From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Apr 9 22:32:25 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA01869; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 22:32:25 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 22:32:25 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199804100232.WAA01869@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #51 TELECOM Digest Thu, 9 Apr 98 22:32:00 EDT Volume 18 : Issue 51 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Phone Company Banned From State For Slamming (Monty Solomon) Book Review: "Web Security: A Step-by-Step Reference Guide" (Rob Slade) IDT's Lying Spam About FCC Tariffs (Fred R. Goldstein) CWA Announces Pace-Setting Settlements at Pacific Telesis and (Nigel Allen) It's Final: 813 Will Split, Not Overlay (Tampa Bay, FL) (Linc Madison) SACs 880 and 881 Possibly to be Reclaimed (Mark J. Cuccia) 1 877 DISARRAY (Judith Oppenheimer) Canadian Numbering/Switching/Routing Data NOW in LERG! (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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 01:40:52 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Phone Company Banned From State For Slamming SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- A long-distance telephone company is banned from doing business in California for three years and must refund $547,000 to thousands of customers for taking over their service without their consent, the state Public Utilities Commission says. Inter Continental Telephone Corp., based in San Diego, was the target of 66,811 complaints from customers who said they had been ``slammed,'' or involuntarily transferred to the company's service, between 1994 and 1997, the PUC reported this week. The commission said the company has already repaid about $589,000 to California customers over a 3 1/2 year period. The new order, part of a settlement with the PUC, requires an additional $547,000 refund. The company must notify all customers who filed slamming complaints that they can seek a refund of all money they paid to Inter Continental, the PUC said. If the claimed refunds fall short of $547,000, the rest will be divided among customers whose previous refunds were less than the amount they paid. The company also agreed to spend $100,000 on newspaper ads to notify customers round the state. Charles Deem, a lawyer for the company, said Wednesday that Inter Continental did not admit any wrongdoing. He said the company voluntarily stopped marketing in California before the end of 1996, in response to the PUC investigation. Inter Continental arranged for an independent study of a sampling of the 66,000 complaints to the PUC and found that only about one-eighth of the customers surveyed were sure they had been slammed, Deem said. ------------------------------ From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 07:57:47 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "Web Security: A Step-by-Step Reference Guide" Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKWEBSEC.RVW 980201 "Web Security: A Step-by-Step Reference Guide", Lincoln D. Stein, 1998, 0-201-62489-9, U$29.95 %A Lincoln D. Stein stein@genome.wi.mit.edu %C P.O. Box 520, 26 Prince Andrew Place, Don Mills, Ontario M3C 2T8 %D 1998 %G 0-201-62489-9 %I Addison-Wesley Publishing Co. %O U$29.95 416-447-5101 fax: 416-443-0948 bkexpress@aw.com %P 448 p. %T "Web Security: A Step-by-Step Reference Guide" As it happened, this book came off the stack on a night when I wanted nothing more than to wander off to bed. Despite my sleep deprivation I managed not only to finish the book, but even to enjoy it. Any technical book with security in the title that can hold interest like that has to have something going for it. The book covers all aspects of Web security, as laid out in chapter one: the client or browser concern for privacy and safety of active content, the Web server concern for availability of service and prevention of intrusion, and the concern that both share for confidentiality and fraud. Chapter two provides a brief but accurate overview of cryptography as the backbone of secure systems operating over unsecured channels. (There is only one oddity that I noted, when 512 bit RSA public key encryption was compared in strength with 40 bit RC2 and RC4 systems.) More of the basics like Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) and Secure Electronic Transactions (SET) are described in chapter three, along with various forms of digital cash. Part two looks at client-side security, with further discussions of the use of SSL in chapter four. Chapter five details active content, with particular attention to ActiveX and Java. "Web Privacy," in chapter six, is an excellent and practical guide to the realities and myths about information that can be gleaned from your browsing activities. Included are practical tips about keeping your system from finking on you. (Windows users should note that the files referred to are not always in the paths specified, due to the variety of ways that Windows programs can be installed.) The bulk of the book, as might be expected, deals with server-side security, this being the slightly more complex side of the issue. Chapter seven provides an overview of the various vulnerabilities and loopholes to watch and plug. UNIX and Windows NT servers are dealt with in chapters eight and nine respectively. These chapters don't assume much familiarity