems resulting from modem use on a standard > voice line. Of the 21 million access lines in Bell Atlantic's > territory, 13.2 million are residential. The company would not > disclose how many customers use its wire-maintenance plan. > According to Bell Atlantic, ''a service charge may apply when a > repair person is dispatched and the problem is with the > transmission or receipt of data or signals which are beyond the > operating capabilities of the dial-tone line.'' ". > "Bell Atlantic instituted the new policy because its support staff > can rarely solve problems on its voice-grade lines > that slow down or disrupt data transmissions, said John White, > executive director of outside plant technology and standards > at Bell Atlantic. > The problems are especially acute with 28.8-Kbps modems, which > ''use more bandwidth than we've designed the network > to provide,'' White said. Users of 28.8-Kbps modems typically > do not get 28.8-Kbps performance because of the limitations > of Bell Atlantic's voice-grade circuits, he said. Standard > voice lines operate at 300 to 3,000 hertz, but a 28.8 modem > requires a range of 465 to 3,520 hertz, he said." No. By definition, consumer dialup modems are designed to fit into service parameters _defined by the phone companies_. The modem makers didn't pick the numbers, the telco's did. Do we all have that? Telco's have tried this before, and in the process, proven that they do in fact have no clue about data: does anyone remember the RBOC which announced that it would support data service on voice lines only up to "9600 baud". Inasmuch as no consumer-grade modem on the market currently goes faster than about 3400 baud, I guess we're all set. I'd strongly recommend that consumers in Hell Titannic's service area melt down the phones of the Public Service Commission -- _and_ the Attorneys General -- this is _fraud_. Cheers, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "Pedantry. It's not just a job, it's an Tampa Bay, Florida adventure." -- someone on AFU +1 813 790 7592 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #295 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Oct 28 22:02:22 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA21574; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 22:02:22 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 22:02:22 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199710290302.WAA21574@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #296 TELECOM Digest Tue, 28 Oct 97 22:02:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 296 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: InTRA-LATA Carrier Verification (Ed Ellers) Re: InTRA-LATA Carrier Verification (James Bellaire) Re: InTRA-LATA Carrier Verification (Leonid A. Broukhis) Re: Is Southwestern Bell Allowed to do This? (Michael Gutteridge) Re: Caller ID: GTE California to GTE Indiana? (Linc Madison) Re: Caller ID: GTE California to GTE Indiana? (Matt Holdrege) Re: Caller ID: GTE California to GTE Indiana? (Marshall A. Levin) Re: New Cellular Phone Experience So Far (Dan Johnson) Re: New Cellular Phone Experience So Far (Michelle Durbin) Re: Slamming: Some Results (David Jensen) Re: Canada Area 867 Activated Today (John David Galt) Re: Old Bell System "Underground Cable" Warning Sign (Lee Winson) Re: Old Bell System "Underground Cable" Warning Sign (Anthony Argyriou) Re: Old Bell System "Underground Cable" Warning Sign (Jeffrey W. Sandris) Re: Pac Bell High Installation Charges for "HiCap" (allword@ix.netcom.com) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: InTRA-LATA Carrier Verification Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 21:33:30 -0500 Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Bill Levant wrote: > BTW, if you're lucky (?) enough to have BA inTRA-LATA toll, dialing > 700-4141 gets you the dulcet tones of James Earl Jones thanking you for > using CNN, er ... BA. It's ALMOST worth switching to BA just for that ;-)." Sometimes he does both at once -- Jones did the voiceovers announcing Bell Atlantic's sponsorship of closed captioning on several CNN programs. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 11:26:20 -0500 From: James Bellaire Subject: Re: InTRA-LATA Carrier Verification Marty Tennant wrote: >> At one point, Worldcom told us to dial 700-4141 (we're in area code >> 610) to verify our inTRA-LATA toll PIC assignment. I did; it works >> just like (700) 555-4141. >> I've never seen that mentioned here; does it work anywhere else? > I tried dialing only 700-4141. No go, "your long distance carrier > cannot complete your call as dialed". I then tried 1-803-700-4141, > since I am in NPA 803. It worked, but said "thank you for using GTE". > GTE is not my intralata carrier, but they are my local exchange > carrier. I don't get bills from them anymore for intralata, but they > tried to bill me once for a call that was also billed by my real > intralata carrier. Never could figure that one out. > Anyone else with intralata presubscription out there with anything > to report on this new verification code? It works in 219-293 Elkhart Indiana (GTE), except that 1-219-700-4141 says 'Thank you for choosing MCI' since I picked them for Inter and InTRA-LATA. A call to 1-700-555-4141 returns 'Thank you for choosing LDDS Worldcom as your long distance carrier.' Yikes! I've been slammed! (I'm glad I check occasionally.) Maybe they grabbed my number from an NPA test call? My wife and I haven't signed anything or even answered a sales call. (Someone tried to slam my domain the other day too, sending in a fake DNS change to InterNIC. It's been a bad month.) Welcome to the 90's !!! James E. Bellaire (JEB6) bellaire@tk.com Telecom Indiana Webpage http://members.iquest.net/~bellaire/telecom/ * Note new server - old URL should still work * ------------------------------ From: leob@best.com (Leonid A. Broukhis) Subject: Re: InTRA-LATA Carrier Verification Date: 28 Oct 1997 16:33:57 -0800 In the PacBell area (510) 700-4141 gives "You have reached the test 700 verification network" over very heavy static. Leo ------------------------------ From: Michael Gutteridge Subject: Re: Is Southwestern Bell Allowed to do This? Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 09:25:27 -0800 Organization: ONYX Software Corp. Reply-To: mikeg@spam.onyx.com I don't know about the specific legal ramifications, but to throw my $0.02 in ... We are setting up an office in Roswell, GA. We are a medium sized company with offices in all sorts of places -- not exactly a fly-by-night outfit. When I called BellSouth to set up service, they requested some credit information since we had no previous account. I'd expect this. I actually have a bank-info type sheet with all the relevant information regarding our status as a corporation, bank info, tax id's, references, etc. for just such a purpose. Nope ... they wanted the SSN of one of our board members! I briefly explaned the nature and purpose of a corporation to the representative (brick wall) to no avail. They simply weren't going to give us the lines without this. We were finally able to get them to drop the SSN requirement by putting up a $1000 deposit. To me, this seems really goofy. I'd be very interested in hearing what the PUC has to say about this. I haven't yet gotten around to writing that letter of complaint to the people at BellSouth (and maybe the Atlanta Chamber of Commerce, the Govenor, et al). Unfortunately, my favorite method of complaint (taking my business *elsewhere*) doesn't seem to be available in the region our office is located. Or did we just do it wrong? We were working with a local vendor, who seemed to regard it as "Standard Operating Procedure", so I think we were in the proper channel. Michael Gutteridge System Administrator ONYX Software Corp. mikeg@spam.onyx.com 425.519.4118 www.onyx.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Your various accounts in other locations with 'traditional' telcos in those places should have been sufficient to have service started at your new location; in fact, it should have been turned on and waiting for you. It sounds like you got stuck with a real dumbo of a service representative. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Telecom@LincMad.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Caller ID: GTE California to GTE Indiana? Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 11:48:13 -0800 Organization: LincMad Consulting; change NOSPAM to COM In article , Rich Courtney wrote: > I think California is prohibited from sending CID. It is due to > privacy issues. No, that issue has been completely resolved in the courts. If you dial *67, or if you have per-line blocking, then your call will be flagged as "private" (or "anonymous"). If you dial *82, or if you don't have per-line blocking, your call should be sent with caller-id. That all assumes that the originating switch is capable of sending CLID, and that the carriers along the way correctly relay it to the other end. If you get "no data" or "out of area," then somebody dropped the ball. ** Do not spam e-mail me! ** Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * Telecom@LincMad-com >> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must change "NOSPAM" to "com" << ------------------------------ From: holdrege@eisner.decus.org (Matt Holdrege) Subject: Re: Caller ID: GTE California to GTE Indiana? Organization: DECUServe Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 17:42:00 GMT In article , Tom@Ytram.Com writes: > We have caller ID from GTE North Indiana (219-465). Generally, we are > getting data from most long distance callers. > Except one: A person who calls me from Lancaster, California > (805-949). I get a "data unavailble" when he calls. He says that their > local telco is GTE, and that he thinks that they have GTE long > distance. Lancaster is out in the desert so I'm not too surprised. I don't think there are any regulatory issues. I'm in GTE-CA and recently got calling name ID from someone in GTE-Hawaii. ------------------------------ From: Marshall A. Levin Subject: Re: Caller ID: GTE California to GTE Indiana? Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 11:03:28 -0400 Organization: Acunet Internet Commerce Reply-To: Marshall A. Levin I'm having a similarly annoying problem here in 617. Someone calls me (I'm in 617 -- Boston) from Medford (until recently this was 617 -- now it is 781). I always get "out of area" information for this call. Just last week I got a flyer in my phone bill (from Bell Atlantic, which just recently merged with NYNEX) which boasted that now that NYNEX and Bell Atlantic were one company, Calling number AND name would be delivered throughout Bell Atlantic's area (something like Virginia to Maine). Seems strange that I can't get this calling number and name data from a few miles away, in what was always NYNEX area and in what was until recently the same area code. Anyone have any ideas? ML ------------------------------ From: panoptes@iquest.net (Dan Johnson) Subject: Re: New Cellular Phone Experience So Far Date: 28 Oct 1997 03:11:31 GMT Organization: IQuest Internet, Inc. In article , Christopher Herot wrote: > My theory is that the person in the seat next to you is as caught up > in the driving experience as you are. Any human-factors students out > there might find it an interesting research project to see if the > nature of the conversation is different whether the other party is in > the car or remote on the phone. This might be what you mean, but there is also the fact that someone in the car with you is likely to be aware of driving situations that call for your complete attention and shut up accordingly. A couple friends of mine are definite non-drivers and exceptions to this. I've had to block them out when they tell me to look at something off the side of the road while driving in traffic at 40 MPH. Once or twice, I've had to tell them to shut up. Daniel W. Johnson panoptes@iquest.net http://www.members.iquest.net/~panoptes/ 039 53 36 N / 086 11 55 W ------------------------------ From: Michelle Durbin Subject: Re: New Cellular Phone Experience So Far Date: 28 Oct 1997 17:06:59 GMT Organization: West Coast Online's News Server - Not responsible for content Lisa Hancock wrote in article : > Recently I got cellular phone service. I previously posted my experiences > dealing with the sales people. Now here's some notes on usage ... > 1) How do people drive and talk? > For me at least, there's no way I can drive my car and talk on the > phone, it's simply too distracting with traffic. Yes, I know when we > drive we freely talk to the person next to us, but somehow it's > different on the phone. Considering all the times I was nearly > hit by a distracted driver talking on the phone, I don't know how > people do it. Some cell phones have a headset jack on them that would allow you to talk hands free. Some phones without headset jacks, such as Motorola flip phones, have kits available to make them headset compatible. For info on cell phone headsets, you can check out www.hello-direct.com. Of course, even with a headset, dialing can still be a problem, but many phones have speed dial. > 6) Be careful charging/recharging. NiCad batteries the phone uses can > develop a memory if not fully discharged then fully charged. They > suggested I leave the phone on to run down, then fully recharge it. > That makes sense to me, although it is a pain since it does require > some advance planning to allow one day to run down and one night to > recharge. You don't need to worry about memory if you use a negative pulse charger. Memory develops when gas bubbles form on the charging plate. Negative pulse chargers force the bubbles off of the charging plate, restoring the battery's talk time. Also, NiMH batteries don't develop memory the same way, although they don't keep their charge as long as NiCd. ------------------------------ From: djensen@madison.tds.net (David Jensen) Subject: Re: Slamming: Some Results Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 01:57:15 GMT Organization: At My House Reply-To: djensen@madison.tds.net On Mon, 27 Oct 1997 22:45:45 -0500, in comp.dcom.telecom jim@newmediagroup.com (Jim Youll) wrote: > GTE (my LEC), and I admit I'm surprised to say this, was the most > helpful of any of the involved parties. While they had LOST my PIC > restriction (which allowed this to happen) they did expedite the > signature form to me, called today to followup, didn't