with the system security functions of the systems, but do stick primarily to the server specific topics. Access control is a major part of any security setup, and is covered in chapter ten. Encryption and certificates are revisited in chapter eleven, concentrating on use in access control. CGI (Common Gateway Interface) scripting has been a major source of Web security risks, and chapter twelve points out safe, and unsafe, practices in programming scripts. Chapter thirteen discusses remote authoring and administration. Firewalls are often seen as the be-all and end-all of Internet security, and Stein covers the reality in chapter fourteen. Each chapter contains references to both online and printed sources of information, and these resources are all of high quality and useful. As noted, the book is not only readable, but even enjoyable. The writing is clear and accurate, giving the reader both concepts and practical tasks in minimum time with maximum comprehension. Although the bulk of the book is for Webmasters, the casual user can not only read it but get a great deal of value from it. Any ISP that does not have it on their customer support bookshelf should held criminally negligent. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1998 BKWEBSEC.RVW 980201 ------------------------------ Subject: IDT's Lying Spam About FCC Tariffs From: fgoldstein@bbn.NO$LUNCHMEAT.com (Fred R. Goldstein) Organization: GTE Internetworking - BBN Technologies Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1998 20:49:57 GMT IDT, the callback/reseller low-end LD company, is now spamming abUsenet as part of their campaign against the FCC. They have a "service" called Net2phone which makes ordinary telephone calls using IP, terminating on LEC access lines. Under long-standing (since 1979) FCC rules, long distance telephone carriers pay "access" charges to local telcos. IDT is claiming, rather lamely, that because they're using IP instead of ordinary TDM or (historical interest only) FDM on their muxes, they are somehow exempt from this, and can hook up to ordinary business lines. As many press articles recently have noted, the FCC is not particularly wowed by this argument. ISPs are entitled to business-line rates for their dial-in servers, because they're providing "enhanced services", which are not the same as ordinary telephony. Just claiming that you're an ISP doesn't make you one, however; a plain old phone-to-phone call is a phone call! "Access" tariffs, which pay high subsidies above their cost, go back to the Execunet decision (1979). Legit LD companies pay them, grudigingly; they average 5c/minute. IDT wants to undercut other LD companies by not paying up. Here's their spam: > The Federal Communications Commission is planning to regulate the Internet > by imposing new universal service fees which are likely to be passed on to > you in the form of higher Internet-service charges. > If these taxes are imposed, you will have to pay more every time you use > the Internet. This is a TOTAL falsehood. The fees already exist; the FCC merely wishes to start enforcing them on companies who carry PHONE calls "across" the Internet. Calls TO your ISP will not be affected. While several voice carriers (SBC, BellSouth, LCI in particular) are pushing to have ISPs reclassified as long distance carriers (which would put most out of business), the FCC strongy opposes that so-called "modem tax". IDT is complaining about a voice tax, not a modem tax, and they're simply evading it! > ...We have always viewed the Internet as a fantastic medium to communicate > with anyone worldwide at little or no cost. Please do not let the FCC take > this right away from you. And they won't. The FCC's current thinking doesn't affect computer-to-computer connections at all, even if they have sound cards doing IP telephony. It's only the voice connections from local carrier voice networks to LD telephony gateways that are being scrutinized. BTW, this is important to IP users because the telephone network depends on these subsidies (until the whole cost-recovery mechanism gets fixed!). And if IDT were "exempt", AT&T, MCI and Sprint could become "exempt" too quite easily. At which point the ISP "exemption" would be in deep trouble! You can't have exempt data and exempt LD voice. 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: Wed, 08 Apr 1998 22:17:07 -0400 From: Nigel Allen Subject: CWA Announces Pace-Setting Settlements at Pacific Telesis Here is a press release from the Communications Workers of America. I don't work for or belong to the CWA, but I thought the press release might be of interest to readers of this Digest. CWA Announces Pace-Setting Settlements at Pacific Telesis And Southwestern Bell WASHINGTON, April 8 -- In the first settlement of this year's major round of labor talks in the telecommunications industry, the Communications Workers of America (CWA) announced tentative new contracts at Pacific Telesis and Southwestern Bell that provide strengthened employment security, significant improvements in wages and pensions and other gains for the 76,000 CWA-represented workers at the two SBC Communications companies. This year, CWA is bargaining on behalf of some 400,000 workers overall at AT&T, Lucent Technologies, GTE and the five regional Bell telecommunications companies. While current agreements with all the Bell companies expire in early August, CWA and SBC went into early bargaining on March 9 and reached settlement early this morning. CWA President Morton Bahr said the key to the early and quick resolution of talks was SBC's assurances that it was not seeking any concessions from employees. "The company made it clear that it was interested in reaching fair settlements, in line with the financial success SBC has enjoyed and the gains in productivity that our members have brought about," Bahr said. Bahr also reported that CWA and top SBC management will work to extend card check recognition to SBC operations nationwide, calling for automatic union recognition when more than 50 percent of the workers in a bargaining unit say they want representation. Card check procedures already had been negotiated last year covering entities in the geographic regions of Southwestern Bell and Pacific Telesis, and since then, more than 1,000 workers at SBC cellular phone units have won CWA representation. Settlement Highlights The new pacts call for base wage increases of more than 11 percent compounded over the 32-month contract term at the two companies, and will actually deliver about 12 percent in wage hikes because of compression from 36 to 32-month terms. Both settlements provide substantial job upgrades for hundreds of workers in various job titles. Meeting a key union objective this year, SBC agreed to substantial pension improvements. At Pacific Telesis, pension increases average 11.4 percent; at Southwestern, workers won a 9.2 percent increase plus a new lump sum pay out option. The settlements also include an increase in the companies' contribution/match to the 401 (k) plan to 80 percent (was 66 2/3), improved medical and dental care and other benefit gains. The two settlements also call for new limits on forced overtime, increased hiring, additional restrictions on subcontracting of work, improved worker training opportunities, increased flexibility in scheduling of vacations and days off, and joint programs to tackle problems of unreasonable performance quotas and pressures on service representatives. The new settlements take effect August 8, 1998 when the current agreements expire and will end on March 31, 2001. Both contracts are subject to final approval by members in a mail ballot ratification to be completed next month. CWA represents 35,000 employees of Pacific Telesis in California and Nevada, and 41,000 at Southwestern Bell, which covers Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Kansas, and Arkansas. In other talks, CWA began negotiations with AT&T this week, and will begin bargaining with Lucent Technologies on April 20. Early talks also are underway with Bell Atlantic, and negotiations with the other Bell companies will open this summer. Talks with GTE are slated later in the year. CONTACT: Jeff Miller or Candice Johnson of CWA Communications, 202-434-1168 ---------- forwarded by Nigel Allen ndallen@interlog.com http://www.ndallen.com ------------------------------ From: Telecom@LincMad.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: It's Final: 813 Will Split, Not Overlay (Tampa Bay, FL) Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1998 04:59:14 -0700 Organization: LincMad Consulting; change NOSPAM to COM The Florida Public Service Commission voted Tuesday to affirm its staff recommendation that the planned general-services overlay of area code 813 be converted to a conventional geographic split. The split will place Pinellas County (including St. Petersburg, Clearwater, and Dunedin), and the adjacent area of Pasco County (including Hudson and New Port Richey rate centers) in the new area code, 727, effective 7/1/98, with permissive dialing until 2/1/99. The complete list of rate centers in the new 727 area code: St. Petersburg Clearwater New Port Richey Hudson Tarpon Springs Pinellas Park Largo Tierra Verde The remainder of area code 813, consisting of Hillsborough County (Tampa, Brandon, Plant City, Wimauma, Lutz), and most of Pasco County (including Zephyrhills, Wesley Chapel, and Land O' Lakes), will retain the 813 area code. (Note that the northeastern portion of Pasco County, including the county seat of Dade City, is in area code 352.) Oldsmar, which is actually in Pinellas County but is more strongly associated with Tampa, remains in 813. There is a story in today's Tampa Tribune, available online at (Note: that URL may only be valid for today, Wednesday, April 8, 1998. The title of the story is "New area code wins final PSC approval" by Frank Ruiz.) The story notes that GTE Florida, the ILEC for all of 813, indicated that it does not plan to appeal the ruling. ** Do not send me unsolicited commercial e-mail spam of any kind ** Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * Telecom@LincMad-com URL:< http://www.lincmad.com > * North American Area Codes & Splits >> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must change "NOSPAM" to "com" << ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 18:08:48 CDT From: Mark J Cuccia Reply-To: Mark J Cuccia Subject: SACs 880 and 881 Possibly to be Reclaimed There is a possibility that SACs (Special Area Codes) 880 and 881 might be reclaimed. These are the two codes for "international inbound Caller-Pays 800/etc" services, where non-NANP callers who don't have a "POTS/geographic" NANP number to call, but only the NANP toll-free 800/888/etc. number to refer to, to dial, or for Canadian callers to call US-only-based 800/888/etc. numbers, or NANP-Caribbean callers to