call with > pandering niceties, promised to remove the PIC-change charges, will > recourse all LD charges back to Sprint for the slammer period, and > flagged my account for a followup in a few weeks. From what I can tell, asking your LEC to recourse billing for slamming or for AOS overcharges seems to be an excellent strategy. If everyone who was slammed or AOSlimed asked that their bill be recoursed, you would find that the number of bad actors would drop dramatically. There is no way the unscrupulous will be able to profitably collect the bills that are recoursed, especially since many jurisdictions will not allow them to collect anything. David Jensen ------------------------------ From: jdg@but-i-dont-like-spam.boxmail.com (John David Galt) Subject: Re: Canada Area 867 Activated Today Date: 28 Oct 1997 17:51:39 GMT Organization: Sacratomato Cynics Quoth Charles Cremer : > The Yukon and Western Territories of Canada now has area code 867. > Formerly, the region shared an area code with Alberta. Old Code: > 403/819 New Code: 867 Type of Relief: Split Effective Date: 10/21/97 > Permissive Dialing End Date: 4/26/98 No one has mentioned this, but I doubt that folks _in_ the territories have permissive dialing, because lots of prefixes in Alberta probably conflict with those in the eastern (former 819) part of 867; and lots of prefixes in Quebec/819 probably conflict with those in the western part of 867. As with the recent 916/707 realignment (Dixon, CA), permissive dialing can exist for people dialing into the affected area from outside, but not for people within the new 867 area: if they dial a seven-digit number now, it will be treated as an 867 number. John David Galt ------------------------------ From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson) Subject: Re: Old Bell System "Underground Cable" Warning Sign Date: 28 Oct 1997 00:09:02 GMT Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS > Along major roads/highways in some parts of New Orleans, I've always > seen these yellow signs on utility poles indicating that there is > underground wiring in the vicinity, and to please contact the utility [snip] > TODAY, I noticed a much _older_ sign still attached to a utility pole. > It had the _OLD_ (pre-1970's) Bell System logo (the one which REALLY > LOOKED like a bell), and the following text.... There are plenty of old such signs for various utilities all over in the Philadelphia area. Some say to call Repair Service at 611 (Bell Atlantic had to discontiue "611" on account of local competition-- because it was unfair and confusing to Bell to have that number when other carriers would have full numbers.) In downtown Philadelphia, there are a great many heavy manhole covers with "KTCo" (Keystone Telephone Company, which was an independent company closed after WW II), and PRT (Philadelphia Rapid Transit, which changed its name in 1940.) Mark, would you like me to send you a photo of an old Bell sticker? ------------------------------ From: anthony@alphageo.com (Anthony Argyriou) Subject: Re: Old Bell System "Underground Cable" Warning Sign Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 02:21:42 GMT Organization: Alpha Geotechnical Reply-To: anthony@alphageo.com On Wed, 22 Oct 1997 09:31:55 -0500, Mark J. Cuccia wrote: > Along major roads/highways in some parts of New Orleans, I've always > seen these yellow signs on utility poles indicating that there is > underground wiring in the vicinity, and to please contact the utility > company PRIOR to digging or dredging. {more history and uselessness of numbers snipped} In California and Nevada, there is an outfit known as USA, Underground Service Alert. Most utilities which have underground lines are members of the service. Before conducting _any_ excavating or drilling on public property or utility easments, one is supposed to call their 800 number, and have the areas to be dug marked. Calling USA is required by LAW in California. If you damage any utility by digging or drilling without having the specific location marked out and there is no USA call, you will be liable for _all_ damages. Pacific Bell (or AT&T?) nailed a geotechnical consultant for drilling through a cable which carried most of downtown San Francisco's LD calls. Final settlement was in the $millions, for a 4-hour interruption. Not all utilities are members of USA, since the service is paid for by utility company dues, and is not mandatory at the utility end. The dues are sometimes more than small, rural outfits can afford. However, calling USA gets a list of utilities which will include the local phone co, electric co, gas co, water district, sewer agency, cable TV monopoly, several LD carriers, railroad companies (SP has many pipelines, not all near existing track), private companies (especially near refineries), and smaller agencies, like irrigation districts. There are several phone numbers for USA, depending on the age of the sign or directory listing, but last I checked, they all still work. Anthony Argyriou http://www.alphageo.com ------------------------------ From: sandris@shore.net (Jeffrey William Sandris) Subject: Re: Old Bell System "Underground Cable" Warning Sign Date: 28 Oct 1997 14:03:52 -0400 Organization: The Alliance of Independent Burlingham Sisters In article , Mark J. Cuccia wrote: > About ten years ago, AT&T put up some of their own such signs (with > the post-divestiture 'fried-brain' AT&T logo) Is this referring to the current logo (AKA "Death Star"), or did they have a different logo immediately post-divestiture? (I seem to remember the "American Bell AIS" ads that AT&T used before they lost the rights to the Bell name had the current logo, but I could be mistaken.) Jeffrey William Sandris sandris@shore.net ------------------------------ From: Tommy Boy Subject: Re: Pac Bell High Installation Charges for "HiCap" Date: 28 Oct 1997 04:16:35 GMT Organization: Netcom Carlos, How old is your house/neighborhood? Residential homes generally only have two copper "drops" to each of them. Makes sense from investment standpoint. Very few T1s to Joe Consumer. Because you are one of those telecommuters (look like business customer), Telco would have to bring extra copper pairs to the Network Interface box at your home. Depending on how you are served (aerial or underground), the property owner is generally responsible for all trenching from the property line to your residence. This would be de-regulated work that the telco can perform or any contractor. Pac Bell would generally farm that out anyway to a sub using time and materials. In terms of special construction, the state regulators and the feds have pretty straightforward definitions of what it is. Telcos are allowed to charge special construction for any investments that would be STRANDED or not reusable in the event you would discontinue service (i.e. move away and typical consumer take residence). PacBell would likely have to file a tariff or the contract with the PUC. I doubt it is arbitrary. I would suggest SIGNING A LONG TERM CONTRACT and the charges may become a moot point. If the Telco is guaranteed a sufficient return on investment, you may not have the problem. Pure economics. I know in the Ameritech region, there are no install charges on T1s if you sign a three or five year contract. If you disconnect early, then you have to pay them back. Did you ask for a Term Plan on the Hicap? ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #296 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Oct 30 08:57:15 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id IAA29740; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 08:57:15 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 08:57:15 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199710301357.IAA29740@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #297 TELECOM Digest Thu, 30 Oct 97 08:57:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 297 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson New NPA for St. Paul (Tad Cook) Free Telecom Seminar (Joe Scotti) Phone Extension to Remote Location (EdM@barneyboller.com) 800/888 Rationing Update (Judith Oppenheimer) Call For Papers: Applied Telecommunication Symposium (B.L. Bodnar) Re: Paging Firm Collapses (Anthony Argyriou) Re: Modem Users, Who You Gonna Call?; Not Bell Atlantic (Rudy Torres) Re: Modem Users, Who You Gonna Call?; Not Bell Atlantic (samiller@BIX.com) Re: Gilder Says Reno Attacked Microsoft too Late (L. Drew Davis) Re: Tower Site Leases (Adam H. Kerman) Re: Tower Site Leases (Bruce Wilson) Re: Tower Site Leases (Allison Hift) Re: New York Times on Net Day (John R. Levine) Re: New York Times on Net Day (Kevin DeMartino) Re: Canada Area 867 Activated Today (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: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: New NPA for St. Paul Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 00:31:06 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) St. Paul, Minn., to Get New Area Code, Agency Decides By Martin J. Moylan, Saint Paul Pioneer Press, Minn. Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News Oct. 29--St. Paul and other communities in the eastern half of the Twin Cities will be switched to a new area code next July, the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission decided Tuesday. The split will leave Minneapolis and the western suburbs in the 612 area -- at least for the time being. The PUC did not rule out the possibility of yet another split sometime in the next several years. Without the split, the supply of telephone numbers in the 612 area code likely would have been exhausted by summer, thanks to a growing appetite by customers for second lines, cellular phones, pagers and other devices. In August, the PUC couldn't agree on a solution after a series of public hearings on the subject over the summer. But commissioners on Tuesday readily approved the east-west split on a 4-1 vote, saying it keeps together communities that identify with each other, requires relatively little ten-digit dialing and fosters competition between US West and companies that want to challenge its lock on the local phone business. "There's something to being able to dial seven digits," Chairman Edward Garvey said. "Sixty to eighty percent of calls would be seven digits under a split. With this split, we can preserve seven-digit dialing for most citizens most of the time." Don Storm was the only commissioner to back an "overlay" plan, which would have superimposed a new area code on the existing 612 area code. Existing phone customers would get to keep their old numbers. But that would also mean two area codes for the same area, and all calls would require ten-digit dialing. Under that proposal, some homes and businesses could have ended up with telephones having different area codes. "Are we concluding that the public is not capable of doing more ten-digit dialing?" asked Storm. "I can't see anything less disruptive than the overlay. ... The public is much brighter and more capable of adjusting to multiple numbers than we acknowledge." But commissioner Gregory Scott said an overlay would leave US West with the bulk of 612 numbers, and consumers and business would value it more. "I can't get around the idea that an overlay is anti-competitive," he said. In the fall of 1999, the PUC will consider the Twin Cites' need for perhaps a third area code. It's gambling that efforts to conserve telephone numbers and technology fixes will preclude that, though. But if a new area code is needed, the commission indicated it would give Minneapolis, Richfield and some adjacent communities an area code of their own. The commission expects US West will appeal its decision because of the commission's edict that the east-west split follow municipal boundaries, not phone exchange lines. US West protested that rejiggering its network to follow community lines would be risky and cost it at least $10 million. But Garvey dismissed the Baby Bell's laments. "We should not be held hostage to willy-nilly exchange boundaries," he said. The commission's east-west boundary is pretty soft, actually. It had not even assigned all suburbs to one side or the other when it voted for the area code split Tuesday. Garvey said that some suburbs could switch sides if that made deployment of a new area code easier. The PUC also left some big issues hanging. It did not address what relief, if any, to offer alarm companies that must reprogram burglar and other alarms. A trade group representative estimated that the Twin Cities area has 100,000 to 150,000 alarms. The commission also did not decide if it will allow cellular phones and pagers held by St. Paulites and their eastern brethren to be grandfathered. That would mean they would not have to reprogram the devices with a new area code. At Tuesday's hearing, US West and the Minnesota Telephone Association, representing 88 of the state's 92 local phone companies, backed an overlay, arguing it provided the greatest long-term relief with the least amount of confusion. "With a split you have to think, `Where am I calling and where am I calling from?"' said Mike Thompson of US West. "An overlay eliminates that confusion. A split adds complexity and creates confusion." The overlay has been adopted in only a few states, including Maryland and Colorado. The Minnesota Business Utilities Users Council, which includes 3M, Honeywell, Norwest Bank, and 12 other big Minnesota companies, called for a split. saying it would better promote competition, while retaining a high degree of seven-digit dialing. "And tying an area code to some sort of geographic connection is deeply important," said Bill Flynn of the MBUUC. "It is deeply embedded in the psyche of rate payers." In voting for an east-west split, the PUC rejected two other split options on the table. One would have divided the 612 area code in three areas immediately. The other -- the doughnut approach -- would have given one area code to Minneapolis and St. Paul and some surrounding suburbs. Another code would have gone to the rest of the territory that now comprises the 612 area code. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 20:03:35 -0500 From: Joe Scotti Subject: Free Telecom Seminar Register Now... COMPLIMENTARY CONFERENCE SLATED FOR NOV. 6TH Learn How Competition in the Local Telecommunications Market May Impact Your Business. Hampstead, NH-- AUDITEL, Inc., a telecommunications management consulting firm in Hampstead, NH, announces a complimentary seminar by way of a dial-in telephone conference on November 6, 1997 at 10:00 a.m. The interactive telephone conference will focus on helping New Hampshire businesses better understand how competition in the local telecommunications market may impact their business. The conference will be opened by co-hosts Joe Scotti, AUDITEL's president, and Attorney Andrew Eills of Gallagher, Callahan and Gartrell. They will discuss issues surrounding telecommunications technology and its impact on business consumers in New Hampshire. This overview will be followed by a panel discussion. "Several of the companies providing local telephone services have enthusiastically agreed to join the panel and share their vision of the future, as well as their perspective on the current state of local competition," says Scotti. "This is a tremendous opportunity to talk directly with the people who are shaping the future of telecommunications in New Hampshire." A question and answer period will following the panel discussion. The last education teleconference held jointly by AUDITEL and Gallagher, Callahan and Gartrell was held in May of 1997 and addressed the issues of presubscription and deregulation. Anyone wishing to join in on the telephone conference may register by calling AUDITEL at 1-800-364-2616, extension 21. Registration is limited to 100 participants. Upon registration participants will be given a special dial-in phone number for the conference along with a PIN identification code to gain access to the program. While the conference itself is presented at no cost to 'attendees', normal long distance charges apply. AUDITEL, Inc. is a telecommunications management and consulting company based in Hampstead, NH. With 40 years of industry experience, AUDITEL assists companies with the design, procurement, installation and implementation of telephone systems, data networks, videoconferencing systems, wireless systems, and disaster planning programs. Gallagher, Callahan and Gartrell, a full-service law firm representing clients in the areas of utilities and telecommunications, is co-sponsoring the event. Andrew Eills practices business law with Gallagher, Callahan and Gartrell where his practice includes representing clients in the telecommunications field. 213 Stage Road www.auditel.com Tel: (603) 329-5000x21 Hampstead, NH 03841 telecom@auditel.com Fax: (603) 329-5511 ------------------------------ From: Ed M Subject: Phone Extension to Remote Location Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 08:38:36 -0500 Organization: Netcom I would like to run a phone extension from a PBX to a location 4400 feet from the nearest phone jack. Running to this location is a power cable (120 VAC) and multimode fiber. I was planning to use boxes that run phone over AC but this doesn't seem to work over these distances. I was assured by the salesperson that the units I tried (the brand is EZOnline) would work so long as they are on the same phase but all I get is hiss though they work fine when placed closer together. Being consumer level stuff the technical support is nil. Does anyone know where I can get "extended range" phone-over-AC units? Or does anyone know where I can get equipment that is cabable of running an extension out over multimode fiber? Thanks. (remove nospam if replying privately) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 09:34:39 -0500 From: Judith Oppenheimer Reply-To: joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com Organization: ICB TOLL FREE - 800/888 news... commentary... consulting... Subject: 800/888 Rationing Update The 888 Conservation Plan will stretch the toll-free resource to April '98, based on certain assumptions, one of which is that the amount of numbers returned to Spare (available) will be approximately 54,230 per week, an amount derived at from last year's averages. Toll-free number growth -- amount Reserved less amount returned to Spare -- for the week ending October 25 was approximately 58,955 numbers, certainly within plan parameters. However, the amount of numbers returned to Spare last week was down 20,000 from prior weeks, which signals, at the very least, an appearance of RespOrgs recycling disconnected numbers, rather than return them to the available pool. Beyond the legal ramifications, a trend in this direction would indicate a potential problem in reaching April '98. Judith Oppenheimer, Publisher ICB TOLL FREE NEWS - http://www.icbtollfree.com Mailto:joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com with your name, company name and title to activate 15-day FREE Online trial subscription. Incl. fax number (U.S. only) for FREE Fax Edition trial subscription. FREE GIFT OFFER: mailto:freegift@icbtollfree.com ------------------------------ From: bohdan@ihgp4.ih.lucent.com (B. L. Bodnar) Subject: Call For Papers: Applied Telecommunication Symposium Date: 29 Oct 1997 22:03:20 GMT Organization: Lucent Technologies Applied Telecommunication Symposium (ATS) Part of the 1998 Advanced Simulation Technologies Conference (ASTC'98) April 5-9, 1998 Boston Park Plaza Hotel Boston, Massachusetts The Applied Telecommunication Symposium is intended for professionals, engineers, developers, managers, and others interested in cellular and packet traffic characteristics, analysis of telecommunication networks, and practitioners operating telecommunication networks. We are looking for innovative technical papers describing projects, applications, and research and development work pertinent to telecommunication. Topics of interest include, but are not limited to: - Traffic Models 1. Internet Traffic 2. Packet Switching 3. Cellular (CDMA, TDMA, Voice Signaling, Call Details) - Overload Control and High Load Handling 1. Internet on POTS Line 2. Internet Telephony 3. Load Balancing 4. Overload Control Strategies - Component Modeling - Processors - Interprocessor Communication - Systems - Router Design and Evaluation - ATM - Voice & Data Integration Conference Committee: Dr. Bohdan Bodnar Lucent Technologies, Inc. bbodnar@lucent.com Dr. Ariel Sharon Lucent Technologies, Inc. asharon@lucent-com Keith Stanley Lucent Technologies, Inc. krstan@lucent.com Dr. Axel Lehmann University of Munich lehmann@informatik.unibw-muenchen.de Three copies of a 300-word abstract or a draft paper should be submitted to the session organizers by November 24, 1997. Notification of acceptance is currently being sent for papers which have been submitted. Full papers will be published in the Conference Proceedings and should be submitted to The Society for Computer Simulation International by January 12, 1998. The abstracts should be sent to: Applied Telecommunication Symposium c/o ASTC'98 P.O. Box 17900 San Diego, CA 92177 USA The Society for Computer Simulation International may be accessed on the Web at http://www.scs.org ------------------------------ From: anthony@alphageo.com (Anthony Argyriou) Subject: Re: Paging Firm Collapses Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 03:32:03 GMT Organization: Alpha Geotechnical Reply-To: anthony@alphageo.com tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) passed our way: > California Bay Area Pager Service's Collapse No Surprise > By Jon Healey, San Jose Mercury News, Calif. > Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News > SAN JOSE, Calif.--Oct. 27--The collapse of EconoPage Inc., the largest [various snips] > As a reseller, EconoPage did not operate a paging network; instead, it > resold the pagers and services it bought in bulk from some of the > nation's largest paging networks, including PageNet and PageMart > Inc. of Dallas. > PageNet is now in the process of cutting off service to customers who > purchased paging contracts through EconoPage, but it is also offering > them a discount rate of $60 to continue their service for another > year. Eligible customers are those whose pagers have a PageNet logo. My girlfriend's pager was from EconoPage. She was paged today (Wednesday) by TSR Wireless, her service provider. The number has a taped message saying that they will be contacting customers directly within three weeks to re-establish them as direct TSR Wireless customers, and that they will not cut off service before then. > EconoPage's biggest growth spurt came in the last six to 12 months, > after it had opened more than 30 retail outlets, Wolk said. About five > months ago, though, checks that EconoPage had written to PageNet for > pagers started to bounce. My local EconoPage store has a sign on the door which says "closed for internal audit" - their phone number is apparently pretty unresponsive (I was told that the OGM is "Hello. Goodbye.") An employee of a competitor of their's told me that the owners of the company were very difficult to find recently, and implied that they may have run off to Hawaii, or some such, as their company collapsed. More news when my girlfriend experiences it. Anthony Argyriou http://www.alphageo.com ------------------------------ From: Rudy Torres Subject: Re: Modem Users, Who You Gonna Call?; Not Bell Atlantic Date: 30 Oct 1997 07:39:55 GMT Organization: Swisscom AG Reply-To: Rudy Torres Maybe it is time for consumers to complain very loudly to their PUCs about Bell Atlantic's new policy. I'm sure the PUCs will authorize such a policy in exchange for much lower tariff prices to satisfy consumers. Or, like the residents in some are of New York (IIRC) some time ago protested, they all flushed their toliets at the same time causing a serious problem to the Department of Water and Sewage (whom the residents were protesting). Maybe all the users of Modems and Faxes in Bell Atlantic's region should all dial into the PSTN at the same time (over and over again by millions of customers) for about 30 minutes in protest. Just a thought on democracy and economic market forces. : ) A very successful businessman once said, "...always remember, the customer is always right." Rudy [To e-mail via auto-reply, please remove "anti-spam" measures from the address prior to sending] ------------------------------ From: samiller@BIX.com Subject: Re: Modem Users, Who You Gonna Call?; Not Bell Atlantic Date: 29 Oct 1997 13:12:06 GMT Organization: Galahad On Mon, 27 Oct 97 16:17 EST Robert J. Perillo of TELECOM Digest wrote this re Modem Users, Who You Gonna Call?; Not Bell Atlantic: > This decision is seen as a marketing move to stimulate demand for > ISDN lines Got the letter, thought it was stupid (although I personally don't see how anyone could go for BA's inside wire maintenance anyway ;>) What confuses me is the allegation that BA hopes to use this ploy to sell ISDN (that was my reading of the letter as well) because AFAIK BA stopped scheduling ISDN installations about six months ago, about the time their proposed ISDN tariffs were shot down. Are they installing now? If not, what the aitch do they want? Scott A. Miller samiller@bix.com samiller@bellatlantic.net ------------------------------ From: drewd@mindspring.com (L. Drew Davis) Subject: Re: Gilder Says Reno Attacked Microsoft too Late Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 01:14:33 GMT Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Reply-To: drewd@mindspring.com TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Eric Florack : > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I don't think Ms. Reno is very good at > math. Let's pencil this out: how many shares of Microsoft does Gates > own? A bit under 271 million, as of September 1997, or about 22.3% of the company. > How much is the value of each share? At close on the 29th, 131 1/8th. > His net worth now is around 48 billion I think. About 35.5 billion in Microsoft stock. I have no idea what else he may own, but it's probably negligible compared with the Microsoft shares. > Given a fine of a million dollars per day, Gates will be broke in > 101 years ... The whole point of a corporation is to separate individual assets from company assets. Microsoft, not Gates, will be paying the fine (if any). $1 million per day represents about 10% of MS's earnings after taxes last year. In terms of assets, they've got about 9 billion in cash out of 10 billion total, and they're earning about 5% on that money. Their interest income could cover the fine. (Invidious comparisons in this post brought to you by www.sec.gov and the EDGAR database. A "10K" is an annual report, and a "14A" is a proxy statement listing people with significant numbers of shares.) L. Drew Davis drewd@mindspring.com You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 22:52:47 CST From: Adam H. Kerman Subject: Re: Tower Site Leases Marty Bose wrote: > I'm disappointed to see TELECOM Digest publishing a troll request > like this one. When I worked for a PCS carrier this was a typical > request from a lawyer trying to find a way for his client to bust a > lease that the owner had second thoughts about. On the average they > would come back and request a new lease at four to ten times the > original lease, usually after construction had started. It's perfectly legitimate to ask about the value of land. I assumed that no lease had been signed. I hope the landowner gets a lease at a fair price. What would not be fair is if his land isn't immediately reassessed at its new, higher value. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 01:00:18 -0500 From: blw1540@aol.com (Bruce Wilson) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Tower Site Leases In article , Marty Bose writes: > I'm disappointed to see TELECOM Digest publishing a troll request like > this one. When I worked for a PCS carrier this was a typical request > from a lawyer trying to find a way for his client to bust a lease that > the owner had second thoughts about. On the average they would come > back and request a new lease at four to ten times the original lease, > usually after construction had started. This sounds like the Bell System (and large independent) paranoia I came to know and love during my years with what was then the Iowa State Commerce Commission. I don't see any way that knowing what average terms are will help a party break a lease. Somebody who wants to try holding a gun to a company's head is going to try to do it regardless of what others may be doing and how their demands compare to averages. Bruce Wilson ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 10:26:36 EST From: Allison Hift Subject: Re: Tower Site Leases I take this opportunity to respond too the post by Marty Bose: > I'm disappointed to see TELECOM Digest publishing a troll request like > this one. When I worked for a PCS carrier this was a typical request > from a lawyer trying to find a way for his client to bust a lease that > the owner had second thoughts about. On the average they would come > back and request a new lease at four to ten times the original lease, > usually after construction had started. > I hope that no one will respond to this, as this guy may go to work > for one of your clients next! "This guy" that you refer to is a young, ambitious, woman who just graduated from law school and will be admitted to the Bar in November. I have clerked for two years for the Law Firm of Leibowitz & Associates, P.A. This Firm solely represents counties and cities in telecommunications matters. I am now an attorney at this Firm (Pending Bar Admission). I, along with the Law Firm, pride myself on practicing fairly and ethically. I do not appreciate you rude posting concerning my question. I am collecting information concerning tower site lease agreements throughout the United States so that I can assist a client of the Firm's in making an informed, intelligent decision. Allison K. Hift, Bar Admission Pending Leibowitz & Associates, P.A. 1 Southeast Third Ave. Suite 1450 Miami, Florida 33131-1715 Voice (305) 530-1322 Fax (305) 530-9417 http://www.library.law.miami.edu/~hift hift@cobra.law.miami.edu ------------------------------ Date: 29 Oct 1997 05:33:18 -0000 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: New York Times on Net Day Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y. > An article in Saturday's {New York Times} (10/25/97) "Internet's > Value in U.S. Schools Still in Question" (page 1) described the 2nd > annual netday and showed the prejudice of some of the press against > the educational use of the Internet. I thought the story was pretty well balanced. I've been active getting our small upstate district on-line, and we're all acutely aware that although Net access can be quite useful to high school kids, the younger the kids are the less use they have for computers. As others have noted, computers are expensive and installing computers for the sake of doing so is rarely a good use of limited district funds. We are fortunate in having a lot of skilled local volunteers (many Cornell people live in the district) and enough wiggle room in the budget that we were able to add money for computers without cutting anything else. But if it were a tradeoff between, say, elementary school computers and elementary school music and art instruction, I know which one I'd choose. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 640 Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl, Finger for PGP key, f'print = 3A 5B D0 3F D9 A0 6A A4 2D AC 1E 9E A6 36 A3 47 ------------------------------ From: Kevin DeMartino Subject: Re: New York Times on Net Day Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 11:58:59 -0500 Thomas G. Spalthoff is right on target (V17 #293). The Internet is a great medium for communicating and accessing information, but it is not a silver bullet for our schools. Do we really need every classroom wired to the Internet, as President Clinton has suggested? Computer literacy is important, but it is not as important as literacy in English (and other languages). Kevin DeMartino kdemartino@drc.com ------------------------------ From: Telecom@LincMad.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Canada Area 867 Activated Today Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 22:04:39 -0800 Organization: LincMad Consulting; change NOSPAM to COM In article , jdg@but-i-dont-like-spam.boxmail.com (John David Galt) wrote: > No one has mentioned this, but I doubt that folks _in_ the territories > have permissive dialing, because lots of prefixes in Alberta probably > conflict with those in the eastern (former 819) part of 867; and lots > of prefixes in Quebec/819 probably conflict with those in the western > part of 867. It's a moot point, unless some part of Yukon/NWT allows seven-digit toll dialing. If they have 1+10D for HNPA tolls, then there is no ambiguity: you can dial 1-{403/819/867}-nxx-xxxx, permissively, with the obvious caveats. Dixon, CA, had to be splash cut without outbound permissive dialing on their realignment because they have 7D HNPA toll dialing. Another interesting angle, though, would be local calls in Inuvik. Presumably they can still have permissive dialing of the local 979-xxxx or 777-xxxx numbers, assuming they have full toll alerting. If you dial 777-xxxx, you must mean (867) 777-xxxx, since otherwise you'd dial 1-403-777-xxxx; likewise, 979-xxxx must mean (403) 979-xxxx, since otherwise you'd dial 1-819- or 1-867-979-xxxx. Then again, Inuvik is small enough that they might have local 4D dialing. ** Do not spam e-mail me! ** Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * Telecom@LincMad-com >> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must change "NOSPAM" to "com" << ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #297 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Oct 30 09:28:05 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA02107; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 09:28:05 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 09:28:05 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199710301428.JAA02107@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #298 TELECOM Digest Thu, 30 Oct 97 09:28:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 298 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson FBI Chief Calls For Computer Crime Crackdown (Monty Solomon) FCC Proposes V-Chip For Computers, from Time/Netly News (Monty Solomon) BellSouth Boosts Pay-Phone Call Price to 35 Cents (Stan Schwartz) Re: Bell Canada Set to Announce New Area Codes (Scott Robert Dawson) Re: InTRA-LATA Carrier Verification (Greg Monti) Re: InTRA-LATA Carrier Verification (Stanley Cline) Re: Caller ID: GTE California to GTE Indiana? (Fred R. Goldstein) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 22:23:55 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: FBI Chief Calls For Computer Crime Crackdown Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM FBI chief calls for computer crime crackdown ORLANDO, Fla. (Reuters) - FBI director Louis Freeh said Tuesday that criminals were moving increasingly into cyberspace and without new laws ``drug dealers, arms dealers, terrorists and spies will have immunity like no other''. Freeh told the International Association of Chiefs of Police that software manufacturers should be required by law to include a feature that allows police to descramble encrypted communications. ``It could take a $30 million supercomputer a year to figure out the simplest encrypted message without this feature,'' Freeh said. ``And that message might be 'we have the victim and will kill him in an hour'.'' ``We're not opposed to encrypting. Encrypting is very important when transacting business but encrypting makes it very hard to enforce court orders for surveillance.'' Freeh said he supported a cyber surveillance law with these features which passed out of the House Intelligence Committee. That bill has the support of the FBI, Justice Department, Drug Enforcement Administration and other federal law enforcement agencies but does not have White House backing. ``Our own administration has not gotten behind this initiative. There are some very powerful industry forces opposing this,'' Freeh said. The ability of criminals to communicate with one another with computers is changing the face of law enforcement, Freeh said. ``All the boxes of evidence we used to bring back have been replaced by hard drives and discs. When we graduate our agents we give them in addition to a gun and a badge a laptop computer.'' ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 02:05:14 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: FCC Proposes V-Chip For Computers, From Time/Netly News Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM Begin forwarded message: Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 12:17:18 -0500 From: Declan McCullagh Subject: FC: FCC proposes V-Chip for computers, from Time/Netly News THE V CHIP, COMING TO A COMPUTER NEAR YOU Time Magazine November 3, 1997 Page 36 If you hated the idea of a V chip in your television, wait until you hear that the government wants to install one in your computer. TIME has learned that the FCC has proposed that new PCs be outfitted with a V chip to filter out video violence and sex. Still unclear is what Net broadcasts could be affected. The idea alarms free-speech advocates, who wonder why Americans need a Net-nanny. "What you get is a devolution of the First Amendment," argues lawyer Bob Corn-Revere. FCC chairman REED HUNDT says the high-tech industry can "be part of the process" as the agency sets rules. There's a low-tech alternative: the off switch. --By Declan McCullagh/Washington ********** For details check out the Netly News (netlynews.com) at: http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/opinion/0,1042,1528,00.html -Declan ------------------------------------------------ This list is public. To join fight-censorship-announce, send "subscribe fight-censorship-announce" to majordomo@vorlon.mit.edu. More information is at http://www.eff.org/~declan/fc/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 14:29:57 PST From: Stan Schwartz Reply-To: stannc@no*spam.yahoo.com Subject: BellSouth Boosts Pay-Phone Call Price to 35 Cents From the {Charlotte Observer} 10/30/97: BellSouth Public Communications, the largest pay phone provider in the Southeast, announced today that it will raise pay phone prices in its nine-state service area from 25 cents to 35 cents beginning Saturday. Company President Jim Hawkins said it will take about a month to convert all of the phones to the new charge. Several other companies have also raised rates the past few weeks. The rate increase will apply to the Carolinas, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi and Tennessee. BellSouth Public Communications, based in the Birmingham, Ala., suburb of Homewood, is the pay phone business of the BellSouth Corp. and operates 170,000 of the 300,000 pay phones in the nine states, Hawkins said. - end of story In the ruling that allowed the above to occur, the North Carolina State Utilities Commission on October 6th outlawed the practice of charging for 800 and 888 calls at public telephones. As of today, the COCOTs on Tryon Street in Charlotte owned by Tel-A-Leasing of Jacksonville, IL have been updated to reflect the new 35 cent local charge (although it's 25 cents a minute anywhere *else* in the country from these phones), but they still request a quarter for 800 and 888 calls. A call to their customer service (ha!) department connected me with a drone who didn't know what I was talking about. However, a call to the NCPUC in Raleigh got much better results! The owner of the COCOTS has been notified and has a couple of weeks to correct the problem (while still bilking customers a quarter at a time). - Stan (remove the obvious for return e-mail) ------------------------------ From: sunspace@interlog.com.antispamtext (Scott Robert Dawson) Subject: Re: Bell Canada Set to Announce New Area Codes Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 05:43:05 GMT Organization: Interlog Internet Services On Mon, 27 Oct 1997 00:47:28 -0800, Telecom@LincMad.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) wrote: > In article , Jeff Smith > wrote: >> Bell Canada is set to annouce 4 new area codes for the GTA. (New >> Metro Toronto). >> 1. Durham Region - will move to a new area code >> 2. Peel & Halton - will move to a new area code >> (these regions will share area code until split is needed) >> 3. York - will retain the current 905 area code >> - the rest of 905 not in the GTA will move to a new area code. >> 4. (new) Toronto - will either get an overlay or a split of >> the current area code or maybe wireless services to move to a >> seperate area code. Okay ... time for a lesson on the naming and geography of the Greater Toronto Area ... The GTA is the Greater Toronto Area, which includes the city of Toronto and all its surrounding cities, suburbs, and towns. "GTA" is an unofficial name which has nevertheless entered general usage (headlines in the papers, etc...). The GTA can be rather effectively defined as the areas with less than approximately two hours travel time to Union Station in downtown Toronto on "interregional" public transit, the green-and-white Government of Ontario trains and buses. This defines an area stretching roughly from Hamilton in the west to Bowmanville in the east to Newmarket in the north. Many people commute by car from areas further away, such as Barrie, Kitchener-Waterloo or the Caledon Hills, but these areas have not yet become "bedroom communities": they still have their own local economic and cultural identities. The city of Hamilton at the western end of Lake Ontario has its own identity as well, although it is well under two hours' travel time to downtown Toronto. As I grew up, I watched the town of Whitby change from being the county seat (population 15 000) of Ontario County to being just another bedroom community of 65 000 in Durham Region. But that's another story ... >> By 2002 the GTA - will be called Metro will compose of Five Cities. >> Namely: 1. City of Toronto >> 2. City of Durham >> 3. City of Peel >> 4. City of York >> 5. City of Halton >> People are saying Bell has applied for more area codes to get the >> regions ready now! > This is almost certainly incorrect. First of all, there is no "City > of Durham" in Toronto. Durham, Ontario, is a town north of Kitchener, > in the 519 area code. "Metro Toronto" consists of the City of Toronto, > York, East York, North York, Etobicoke, and Scarborough. Those six > cities currently share area code 416. The same six cities are being > proposed for merger into "Megacity Toronto." Jeff Smith's original post was referring to Durham Region, immediately to the east of Metropolitan Toronto, in area code 905. It is a regional municipality which includes the city of Oshawa as well as the towns of Whitby, Ajax, Pickering and others. > More importantly, York is not currently in 905, so it is absolutely > NOT going to be moved into 905 to the exclusion of all current 905 > communities. No way, no how. York is currently in 416. Again, Jeff's original post was almost certainly referring to York Region, which is a regional municipality immediately north of the current Metro Toronto, and is in area code 905. It includes the city of Vaughan, and the towns of Markham, Richmond Hill, Aurora, and others. The present City of York is in the regional municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, in area code 416. It will cease to exist along with the other cities in Metro (the city of Toronto, the cities of North York, Etobicoke, Scarborough, and the Borough of East York), and the regional municipality of Metropolitan Toronto itself, when they all vanish and are replaced by the new larger City of Toronto. > Lastly, there is no way that Bell Canada could possibly get NANPA > approval for four new area codes at once for the Toronto region, > especially if you are talking (as you appear to be) only about the > area that is currently in 416. > Relief proposals for 416 have focused along two principal alternatives: > (A) geographic split, probably along Yonge Street > (B) all-services overlay of 416 A lot of this confusion seems to stem from the name of "York", which has persisted around the Toronto area, vanishing from one area only to reappear in another. Originally there was the settlement of Toronto. In the early nineteenth century it was renamed to be the town of York. North of the town of York was a town called North York. East of York was another town called East York. Later, York was renamed to be Toronto again, but East York and North York kept their names. Other towns appeared in the area, and by the twentieth century some of the towns, such as Toronto, were becoming cities. The world wars came and went, and then the great postwar boom arrived. Cities began to grow together. In 1953 eleven surrounding towns, including the towns of East York and North York, federated with the City of Toronto to form the first regional municipality, known as Metropolitan Toronto. The boom continued. In the early seventies, other regional municipalities were formed around Metro Toronto. On the east there was the Region of Durham. North of Metro Toronto there was the Region of York (there's that name again!). On the western side, there was the Region of Peel, containing what became the cities of Mississauga and Brampton, among others. Further west, there was the Region of Halton, containing the towns of Oakville and Burlington, and others. The city of Hamilton was placed in yet another Region. Metro Toronto itself was never referred to as a "Region", although it is one. These are the Regions that the original poster referred to as becoming the City of Durham, the City of Peel, the City of York, and the City of Halton. This implies the amalgamation of all the smaller towns and cities within them, which would probably be bitterly resisted. However, strong popular resistance (70% against in a non-binding referendum) didn't stop the provincial government from amalgamating Metro Toronto ... The City of York referred to here is a future amalgamated Region of York, and has nothing to do with the current City of York in Metro Toronto. Most of the development in York Region is in the south, next to the border with Metro Toronto. This is commonly referred to as "South York Region", for instance on the local transit systems. South York Region is directly north of North York, the city in Metro Toronto... I still maintain that this isn't as confusing as the street layout in Kitchener-Waterloo. :-) There is no formal governmental body administering the GTA as a whole yet, but it's only a matter of time... some people have spoken of a new "Province of Toronto".or "Province of Southern Ontario" (that last would be larger than the GTA) but this is far from being even a coherent idea. What is true is that a formal GTA governing body would be all set to federate the regions with the new amalgamated City of Toronto ( the original Metropolitan Toronto) in the same way as the original Metropolitan Toronto federated the city of Toronto and its neighbours. This is what Jeff referred to as "New Metro Toronto". So Jeff's post seems to refer to four new area codes in the Toronto area: ** a new code for Durham Region and all areas in 905 east of Metro Toronto; ** a new code for Peel and Halton Regions in 905 west of Metro Toronto; ** a new code for areas in 905 west and south of Peel and Halton (this would presumably include the Hamilton area and the Nigara Peninsula as far as Niagara Falls and the northeastern shore of Lake Erie, which is now in 905; * *and a new additional area code for all areas in the current Metro Toronto (this would be the already-announced overlay of 416). The areas north of Metro Toronto would keep the 905 area code. This plan does seem to be overkill ... though admittedly once completed, no-one in the area would have to change area codes for a *long* time. And I'd get one of the cool new-style area codes! :-) Jeff, any word on when any official announcements might be? Scott Robert Dawson Note: remove the characters .antispamtext from this address to get my real address... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 00:13:24 -0500 From: Greg Monti Subject: Re: InTRA-LATA Carrier Verification On 27 Oct 97, Marty Tennant wrote: > I tried dialing only 700-4141 [in South Carolina]. No go, "your long > distance carrier cannot complete your call as dialed". > Anyone else with intralata presubscription out there with anything to > report on this new verification code? Yes. Here in New Jersey 700-4141 does tell you your intraLATA carrier. You can have three carriers on each line: local, intraLATA toll, and interLATA toll. Mine are: Voice Line Modem Line ---------- ---------- local Bell Atlantic Bell Atlantic intraLATA toll Bell Atlantic MCI interLATA toll Sprint LCI (result of a slam; going back to MCI) Greg Monti Jersey City, New Jersey, USA gmonti@mindspring.com http://www.mindspring.com/~gmonti ------------------------------ From: roamer1@pobox.com (Stanley Cline) Subject: Re: InTRA-LATA Carrier Verification Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 01:51:48 GMT Organization: none -- too much spam! Reply-To: roamer1@pobox.com On Mon, 27 Oct 1997 20:35:47 -0500, Marty Tennant wrote: > I tried dialing only 700-4141. No go, "your long distance carrier > cannot complete your call as dialed". I then tried 1-803-700-4141, I have *never* seen the intraLATA PIC verification number work as only seven digits. It requires 1+NPA everywhere I've seen/used it, probably because of the old "1+ route to tandem/IXC" school of thought. > since I am in NPA 803. It worked, but said "thank you for using GTE". Many LECs still do not have the translations for the intraLATA PIC verification number right ... In some cases, the recordings simply go to the wrong carrier. For example, my parents, in the Rossville, GA/Chattanooga, TN CO, get their *IXC's* intraLATA recording when they dial 1-706-700-4141 -- their interLATA carrier is LCI, but their intraLATA carrier is BellSouth -- because the Rossville CO is treated as "Tennessee" by the Georgia PSC, and Tennessee doesn't allow intraLATA PIC yet. Yuck. (Then again, they don't make very many intraLATA calls; most of their calls are to the Atlanta LATA [me] ...) I've heard that in other areas, 1-NPA-700-4141 seems to go to AT&T regardless of the customer's intraLATA carrier. richgr@netcom.com (Rich Greenberg) wrote: > Doesn't work here in BellSouth 770 land. 700-4141 by itself doesn't work in Atlanta. Neither does NPA-700-4141 without a leading 1. As for 1-770-700-4141, it routes to REORDER when dialed from lines in "my" CO (Marietta Main) when the line is PICed to BellSouth, or if the call is forced through BellSouth from a line PICed to another carrier by dialing 1015124 -- BellSouth's intraLATA CIC -- first. OTOH, dialing 1-770-700-4141 from my lines, PICed to AT&T for both intra- and interLATA, works just fine; I get "Thank you for choosing AT&T for your LOCAL TOLL CALLING". And if I dial another carrier's CIC plus 1-770-700-4141, I get the right carrier's recording. Another oddity: On a phone attached to a BRI ISDN line in the Peachtree Place CO, in NPA 404, I had to dial 1-*770*-700-4141 to get the intraLATA PIC recording. With the NPA 678 overlay coming up, I wonder what those with lines in 678 will have to dial -- 678, 404, 770, or even 706. :) Stanley Cline somewhere near Atlanta, GA, USA roamer1(at)pobox.com http://scline.home.mindspring.com/ spam not wanted here! help outlaw spam - see http://www.cauce.org/ ------------------------------ From: fgoldstein@bbn.|nospam.|com (Fred R. Goldstein) Subject: Re: Caller ID: GTE California to GTE Indiana? Date: 30 Oct 1997 03:53:15 GMT Organization: GTE Internetworking - BBN Technologies In article , levin@acunet.net says: > I'm having a similarly annoying problem here in 617. Someone calls me > (I'm in 617 -- Boston) from Medford (until recently this was 617 -- > now it is 781). I always get "out of area" information for this call. > Just last week I got a flyer in my phone bill (from Bell Atlantic, > which just recently merged with NYNEX) which boasted that now that > NYNEX and Bell Atlantic were one company, Calling number AND name > would be delivered throughout Bell Atlantic's area (something like > Virginia to Maine). Seems strange that I can't get this calling > number and name data from a few miles away, in what was always NYNEX > area and in what was until recently the same area code. Anyone have > any ideas? You can't get it from Medford because Medford (actually, the Malden CO) is still on an analog CO switch (1AESS). NYNEX did not spend the serious money to upgrade its analog switches to have Signaling System 7, which is a prerequisite for Caller ID. Instead, they (I'd say correctly, in this case) decided to just replace them all with digital switches before the deadline for mandatory SS7, which is 1-Jan-1998. So it will be replaced within the next two months. Indeed, NYNEX scheduled several CO replacements for 31-December-1997! That won't solve the entire out-of-area problem. While non-SS7 COs are one cause, there are others. PBX trunks that terminate on what NYNEX called "Flexpath" (channelized T1), or on IXC switches, don't have Caller ID either. That's because trunk side ports on CO switches don't have regular numbers. They do have ANI numbers for billing, but ANI is not Caller ID. (Analog switches have ANI too. ANI lacks "*67" blocking capability, so it's not presented to sent-paid destinations, but it does go to 800 users, who are after all paying for the call.) We noticed this on our one residual Flexpath, whose outgoing calls were "out of area"; it was fixed by upgrading to ISDN PRI, which sends and receives Caller ID just fine. Of course PRI is only available in a small percentage of former-NYNEX COs, so it's not as if most PBX users have a choice in the matter. IXCs have PRI but no numbers to show. Fred R. Goldstein k1io fgoldstein"at" bbn.com +1 617 873 3850 Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #298 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Nov 2 13:41:52 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id NAA21142; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 13:41:52 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 13:41:52 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199711021841.NAA21142@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #299 TELECOM Digest Sun, 2 Nov 97 13:40:35 EST Volume 17 : Issue 299 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Interpol on Computer Crime (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh) Switch Information Requested (PB Schechter) RISKS-L/comp.risks Defunct? (Rick DeMattia) Cyber Promotions is Back ... Check Your Filters (D. Metcalfe) Spamford Has an 800 Number (Rob McMillin) WECO 500 Schematic (Vaneen Parker) Siemens Euroset 221 S IWV / MWV (Friedhelm Jens) MCI Cuts Off 2/3 of ISP's Phone Lines (sewilco@fieldday.mn.org) Strange Tones Heard When Making Calls (Chris Telesca) NPA for Windows Update (Paul Cook) Newton Telecom Dictionary & Telecommunications Books (Victor Yue) Inuvik 4D Dialing (Joey Lindstrom) Telephone Meter Wanted (Lance Veitch) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rishab Aiyer Ghosh Subject: Interpol on Computer Crime Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 05:09:25 +-5-30 Pat, In the context of FBI Director Louis Freeh's statements on computer crime, here's the Interpol take. -rishab [from American Reporter, the Internet's only daily newspaper, www.american-reporter.com] EXCLUSIVE: INTERPOL'S TOP INTERNET CRIMEFIGHTER SPEAKS OUT Rishab Aiyer Ghosh American Reporter Correspondent New Delhi, India NEW DELHI -- The impact of the Internet on crime-fighting may not be as great as some hope, Interpol's top expert on networked computer crimes has told the American Reporter. Hiroaki Takizawa says old-fashioned methods of seeking evidence and gathering information may remain the staple of crimefighters for a long time to come. Takizawa talked to the American Reporter at the 66th annual General Assembly of the worldwide crime-fighting organization Interpol in New Delhi last week, where one of the key topics of the conference was the impact of the Internet on global crime and enforcement. In an interview, the top Interpol expert on Internet and computer crimes, Hiroaki Takizawa, said despite the serious problems being posed by the Internet to police everywhere, traditional, off-line evidence gathering and investigation will remain the primary tools of law enforcement. Takizawa admitted that strong cryptography and anonymous email make illicit transactions difficult to monitor or trace through the Internet. Interpol, he said, is concerned at the spread of cryptography, but does not advocate legislation banning it. "What we concentrate on is the implementation of legislation, rather than legislation itself," said Takizawa, when asked if he favored a crypto ban. "Police need human and financial resources" to investigate crime using the Internet, feels Takizawa, more than unenforceable legislative bans. Do police make use of intercepted messages much, on a global scale? "Yes, I think so, yeah," said Takizawa. However, "we don't, we haven't had many cases" that relied on undecipherable messages as evidence. "I don't think the Interpol plays an important role so far as [legislation on] cryptography is concerned," says Takizawa. The Interpol cannot make binding treaties affecting national law -- "it is not really a policy