call US/Canada-only-based such free numbers, where the called party did not purchase that non-US or non-US/Canadian caller's territory as toll-free. _Some_ international carrier arrangements with NANP carriers _might_ allow a caller to dial _and_ reach a NANP +1-800/888/877/etc-nxx-xxxx toll-free number, but the caller outside of the US/Canada/NANP will pay international charges for the call, yet the NANP-based customer will still pay for domestic/NANP charges, even though they don't care to receive calls from foreign-based markets, since they didn't purchase a toll-free code in that foreign country to forward to the US/Canada/NANP. Some carriers _do_ allow a US/Canada/NANP-based customer to purchase a toll-free number dialable from outside, and dialed as a regular NANP toll-free number, +1-800/888/877/etc-nxx-xxxx, but dialable as such only from those countries purchased. Any other country dialing the number as a NANP toll-free number will either be blocked, or will pay (only) the international portion of the call. A few years ago, the NANP Industry forums (ATIS/ICCF/INC/etc.) developed a plan for 880 to be used for non-NANP (or Canada-to-US, or Caribbean- to-US/Canada) customers to be able to dial NANP-based 800 numbers, but pay for the call, at least the tariffed international charge (only). When 888 became the second NANP toll-free SAC in early 1996, the INC had also decided on 881 to be its international-caller-pays 'replace' code. Now that 877 is becoming the NANP's third toll-free SAC, there has been concern, particularly from Canada and the NANP-Caribbean for a matching international-caller-pays 'replace' code, most likely 882. But the INC had not requested NANPA to assign/reserve such a code or a plan to have a range of codes reserved, until most recently. But some are concerned about the usage of such codes in such ways, at a time when many are concerned about premature exhaust of the three-digit NPA format! And since the 880 and 881 codes don't appear to have really been used to much extent (and some overseas locations allow their callers to dial +1-800/888/877/etc.- and pay for the call), it seems to be somewhat of a waste of code resources. There is now a move by some in the industry to have 880 and 881 (and if already 'assigned' or 'reserved', 882) be RECLAIMED, and reassigned to 'regular' geographic/POTS NPA functions. If this fails, there is presently no other plan being looked at for an international-caller-pays 800/888/877/etc. service. BTW, does anyone know what the status of "International" or "Global" toll-free (Country-Code +800) presently is? 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: Thu, 09 Apr 1998 07:02:10 -0400 From: Judith Oppenheimer Reply-To: joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com Organization: ICB TOLL FREE NEWS. 15 Day FREE Trial: http://icbtollfree.com Subject: 1 877 DISARRAY April 6, 1998 New York, NY (ICB TOLL FREE NEWS) 877 opened on April 5, 1998, as scheduled. It opened in predictable -- but inexcusable -- disarray. About twoseconds after the opening bell, most RespOrgs found their systems frozen -- locked up -- for over an hour. By the time smaller RespOrgs gained gradual (hense inequitable) access, a reported 10,000 numbers were already taken. The following report was filed for ICB by a small RespOrg based on the west coast. Portions of the narration refer to the marathon conference call maintained during the day for RespOrgs to check in with, and presumably resolve, reservation problems. Individual names have been changed and/or deleted to protect the innocent ... "We logged on with all of our computers to the SMS data base at about 5:00 am Central Standard Time to get a place in line for the 12:00 opening. At the opening bell we all entered our first numbers ... we waited ... and waited ... and waited. Finally, approximately 12 minutes later, we called the SMS (help desk) and was told there were unusually long wait times and to be patient. ... called back and was told three (only 3!) of our numbers were reserved. Half an hour into 877 implementation, we have three numbers reserved .... our computer screens remained locked with an impenetrable blinking cursor ... Spoke with [3 other small RespOrgs], all experiencing similar problems. Calls to SNAC monitoring conference call recorded more RespOrgs with more problems. Some people were reserving and not getting messages, others were reserving and getting messages, and others were reserving and not getting reservations. Another RespOrg corroborated to ICB that about two seconds after the opening bell, everything froze -- locked up. This seemed to be the case for most RespOrgs for at least an hour. However, at least one RespOrg was NOT having problems, as by the time that first hour had gone by, 10,000 numbers were gone. Furthermore, rather than all RespOrgs unlocking simultaneously, it seems that different RespOrgs gained access after the initial frozen period gradually, at varying times, compounding the inequity in how these 877 numbers were distributed. P.S. One small victory for small business-kind - we're told 877 CALL ATT was not snagged by the #1 carrier. Will wonders never cease. Judith Oppenheimer, Publisher ICB TOLL FREE NEWS The Daily News Service of the Toll Free Industry 15-day, no-obligation FREE trial: http://icbtollfree.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1998 13:32:20 -0500 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Canadian Numbering/Switching/Routing Data NOW in LERG! Canadian numbering/routing/switching data has now made it into the Bellcore-TRA routing/network documents (RDBS/LERG/NNAG/NNACL/etc). While some Canadian data has been in the TRA routing products for a few years now, it has been data mostly from wireless entities which are not associated with "Mobility-Canada" (or their wireline 'parent' entity was not associated with Stentor/Canada). Other Canadian routing data has also been previously available in the LERG/etc. regarding some of the CLECs. But now, a full range of the Stentor companies' numbering and routing data is now in the LERG/etc. All Canadian numbering/billing/rating data has always been available in Bellcore TRA's _rating_ products for years, however. And I understand that there are still several SxS and #5XB offices in various parts of British Columbia, Quebec, Ontario. Some of these older electromechanical switches are going to be cut to DMS offices later this month, however. Most of the switch-types in Canada these days are DMS (obviously, since Nortel makes them), and several (AE) GTD-5's. Other switch-types are in use, as well. However, some of the reported data might not necessarily be 100% accurate, though. And not all of the CLEC and other wireless entities have necessarily reported their switch/routing data to Bellcore-TRA yet. One particular point -- there are numerous "independent" operating telephone companies throughout Quebec and Ontario -- i.e. ratecenters in PQ and ON which are not (directly) operated by Bell Canada, or in eastern PQ which are not directly operated by GTE's QuebecTel. However, while these "independent" incumbent telcos have been assigned NECA/TRA "company codes" for use in NECA and TRA documents, the "company code" for these exchanges is being shown in TRA's documents (both routing and rating formats) for Bell Canada or for QuebecTel. For most of these exchanges, it can be easily determined which ones are the 'independent' ones by the presence of the letter 'X' in the switch-CLLI code. But that too can be faulty. Prior to 1988, CNCP owned Terra Nova Tel, which operated certain exchanges in parts of Newfoundland and Labrador, while (Bell Canada Enterprises held) Newfoundland Tel operated most exchanges in NF/LB. In 1988, CNCP sold Terra Nova Tel to BCE. Terra Nova was 'merged' into Newfoundland Tel. But the switch-CLLI's still include the letter 'X' in the two-character "building" field. In Alberta, Telus is now the name of the incumbent telco for the entire province. But a few years ago, the telco for the City of Edmonton was the municipally-owned "edmonton telephones" aka EdTel. (The lower-case is intentional - some years back, the 'logo' for EdTel spelled out their name in lower-case). The 'independent' EdTel was not a member of Trans-Canada Telephone System aka Telecom-Canada aka Stentor. Its switch-CLLI's had the identifying letter 'X', while AGT (Telus) has been a Stentor member, with its switch-CLLI's using two numericals in the building-code. Telus became the holding company for AGT a few years ago, and then purchased EdTel from the City of Edmonton government in 1995. In late 1996 or early 1997, the names AGT and EdTel were changed to Telus, with its distinct logo of a lower-case script 't'. The territories in Canada (Yukon Territory, the Northwest Territories, and next year's Nunavut Territory being carved from the eastern part of the NWT) are in NPA 867, although until 26-April-1998, Alberta's 403 can still be used to reach Yukon and the western/southern part of the NWT (old CNCP/Northwestel operating territory), and (one of) Quebec's NPA's, 819, can still be used to reach the eastern/Arctic part of the NWT (region directly operated by Bell Canada). In 1988, BCE (Bell Canada Enterprises) purchased Northwestel from CNCP. In 1992, BCE transferred the eastern/Arctic NWT (819) region from being directly operated by Bell Canada over to its Northwestel subsidiary. Since the old (403) CNCP/Northwestel was not a member of Telecom- Canada/TCTS, the original switch-CLLI's for that area still have the distinct letter 'X'. Newer switches in that area don't necessarily contain that letter 'X'. But the old (819) Bell Canada directly operated region has two numericals in the switch-CLLI bulding code. The northern part of British Columbia has always been part of NorthwesTel, whether when owned by CNCP, or owned by BCE. Yet all of its switch-CLLI's have two numericals rather than any letter 'X', even if that switch was installed prior to 1988, when CNCP sold Northwestel to BCE. In western/central British Columbia is the town of Prince Rupert City. The town government owns the local telco. The switch-CLLI for Prince Rupert City _does_ contain the distinct letter 'X'. BCE owns Northern Telephone (in east/central Ontario) and Telebec (mostly in west/central Quebec, but also owns exchange territory in many other parts of Quebec). Neither Northern Telephone nor Telebec are members of Stentor 'on their own'. All of BCE's Northern Telephone's exchanges (as well as the provincially owned Ontario Northland Tel) have the distinct letter 'X'. Most (but not all) of BCE's Telebec exchanges include the letter 'X'. Some of Telebec's switch-CLLI's seem to be associated directly with Bell Canada in Quebec, therefore the CLLI code doesn't have the letter 'X', but rather numericals. GTE's Anglo-Canadian subsidiary holds BC-Tel (British