developing organization," he said. Instead, it makes resolutions "from the police point of view" -- and its members then go home to lobby with their governments. It does not intend to make any resolutions on cryptography, though. Instead "[Interpol] will focus on training and coordination" so that police forces around the world "can develop practical solutions." As for changing the law, "the OECD has started discussion" on cryptography -- and has come to the conclusion that crypto bans are not a good approach. Interpol finds that an increasing amount of its work involves the Net or computers in one way or another, and has set up a team to figure out where police -- and the Interpol -- can have an effective role. Interpol divides digital crime into three areas: computer crime, which includes piracy, data-theft and time-theft (computer break-ins); computer-related crime, which is mainly bank fraud -- "what was a crime earlier with paper, but is now done with a computer," as Takizawa says, and pornography. The third, most recent area that "everyone's talking about now," Takizawa said, is what Interpol calls "network crime": the use of the Internet for transactions that are already illegal -- child pornography -- or aid illegal activity -- often involving the drug trade, customs evasion and money laundering. Takizawa finds that of these network crimes, child pornography and the use of the Internet as an accessory to child sex abuse -- on-line advertisements for Asian "sex tours" targeted at Westerners, for example -- is the easiest to tackle. Stopping the distribution of pornography itself is harder, though, thanks to the Internet -- "normally [pornography] was checked at the airport and confiscated by customs, now you just download it by computer" -- so Interpol doesn't even try, he says. "Interception [is] impossible," said Takizawa bluntly. Instead, Interpol uses the easily searched structure of the Net to trace material back to its off-line origins. Police aided by Interpol's global network locate brochures for sex tourism on the Net much more easily than if they were in print, and follow up with off-line investigations and arrests, he said. The cross-jurisdictional nature of the Net -- and the fact that countries disagree on precisely what activities are criminal -- is less of a problem for child pornography than money-laundering. Takizawa describes a recent case involving Germany and Japan: "from Germany we received information [on child pornography found online] pointing to Japan. Through Interpol we [passed] it on to Japan," where authorities traced the originators and made arrests. And what about money laundering? Doesn't the prospect of untraceable, anonymous global electronic commerce on the Internet scare Interpol? "Well, my counter-question is, have there been so many cases of ... [monetary] transactions using [the] Internet?" asks Takizawa. Perhaps not -- yet. But once you have some form of the digital currency required for any large-scale electronic commerce, what will Interpol do about money laundering? "We don't know," he admits. When cyberpayments are common, Takizawa adds, "we cannot tell you what's going to happen. Everybody wants to know that. If you can predict it perhaps you [will] get the Nobel prize!" For an organization sometimes represented as a global police force -- which Interpol is not -- being a coordinating body for 178 national law enforcement agencies worldwide -- Takizawa's depiction of its Internet policy is surprisingly tame. His view well may stem from a basic understanding of the nature of crime, which doesn't occur on the Internet so much as pass through it. However much criminals use the Net, says Takizawa, police will always "need more evidence outside the network." ---------------- Rishab Aiyer Ghosh is Editor of the New Delhi-based Indian Techonomist, a popular technology journal. ------------------------------ From: pb@Colorado.EDU (PB Schechter) Subject: Switch Information Requested Date: 31 Oct 1997 23:33:26 GMT Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder Colorado is currently looking for ways to "conserve" numbers in the 303 area code. One idea that has come up is the possibility of turning Central Office Codes from NXXs to XXXs. This would add about two million numbers, and is possible because Colorado is going to use an overlay in the 303 area, so ten digits will need to be dialed for all local calls. (Just to be perfectly clear: currently, a CO code can't begin with 0 or 1 because those initial digits are used to indicate operator and long distance calls, respectively. However, if local calls are all prefaced with the area code, the initial digit of a call to a number with a CO code beginning with 0 or 1 *will not be 0 or 1.*) Some people have claimed that this might "break" some switches (particularly, outside of the North American Numbering Plan). It seems to me that, once a switch sees that a call is going "somewhere else" (i.e., to a different area code), it won't even look at the remaining digits (or, if it does, it won't care what they are). However, I am not a switch expert. So, the request: (1) Does anyone know if there are any switches that would complain about a CO code beginning with a 0 or a 1, even if they dialed digit string does *not* begin with a 0 or a 1? (2) Does anyone know how I can find this out? Thanks in advance. PB Schechter PB.Schechter@dora.state.co.us ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 01 Nov 1997 19:57:22 EST From: rad@railnet.nshore.org (Rick DeMattia) Subject: RISKS-L/comp.risks Defunct? Reply-To: rad@railnet.nshore.org (Rick DeMattia) Organization: Railnet BBS +1 440 786 0476 A question that is perhaps not totally irrelevant to the TELECOM Digest. I've read comp.risks for years and enjoyed it -- but have not received anything for several months. Does anyone know whether it's defunct? My newsfeed has received nothing, either, but I can't completely rule out news propogation problems (still uucp connected here ...). Rick DeMattia [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Perhaps Peter N. the moderator of the list or a regular reader will care to elaborate. I frankly do not know the answer. PAT] ------------------------------ From: dmet@flatoday.infi.net (D. Metcalfe) Subject: Cyber Promotions is Back ... Check Your Filters Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 05:04:58 GMT Organization: InfiNet Reply-To: dmet@flatoday.infi.net Full Headers so you can check your filters .... =============================================== Return-Path: Received: from relay.nevwest.com (root@[207.199.68.35]) by fh102.infi.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA20216 for ; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 17:53:58 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710302253.RAA20216@fh102.infi.net> Received: from pleaseread.com (pleaseread.com [207.124.161.77] by relay.nevwest.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA21346; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 17:55:27 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 17:55:27 -0500 (EST) From: cyberout@thehitman.com To: fulldatabase@thehitman.com Organization: Cyber Sender 7.0 Subject: STOCKS CRASH, BUT NOT IRT!!! X-UIDL: de471f60dc04b9dc737d029adc465b8c [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The garbage text has all been removed and just the information of interest has been left intact. PAT] (For example): IMPORTANT: If you wish to respond to the preceding message... visit: http://www.internetstockmarket.com/irt or CLICK HERE. Please DO NOT USE REPLY if you wish more information as none can be provided. (As another example): If you wish to be permanently removed from Cyber Promotions' e-mailing list, SIMPLY HIT REPLY and type "remove" in the subject field or message body. Your request will be processed by a computer program within 36 hours. If you have had trouble removing yourself ... or ... If you wish to remove up to 10 email addresses from Cyber Promotions' e-mailing list, simply send an email to manremove@cyberpromo.com and type the Internet-notated email addresses in the body of the message, each on its own line, with no extra comments. Your request will be processed by a computer program within 36 hours. (Still more): Send your exclusive advertisement to 3 million people! Call (215) 628-9780 for more info. ------------------------------ From: Rob McMillin Subject: Spamford Has an 800 Number Date: Sat, 01 Nov 1997 13:42:47 -0800 Organization: Syseca, Inc. Perhaps this is news. I reviewed the whois database at rs.internic.net, and it turned up a curious thing. One of Sanford Wallace's InterNICnames (sw3758) has an 800 number, 800-650-9110. This is unreachable from my area (El Lay). Could someone from Philadelphia tell me if this is still available in their area, and if so, who responds? Robert L. McMillin | Not the voice of Syseca, Inc. | rlm@syseca-us.com Personal: rlm@helen.surfcty.com | rlm@netcom.com Put 'rabbit' in your Subject: or my spam-schnauzer will eat your message. ------------------------------ From: Vaneen Parker Subject: WECO 500 Schematic Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 18:49:21 -0800 Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. I am interested in modifying an old non-dial phone to use the components of a 500 set. The old phone did not have a dial but had a place to install one. I have obtained a dial that fits in mechanically. The dial has five terminal posts that are unlabled. I can manage figuring out the dial switch contacts. It has been a long time since I have worked on a dial set, however, and I can't remember how to connect the dial into the hybrid network and handset to mute the dial pulses. The set that I intend to modify has only a handset and hookswitch mounted in a metal base. It looks like it have been manufactured in the 30's or 40's, which I think was prior to dial tone (Please correct me if I am mistaken). I plan to put the network and a ringer in a separate box. Any suggestion criticism or help will be appreciated. Last of the green truck guys! ------------------------------ From: Friedhelm.Jens@t-online.de (Friedhelm Jens) Subject: Siemens Euroset 221 S IWV / MWV Date: 2 Nov 1997 09:36:10 GMT Organization: T-Online Ich habe folgendes Problem : Wie kann ich das oben genannte Telefon fest von Impulswahl auf Mehrfrequenzwahl umstellen ?? Und auch wieder zurck. Temporr ist bekannt ... :-)) Vielen Dank ..... [TELECOM Digest Editor's Query: Will someone please read the above and translate it for me? It appears he wants information about the model of telephone named in the subject line. PAT] ------------------------------ From: sewilco@fieldday.mn.org Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 10:58:32 -0600 Subject: MCI Cuts Off 2/3 of ISP's Phone Lines On October 31, 1997, the {Minneapolis Star Tribune} reported that an ISP has had most of its phone lines cut off by its telephone company. MCI has begun offering local telephone service to a limited area of the Minneapolis-St. Paul region in competition with US West. The previous Saturday, US Internet Corp completed the conversion to 384 MCI telephone lines. At 7 p.m. Wednesday, MCI told US Internet that it could not handle the volume and duration of Internet connections made by US Internet's customers. Service to 240 of the 384 lines was cut off at about 7 a.m. Thursday morning. US Internet now reports that its customers are getting busy signals. ------------------------------ From: ctelesca@pagesz.net (Chris Telesca) Subject: Strange Tones Heard When Making Calls Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 12:03:38 -0500 Organization: Pagesz.net Greetings! I have previously posted to this group about some problems I was having with my Remote-Access to Call-Forwarding feature from BellSouth. Since someone is apparently able to hack my PIN quite easily, I have to check my phone to make sure it's not being forwarded elsewhere by someone other than me. In my house we have two lines - my line rings in my office only, and the other line rings in several rooms including my office. So when I tie up my line by logging-in to my ISP to check my e-mail or port to the Net (like I'm doing now), I can use the other line through a Radio Shack Doufone Two-line controller. My line is line two, the other is line one. Line two has caller-id and *69 on it (flat-fee per month); line one had no caller-id, but does have *69 on a per-call basis (charge made per each use). I understand that Caller-ID sends out a signal between the first and second rings that caller hears over the phone, but that the CID box receives the signal before the call recipient actually hears his first ring (which is the second ring heard by the caller). Lately when I've been calling from line one to line two, I hear some sounds between the first and second rings: two faint modem tones (one hi-pitched, then one low-pitched), then what sounds like a faint brief burst of static. I hear them when I call from line one to line two, but not when I call from line two to line one. I don't hear these tones when I call other friends of mine who also have CID and *69 on their phones (when I call from either line one or line two), but none of these people are BellSouth customers. I was not aware of these sounds until just recently (over the past two weeks), but that doesn't mean they haven't been there longer. I was wondering if these noises are indicative of some special equipment the teleco might have placed on my line for testing purposes because I have been complaining about my RACF service? Any thoughts or suggestions out there? Chris Telesca ------------------------------ Reply-To: From: Paul Cook Subject: NPA for Windows Update Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 11:08:49 -0800 No, Microsoft doesn't have its own area code ... yet. The latest release for the highly useful shareware, NPA for Windows is out. This is the 11 Oct 97 version, with many new prefixes and area codes since the July version. Download it from http://www.pcconsultant.com/~robert/pcc This program has location information for every exchange in the US and Canada, and with the area code and prefix you can find out the name location, whether it is a wireline or wireless prefix, the exact latitude and longitude, the probable zip code (including a ranking if you want it of multiple zip codes serving subscribers for that CO), and the distance between exchanges in miles. Paul Cook * pcook@proctorinc.com ph: 425-881-7000 Proctor & Associates, Redmond, WA fax: 425-885-3282 http://www.proctorinc.