Columbia) and QuebecTel (eastern PQ). In the US, most of us continue to think of GTE as an 'independent', even where very dominant in inTRA-LATA toll. But in Canada, GTE's BC-Tel has been a TCTS / Telecom-Canada /Stentor member for decades. Its CLLI codes do _NOT_ have the letter 'X' but rather the two-numericals in the building-code. Yet most if not all of (GTE) QuebecTel exchanges have the letter 'X' in their switch-CLLI's. GTE purchased (independent) QuebecTel in the late 1960's. And it wasn't until recently when (GTE) QuebecTel became a Stentor member. A conflict exists when trying to determine any exchanges of small independent telcos in eastern (418) Quebec, since some of them might indicate (GTE) QuebecTel as the operating company, and both that independent _and_ (GTE) QuebecTel have a CLLI with the distinct letter 'X'. Other Canadian telco history can be found in my report to TELECOM Digest, at its archives website, in a file found under the 'history' section: "Stentor, Bell Canada, Independents". So, while there are some inconsistancies, and not as much comprehensive info in Bellcore-TRA routing products as some of us would prefer, at least Canadian switch/routing data has _finally_ made it in the LERG/ etc. 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- ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #51 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Apr 10 23:56:54 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id XAA03793; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 23:56:54 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 23:56:54 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199804110356.XAA03793@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #52 TELECOM Digest Fri, 10 Apr 98 23:56:00 EDT Volume 18 : Issue 52 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson 877 Replication (Joey Lindstrom) Access Denied! (irishman@technologist.com) Manual Switchboards (Leonard Erickson) AT&T and Other Interesting Developments (Babu Mengelepouti) MCI New Rate Raped me (Ron Schnell) FCC and Internet LD Access Fees (oldbear@arctos.com) Telecom Update (Canada) #127, April 6, 1998 (Angus TeleManagement) Book Review: "Hands-On ATM", David E. McDysan/Darren L. Spohn (Rob Slade) Book Review: "The State of the Net", Peter Clemente (Rob Slade) 5 a.m. Junk Faxes From Global Computer Supplies (Michael A. Covington) 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1998 09:49:59 -0700 Reply-To: Joey Lindstrom Subject: 877 Replication I gotta side with Pat on this one. Where does it end? Ten years from now, when we've got 877 and 866 and 855 and 844 in service, will everyone with a "branded" telephone number in one code automatically have one in all of 'em? What the heck's the point of HAVING all these additional codes if these businesses just quickly swallow up the numbers to "stay ahead"? Frankly I just don't understand it. OK, I can understand if the people at "1-800-FLOWERS" are concerned that some other florist might grab "1-888-FLOWERS", but doesn't existing trademark law cover something like this? What's next? Will 1-800-FLOWERS demand replication of that particular 7-digit number in every NPA in the NANPA? Where does it end? Pat's nailed a couple of important points: 1) The issue of replication came up because of initial consumer confusion over the entire concept of more-than-one toll-free codes. Consumers are now USED TO having both 800 and 888, and when 877 comes along there will certainly be a little bit of "oh, is that toll-free?" but certainly no CONFUSION - certainly the number of mis-dials is dropping and will continue to drop. The main raison d'etre of replication is fast disappearing, making it harder to justify. 2) The advantages gained by opening new codes is greatly reduced by replication, as each time we add a new code we've got a larger and larger group of "untouchable" numbers, numbers that conceivably would NEVER go into service because someone has the right of first-refusal to it. That said, there are some people who just don't pay attention. I speak to Telus phone operators weekly and they tell me that people are *STILL* misdialling calls to British Columbia by dialling 604 instead of the newer 250 code - two years after it went mandatory - with another group of callers misdialling 250 as 205 (which must annoy the good people of Alabama). But there's only so much you can do, folks -- we can't compensate for the stupidity of every idiot out there. The only way to do that would be to hire people to go over to their houses and dial their phones for them. So let's move on. If the competition tries to steal your business by obtaining a similar telephone number, go after 'em through legal means. Don't ask the phone companies and the FCC to screw EVERYBODY over just so you can rest easy about a potential threat that, quite frankly, is tremendously overblown. / From Joey Lindstrom joey@lindstrom.com / Interocitor Dot Net http://www.interocitor.net / / The word of the Lord is the lie of your father / This mortal sin is a voice of shame. / Look at the storm, like a dying apostle / Cruel and divine, like the ghost of man. / -- Gary Numan, "Prophecy" (from the album _Exile_) ------------------------------ From: irishman@technologist.com Subject: Access Denied! Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1998 16:31:34 -0600 Organization: Impossible Missions Force I moved into a new apartment a while ago, and when I had signed the lease and paperwork I found that I would have to get all my phone service from an outfit called Shared Technology. Apartmently they cut deals with various apartment management agencies and if you live in an apartment complex that has such an arrangement, you don't have a choice. The apartment management co. touts this as a convenience to tenants but I am very unhappy with Shared Tech. Their rates are much higher than other telco's, their customer "service" is totally clueless and worst off all, if you try to access another phone company by dialling 10-NNN, as soon as you dial "10" you get a beeping signal and can't connect. Surely this is illegal - aren't phone companies required to provide their customers with equal access to other companies? Anyway, if you are changing apartments, beware of Shared Tech and beware of "captive" situations like the one I'm in! Steve Dobson, somewhere in cyberspace "Your weapons are useless against me!" [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That will teach you to not read legal contracts (your apartment lease) before you sign them. I think it is illegal to deny you access to 10xxx however. You might want to push that issue with your state commissioners if you can get nowhere with the outfit running your phone service; but in the meantime I suggest you use the 800 number for your carrier as a workaround for making long distance calls. PAT] ------------------------------ From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) Subject: Manual Switchboards Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 06:51:30 PST Organization: Shadownet I'm having an argument wth someone about how and why the phone system was automated. One thing that's come up is the question of how many phone lines a "standard" manual operator position (cordboard) could handle. He thinks they could handle an entire 10,000 line exchange. I know he's nuts, but I don't have the sources to prove it. Just how many lines *would* a single operator handle? Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow) shadow@krypton.rain.com <--preferred leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com <--last resort [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: They could handle many thousands of lines; usually if it was more than one operator could handle then the lines were multipled, making an appearance every third operator position. If there were about a thousand lines each operator would have about five hundred lines directly in front of her with two hundred fifty (different lines) on either side of her. As an example: position 1 (left) has two panels with numbers 751 through 1000 on the left side and 1 through 250 on the right side. Position 2 (center) would have 251 through 500 on the left side and 501 through 750 on the right side. Position 3 would have 751 through 1000 on the left side and 1 through 250 on the right side. Now each group of numbers has two operators available to answer calls and extend the connection: 1-250 can be answered by operators 1, 2 or 3. 251-500 can be answered by operators 1 or 2. 501-750 can be answered by operators 2 or 3. 751-1000 can be answered by operators 2 or 3. If the number requested was not directly in front of the operator then it would be either immediatly to her left or right, on one of the panels of the operator to her left or right. A subscriber with multiple appearances (in our example, numbers 1 through 250 would light up on the board at each appearance, allowing the first operator available to answer. As soon as some operator answered, the light would go out at all appearances. If the caller requested a subscriber whose line was multipled at more than one position, the extending operator could either look up and see that another cord was already plugged in the jack and report 'the line is busy' or if the jack did not have a cord in it there was always the possibility it did have a cord plugged in at some other multiple (operator's position) so the extending operator had to 'test for busy' before plugging in. She would touch the tip (of the cord) to the sleeve of the jack and if she heard *nothing* it meant the line was in use via some other position. She would report 'line is busy'. If she heard a 'crackle' sound -- a little bit of static from the connection -- then the line was free and she could plug in and ring on it. Now if you had more than a couple thousand lines, then the 'clusters' (of three positions each) had links between them. Subscribers 1001 through 2000 and 2001 through 3000 were treated the same way as 1 through 1000 by the operators in the group of three (usually) assigned to that bunch. The problem came up when subscriber 1 wanted to talk to subscriber 3000, who was on a group of three positions on the other side of the room or maybe further down the line on the same side of the room. Each side of the room generally had 20-25 positions, or operators. In addition to the 500 or so subscribers for which the operator had direct responsib- ility, she had jacks on the board linked to the other clusters around the room. So if the caller wanted a number outside her domain, such as subscriber 1 wishes to talk to subscriber 3000, then she would extend the call to the (one of a few) jacks on her board labled for the desired cluster. She would plug in and within a second or two hear a slight 'tick' on the line which meant the corresponding operator