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: For newer readers or for old-timers who do not remember much about him, Paul Cook has been a regular participant here for several years. His scripts are trustworthy and and quite useful. The best part is the price! PAT] ------------------------------ From: Victor Yue Subject: Newton Telecom Dictionary & Telecommunications Books Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 12:01:49 +0800 Hi, In Volume 17: Issue 295 of TELECOM Digest, Robert mentioned about the 13th edition of Harry Newton's "Newton Telecom Dictionary". I am interested in getting this updated Dictionary as well as other Telecommunications reference books. Could you advise some sources? Thank you and with best regards, Victor Yue Seong Swee 34 Upper Cross St #15-168 Singapore 050034 SINGAPORE Email: yuess@singnet.com.sg http://www.singnet.com.sg/~yuess Phone: +65 533-3177 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Victor, I think the best place to stock up might be right at the source which is the mail order book service Harry Newton operates in New York City. I think the name is Telecom Library. Newton, an Australian who migrated to the USA a number of years ago and promptly gave the first real compe- tition to {Telephony Magazine} in many years through his own publication {Teleconnect} has operated a highly regarded mail order telecom-related book service since the inception of his publication. He is a regular reader here so I hope he or his staff will respond to you soon with particulars. His dictionary is quite useful. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Fri, 31 Oct 97 04:06:36 -0700 Reply-To: Joey Lindstrom Subject: Inuvik 4D Dialing > Another interesting angle, though, would be local calls in Inuvik. > Presumably they can still have permissive dialing of the local > 979-xxxx or 777-xxxx numbers, assuming they have full toll alerting. > If you dial 777-xxxx, you must mean (867) 777-xxxx, since otherwise > you'd dial 1-403-777-xxxx; likewise, 979-xxxx must mean (403) > 979-xxxx, since otherwise you'd dial 1-819- or 1-867-979-xxxx. Then > again, Inuvik is small enough that they might have local 4D > dialing. As of four years ago, they did. A fellow I went to school with in 1993 came from there and I remember him mentioning that you needed to dial only the final four digits for all local calls. Whether or not this is still the case I do not know. From: The Desk Of Joey Lindstrom +1 403-606-3853 EMAIL: joey@lindstrom.com numanoid@ab.imag.net lindstrj@cadvision.com WEBB: http://www.ab.imag.net/worldwidewebb/ ------------------------------ From: Lance Veitch Subject: Telephone Meter - Wanted Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 13:56:27 +0200 Organization: ESKOM - Koeberg Power Station Hi, I am looking for a device that can meter telephone calls and give a printout/readout of each call made with its call_time/units/cost/ number_dialed. The unit pulse will be supplied from the exchange (post office) Any suggestions are welcome. Regards, Lance ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #299 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Nov 2 17:36:23 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id RAA05569; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 17:36:23 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 17:36:23 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199711022236.RAA05569@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #300 TELECOM Digest Sun, 2 Nov 97 17:36:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 300 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: FCC Proposes V-Chip For Computers, From Time/Netly News (Ed Ellers) Re: FCC Proposes V-Chip For Computers, From Time/Netly News (M. Sullivan) Bellsouth Erroneously Billing Me - Help (Ron Schnell) Re: Tower Site Leases (Alan Boritz) Re: Tower Site Leases (oldbear@arctos.com) Re: Tower Site Leases (Marty Bose) Seattle Area Split (Babu Mengelepouti) Re: FBI Chief Calls For Computer Crime Crackdown (Tom Watson) Re: Caller ID: GTE California to GTE Indiana? (Chris Telesca) Re: New York Times on Net Day (Dave Hughes) Re: Ringdowns and Other Non-Dialable Toll-Points (Ed Ellers) 'Spam' Slayer Article in Philadelphia Inquirer (Fred Schimmel) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: FCC Proposes V-Chip For Computers, From Time/Netly News Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 10:43:42 -0500 Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Monty Solomon wrote, quoting from a Netly News story: > If you hated the idea of a V chip in your television, wait until you > hear that the government wants to install one in your computer. TIME > has learned that the FCC has proposed that new PCs be outfitted with a > V chip to filter out video violence and sex. Still unclear is what Net > broadcasts could be affected. The idea alarms free-speech advocates, > who wonder why Americans need a Net-nanny." This sounds like a *very* confused report. What the FCC is proposing is that the V-chip capability be required as part of PC TV tuners as well as 13" or larger TV sets. Right now PC TV tuners (cards or otherwise) are not required to have closed captioning unless they are bundled with a 13" or larger display, as per the FCC's captioning rules; the Commission apparently doesn't want this "loophole" to also apply to the V-chip. ------------------------------ From: Michael D. Sullivan Subject: Re: FCC Proposes V-Chip For Computers, From Time/Netly News Date: Fri, 31 Oct 97 01:24:25 -0400 Organization: DIGEX, Inc. Reply-To: Michael D. Sullivan This story is plain wrong. The FCC has sought comment on whether computers with TV cards designed to display standard TV signals should have to implement V-chip just as regular TVs do. This proposal has nothing to do with computers interfacing with the Net. According to the October 30 {Communications Daily}, the FCC claims that the Federal Register summary of its proposal has been misread. Michael D. Sullivan, Bethesda, Maryland, USA mds@access.digex.net, avogadro@well.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 02:25:01 EST From: Ron Schnell Subject: Bellsouth Erroneously Billing Me - Help When I moved ten miles from North Miami Beach, FL to Pembroke Pines, I lost my grandfather status on my ISDN line, and could no-longer have unmetered usage. This made it very expensive to have my nailed-down line. My ISP offered to call me instead, since they are still grandfathered. All was working fine, but all of a sudden, Bellsouth says I have 40,000 minutes of usage this month. Now, I know that I have not screwed anything up, because my equipment is not configured to make outgoing calls, and my provider isn't configured to accept incoming calls from me. Nonetheless, they don't believe me, and insist that I pay the bill. Granted, I have only just begun the process of working up the Bellsouth hierarchy, but I was wondering if this has happened to anyone else? If not, can anyone think of how the equipment could have screwed up? The number they have for the outgoing calls they allege I made is indeed the number of my provider. Ron ronnie@twitch.mit.edu ------------------------------ From: aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) Subject: Re: Tower Site Leases Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 23:56:08 -0500 In article , Allison Hift wrote: > ...This Firm solely represents counties and cities in > telecommunications matters. > I am collecting information concerning tower site lease agreements > throughout the United States so that I can assist a client of the > Firm's in making an informed, intelligent decision. Would that include Massachusetts municipalities that desire to lease space to telecommunications carriers? Would you know if the state, and it's subdivisions, are legally permitted to do that (by the letter of the law, that is)? ------------------------------ From: oldbear@arctos.com Subject: Re: Tower Site Leases Date: Sat, 01 Nov 1997 10:00:00 GMT Speaking from 25 years experiene in real estate investment management, I see nothing wrong with looking for "comparables" for the purpose of determining value. It is done all the time in the real estate industry for everything from appraisals for home mortgages to the valuation of large commercial portfolios. My experiences with telecom and utility companies has been that their real estate departments are equally experienced and sophisticated, and understand the process. I was puzzled, in fact, by Marty's comment: > On the average they would come back and request a new lease at > four to ten times the original lease, usually after construction > had started." To this, I would ask why Marty's firm would start construction before the lease was signed -- both for his own protection and for the protection of his contractor. (No sensible landlord would let a contractor on site without evidence of insurance and indemnifications so that the landlord would not be liable if someone were injured in the construction process; and the contractor should want to be sure he has authority to access the site and know his position if he has to file a lien to collect his fees.) Keep in mind that usually telecom companies enter into many, many leases for tower sites and for cable easements, etc. They usually have well-crafted standard-form documents and procedures which cover their concerns and protect their interests. On the other hand, the typical landlord sees very few telecom leases and is far less experienced in knowing the ins-and-outs of what to worry about. (Interestingly, this turns the tables on the usual situation where landlords negotiate many leases but tenants are only in the market once every several years -- kind of like the unequal negotiating skills of full-time automobile dealers and occassional car buyers.) If Marty has his contractor on site before his documents are done, Marty's boss should take a hard look at the risks to which he is exposing his company. Or possibly Marty is playing fast and lose with his contractor, rushing him onto the site without authority and then using partially completed construction as a ploy to intimidate a landlord into signing up or face having to litigate to get the semi-completed structure removed and his property restored. Cheers, The Old Bear ------------------------------ From: Marty Bose Subject: Re: Tower Site Leases Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 14:00:00 GMT > I take this opportunity to respond to the post by Marty Bose: >> I'm disappointed to see TELECOM Digest publishing a troll request >> like this one. When I worked for a PCS carrier this was a typical >> request from a lawyer trying to find a way for his client to bust >> a lease that the owner had second thoughts about. On the average >> they would come back and request a new lease at four to ten times >> the original lease, usually after construction had started. . . > ... I, along with [my] Law Firm, pride myself on practicing fairly > and ethically. I do not appreciate you rude posting concerning my > question. I am collecting information concerning tower site lease > agreements throughout the United States so that I can assist a client > of the Firm's in making an informed, intelligent decision. . . And, a response by oldbear@arctos.com which appears just before this in this issue: > Speaking from 25 years experiene in real estate investment management, > I see nothing wrong with looking for "comparables" for the purpose of > determining value. It is done all the time in the real estate > industry for everything from appraisals for home mortgages to > the valuation of large commercial portfolios. My experiences with > telecom and utility companies has been that their real estate > departments are equally experienced and sophisticated, and understand > the process. > I was puzzled, in fact, by Marty's comment: > "On the average they would come back and request a new lease at > four to ten times the original lease, usually after construction > had started." > To this, I would ask why Marty's firm would start construction before > the lease was signed -- both for his own protection and for the > protection of his contractor. (No sensible landlord would let a > contractor on site without evidence of insurance and indemnifications > so that the landlord would not be liable if someone were injured in > the construction process; and the contractor should want to be sure he > has authority to access the site and know his position if he has to > file a lien to collect his fees.) We never started construction before we had signed leases and all necessary approvals. This usually happened after the owner had a conversation with one of his counterparts and discovered that the other guy got paid more. Rarely would he take into account the many variables incumbent in site pricing, he just knew he got less. (snip) > If Marty has his contractor on site before his documents are done, > Marty's boss should take a hard look at the risks to which he is > exposing his company. Or possibly Marty is playing fast and lose > with his contractor, rushing him onto the site without authority and > then using partially completed construction as a ploy to intimidate > a landlord into signing up or face having to litigate to get the > semi-completed structure removed and his property restored. As I said, this is an unfounded assertion that I take great offense at. Marty ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 11:26:31 -0500 From: Babu Mengelepouti Reply-To: dialtone@vcn.bc.ca Organization: US Secret Service Subject: Seattle Area Split Michael Gutteridge wrote: > (Seattle), 425 (Eastside and north end), and 253 (South King County). > There is an additional layer of complexity in that they are implementing > ten and eleven digit dialing, where some exchanges accross areacodes are > dialable using solely ten digits, and some exchanges within the areacode > require the full eleven digits. > They way I understand it, this is because some calls are inter-carrier > (ie, a call from USWest territory into GTE requires the eleven digits). > Ok, that's assumption number one. Is that correct? No. You are in Bellevue. If you call anything that is local to Bellevue (e.g. Bellevue, Redmond, Kirkland, Renton, Issaquah, North Bend) that is in the 425 NPA, you can dial it with only seven digits. You will note that (most of) Bellevue, Renton, and Issaquah are in USWest, Kirkland and Redmond are in GTE, and North Bend is PTI. But you can still dial these calls with only seven digits as always. But let's say that you want to call Woodinville or Bothell, long distance calls within the 425 NPA. Rather than dialling 1-206-NXX-XXXX you will now dial 1-425-NXX-XXXX. This is because I (and several others) insisted to the Washington State Public Utilities Commission that "one plus required always means toll." If you want to call over to Seattle, you dial 206 (note the absence of a 1 because it's a local call) plus the number. And, something that I oppose the PUC ruling on, we're following the "Dallas model" where you are not *allowed* to dial 1+ if the call is local. I see no reason why the call should not go through with 1+ dialled, I just don't want 1+ to be required on local calls, and I want it to always be required on long distance ones. > Now, given that, is there some reference table where I can look up the > NPA/NXX combination and thereby determine what dialing scheme I need to > use? I've looked at the offerings from the TRA. I suspect the data is > buried somewhere in the LERG and/or NIPC. I don't have enough knowledge > to extract it, and the class on interpreting the LERG isn't offered > until the day after the dialing plan goes mandatory! You don't need the LERG for this. USWest and GTE have both been putting pamphlets in the mail for the past two months detailing the NXX's affected by the split. If you call 1-800-244-1111 USWest will be happy to send you one; I live in 360 and they sent me one. Basically anything that is local now remains local. But if that local number will fall in a new NPA, you need to dial the NPA first. Nothing in 253 is going to be local for you in Bellevue, so you can assume that all 253 calls are 1+. And most of 206 (with the exception of some northern suburbs of Seattle like Edmonds) will be local. Just keep dialling 1+ for calls that are long distance, but switch NPA's from 206 to 425 if necessary. Prepend 206 to calls that are on the west side of Lake Washington if they are local. And while you *can* prepend 425 to local calls on the Eastside, and it's good practice to do so, it is not required (you can still call Bellevue with seven digits). An interesting note in relation to this: for quite awhile until I got USWest to fix it, calls from the Glencourt CO in Bellevue (behind the post office downtown) to numbers in the Sherwood CO (off Lake Hills Blvd, serves the Lake Hills area and Eastgate) would *not* go through with 425 prepended. Finally, of all places to report it, translations laughed and said "Oh, you can just call repair for that!" Apparently USWest repair, while located in "floating" offices in the Midwest (I've gotten Des Moines, Minneapolis, and Omaha), can remotely print out a trouble ticket in the affected CO. So they printed a ticket for Glencourt and the next day it was fixed. ------------------------------ From: tsw@cagent.com (Tom Watson) Subject: Re: FBI Chief Calls For Computer Crime Crackdown Date: Sun, 30 Oct 1997 11:30:01 -0800 Organization: CagEnt, Inc. In article , monty@roscom.COM wrote: > FBI chief calls for computer crime crackdown << Freeh told the International Association of Chiefs of > Police that software manufacturers should be required by law to > include a feature that allows police to descramble encrypted > communications. > ``It could take a $30 million supercomputer a year to > figure out the simplest encrypted message without this feature,'' > Freeh said. ``And that message might be 'we have the victim and will > kill him in an hour'.'' > The problem with all of this is that no computer can figure out what the phrase "It's going to be a cloudy day tommorow" means if the phrasing has been agreed upon in advance between two parties. Simple phrases like "The traffic is terrible here, but the light was green at 3rd and Main" could mean one thing, and "The traffic here is terrible, but the red light at 5th and Grape was stuck". Both of these phrases can be quite innocent and have real basis in fact, but mean two different things. Given the language, do we need to supply the government with the decoding of all the double entendrare we discuss in casual conversation. My feeling is that this is what the government is asking for. Criminals have used cryptic messages all the time, and it takes people quite some time to "decode" them. This has been done in the past even WITHOUT computers. Computers have just made it easier. In a conversation Ted Koppel had with another newsman, they discussed an "ad-hoc" code relating to military maneuvers. It related to questions about "Beetle Bailey" and "Steve Canyon". Get a computer to decode that!! Personally, if they just prosecuted all the "Make Money Fast" schemes on the internet, it would go a pretty long way in my book!! tsw@cagent.com (Home: tsw@johana.com) Please forward spam to: annagram@hr.house.gov (my Congressman), I do. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Nah, they are not going to do that. Louis Freeh and his Federal Bureau of Inquisition would never work on the spammers for the simple reason that the spammers are accomplishing more to wreck the net than any number of FBI agents could do. You have to understand that law enforcement in general has a very strong dislike for the Internet (as do many/most government agencies) simply because of the speed with which everyday, average citizens are able to communicate and exchange information. What government wants its citizens to be able to do that? Oh, they had to get in the loop along with everyone else; like the newspapers on the one hand with their notoriously inaccurate and mostly anti-net stories while still operating their own web pages in the hopes of salvaging some of their circulation losses; but if the federal government could put this whole net out of business tomorrow via some judicial fiat or administrative ruling you bet they would do so. In the meantime, the Spamfords pollute things so badly that more and more people have simply turned away from things like Usenet news in disgust. Same end results, but the government does not have to take the blame for it. If Freeh, Janet Reno and others high in the ranks of law enforcement want to make themselves useful, they might convene a meeting of police officers, FBI agents and others of their ilk and advise them, "not everyone who uses the Internet is trading pictures of naked children; they are not kidnapping kids; using 'chat rooms' to have sex talk." And while all the officers listened with wide eyes at these heretics in their ranks who claim there are actually positive uses of the net, Freeh, Reno and Company might continue by explaining that there are a few (in their opinion) oddball citizens around who simply want to be left alone to communicate in private. Scum to be sure, but then aren't we all if we dare to express disagreement with law enforcement's stated objectives? PAT] ------------------------------ From: ctelesca@pagesz.net (Chris Telesca) Subject: Re: Caller ID: GTE California to GTE Indiana? Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 12:16:17 -0500 Organization: Pagesz.net In article , fgoldstein@bbn.| nospam.|com (Fred R. Goldstein) wrote: > You can't get it from Medford because Medford (actually, the Malden > CO) is still on an analog CO switch (1AESS). NYNEX did not spend the > serious money to upgrade its analog switches to have Signaling System > 7, which is a prerequisite for Caller ID. Instead, they (I'd say > correctly, in this case) decided to just replace them all with digital > switches before the deadline for mandatory SS7, which is 1-Jan-1998. > So it will be replaced within the next two months. Indeed, NYNEX > scheduled several CO replacements for 31-December-1997! > That won't solve the entire out-of-area problem. While non-SS7 COs > are one cause, there are others. PBX trunks that terminate on what > NYNEX called "Flexpath" (channelized T1), or on IXC switches, don't > have Caller ID either. That's because trunk side ports on CO switches > don't have regular numbers. They do have ANI numbers for billing, but > ANI is not Caller ID. (Analog switches have ANI too. ANI lacks "*67" > blocking capability, so it's not presented to sent-paid destinations, > but it does go to 800 users, who are after all paying for the call.) > We noticed this on our one residual Flexpath, whose outgoing calls > were "out of area"; it was fixed by upgrading to ISDN PRI, which sends > and receives Caller ID just fine. Of course PRI is only available in > a small percentage of former-NYNEX COs, so it's not as if most PBX > users have a choice in the matter. IXCs have PRI but no numbers to > show. Mr. Goldstein: I was hoping that you could help me with some SS7 questions pertaining to how and when I forward my calls using either Call-Forwarding from my home or Remote-Access to Call-Forwarding from some line other than my own. If you care to check DejaNews for previous posts under ctelesca@pagesz.net and ctelesca@nccu.campus.mci.net and ctelesca@ncsu.campus.mci.net, you will get an idea of the problems I've been facing. I've tried to get BellSouth (the teleco offering the CF/RACF feature) to tell me how they handle and identify toll-calls that were made because my phone was call-forwarded, but no one at the teleco wants to tell me anything. Do you know how SS7 lists or keeps track of Call-Forwarded calls? Do you know how the teleco engineers monitor Call-Forwarding activities? Are you aware of any websites that might have this information? Any help you can offer would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, Chris Telesca ------------------------------ From: hicom@oldcolo.com (Dave Hughes) Subject: Re: New York Times on Net Day Date: 31 Oct 1997 03:16:01 GMT Organization: SuperNet Inc. +1.303.285.0194 Denver Colorado Reply-To: hicom@oldcolo.com In , Kevin DeMartino writes: > Thomas G. Spalthoff is right on target (V17 #293). The > Internet is a great medium for communicating and accessing > information, but it is not a silver bullet for our schools. Do we > really need every classroom wired to the Internet, as President > Clinton has suggested? Computer literacy is important, but it is not > as important as literacy in English (and other languages). I'll tell you here and now, any English teacher can and could, with a combination of classroom computers and links to the Internet impart more ENGLISH language literacy to a group of students, than the same teacher with pencils, paper, and books over the same period of time. And, at the same time, develop facility with forms of English used online (which differs, when done well, as much from paper-written forms as does the spoken word from the written text) I proved that 14 years ago with Radio Shack and Osborne computers accounts on the Source, and modem access to bulletin-boards. And some college freshman instructors who took my course in 'Electronic English' (and I don't mean word processing) demonstrated the same thing. That does not mean that all, or many, English teachers know how to teach English using computers and networks. But give me 30 students in a classroom with 15 networked computers with software of my choice, you take 30 in a classroom with pencils, paper, and books of your choice and after a school year, my students will wipe the floor with your paper crowd, in spelling, grammar, puncutation, composition, and general English Language literacy. They will also be far more prepared to graduate to higher and more subtle levels of computer and network use for further education or movement directly into the workforce. It is beyond me why the myth persists that reading and writing using computers, and communicating via the Internet in written forms, is not itself the use of the English language in ways so much more efficient in the use of time, and the skills (or lack thereof, as in typing skill) used in writing well, than relying on traditional paper and pencils. Dave Hughes ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: Ringdowns and Other Non-Dialable Toll-Points Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 19:32:10 GMT Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. The TELECOM Digest Editor noted: > Does anyone around here remember the radio operator based in Alma, > Quebec who handled all the traffic around the far northern fringes of > that province until at least some time in the 1970's? A couple > hundred miles north of Quebec City on provincial highway 169, her > duties were to maintain communication with such northern outposts as > Inukjuak, Salvit and Deception, Quebec. > The Chicago operators were amazed that such a system existed. I asked > Alma the distance being covered and the type of radio > communication. She said it was AM (amplitude modulation) single > sideband, and she ventured a guess that the point we were calling was > 'several hundred miles north'. The other main radio station covering > northern Quebec was located a bit to the west in the town of Val D'or, > which operated in essentially the same way. PAT]" There are several out-of-the-way regions of the world where HF SSB radio is about the only way to talk to the outside world at a reasonable cost. Quite a few Aussies reportedly use HF not only for this but to reach the Royal Flying Doctor Service and/or for a "classroom of the air" educational service. There's still enough demand for fixed HF worldwide that Kenwood, known for amateur and marine radio as well as audio, makes a special simplified HF SSB two-way radio for that market with fewer controls than a typical ham HF rig would have. Once satellite "cellular" systems like Iridium come into wide use I'd expect this sort of thing to taper off in a hurry. ------------------------------ From: Fred Schimmel Subject: 'Spam' Slayer Article in Philadelphia Inquirer Date: Sat, 01 Nov 1997 23:48:37 -0500 Organization: Prodigy Internet Reply-To: fws@Prodigy.Net After reading all the exploits of the Spam King and his troubles with his Internet providers over the last little while, maybe c.d.t readers would enjoy the story of the 'Spam' slayer. It can be seen at the following URL: http://www.phillynews.com/inquirer/97/Oct/30/tech.life/adop30.htm Fred Schimmel fws@prodigy.net We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true. -- Robert Wilensky ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #300 ******************************