on the other side of the room had also plugged in. The calling operator would then repeat the number, and the corresponding operator would finish the connection. When I worked at the University of Chicago phone room while I was in high school (late 1950's) the phone service was entirely manual with about six thousand extensions. I think they had around 35-40 positions, or operator work stations. Each part of the campus had its own group of incoming lines, but the extension numbers were unique in each case. Each of the student dormitories had their own switchboard, typically a smaller one or two position board with maybe ten to fifteen campus extensions coming in as 'outside lines' and two or three hundred student rooms each with phones. In the UC phone room we could not ring direct to student rooms; we could only ring the switchboard serving that dorm. In a couple of cases the switchboards for the student dorms were right there in the same phone room as we were! Most however were actually in the dorm buildings themselves. Some of the dorms also had 'true' outside lines (that is, lines from Illinois Bell) in addition to the outside lines to the campus phone system. The whole thing went centrex -- student dorms and all, using three exchanges from Bell -- in the late 1960's. Illinois Bell built a new central office to handle it all on 60th Street, and UC moved its phone room right across the alley from the new CO. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 15:55:59 -0800 From: Babu Mengelepouti Reply-To: dialtone@vcn.bc.ca Organization: US Secret Service Subject: AT&T And Other Interesting Developments A couple of interesting developments with AT&T: - AT&T Worldnet, like some other ISPs (such as ibm.net) is giving up their "unlimited access" policy starting in May. The $19.95 per month plan will be called "standard plan," and will offer only 150 hours per month. - AT&T is offering a very competitive 9cpm rate with no monthly minimum or fee to AT&T worldnet subscribers. To others, the rate is 10cpm with a $1.00 monthly fee. It is not stated whether this includes the popular new "fcc related charge" that Sprint and others are billing. The rate that telcoes are billing varies. I have accounts with numerous carriers; MCI is calculating the "fcc related" charge as a nebulous percentage of a nebulous amount of toll traffic. In my contacts with them I don't think anyone knows exactly how it works. AT&T is charging a monthly fee that may or may not be included in monthly fees they already charge; like with MCI nobody seems to know for sure. Sprint is charging a flat 85 cents per line PICed to them, meaning that they're likely to make money on the deal. And Worldcom is charging 58 cents per line PICed to them. Apparently the FCC has been up to levying other charges for the "universal service fund" also. I got a notice from my paging carrier that they intend to charge me $1.03 additional per month; given that I have already paid them for a year in advance I am not sure what this means. These are interesting times. As expensive as phone service is getting, I am seriously considering getting rid of it. There is an ample supply of public phones around campus (which allow local and on-campus calls), and I can call most toll-free numbers from payphones. Most people who need to contact me may do so on my pager, until it gets too expensive to keep that as well. And I get internet access via campus. I guess college students (or TELECOM Digest editors) with no money are not considered when "universal service" comes into play. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 23:46:08 (EST From: Ron Schnell Subject: MCI New Rate Raped Me I, like many others, was enticed by MCI's new online-only long distance sign-up (9 cents per minute 24 hours a day, except 5 cent Sundays, $5 minimum). What I did not notice in the small print, ended up costing me plenty. By filling out the form, you also authorize MCI to carry your "local long distance." I already pay BellSouth $7 per month to have unlimited calling from 954 to most of 305. MCI charged me .10 per minute to call 305, so my bill was huge (and still included the $7 charge to BellSouth!). Talking with MCI on the phone got them to discontinue carrying my local long distance but a refusal to credit the charges for the calls. This sucks. I asked for a supervisor, but they were "all busy," and one would call me back. This was Thursday, and I am still waiting. Hopefully others will read this and not have the same problem. Any advice on how to get the charges backed out would be appreciated. Since MCI requires billing go to a credit card (I used my check card in this case), I will probably dispute the charges if nothing else works. Ron ronnie@space.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 12:22:13 -0400 From: The Old Bear Subject: FCC and Internet LD Access Fees Internet long-distance calls could cost more AT&T supports extending fees - Market seen growing WASHINGTON (AP) -- The small but growing number of people who make long-distance calls over the Internet could face higher charges under an idea being discussed by regulators. The Federal Communications Commission, in a report to Congress due April 10, is expected to recommend that Internet phone companies pay fees -- just as traditional long-distance companies now do -- to support universally available phone service in the United States. "We're considering that and then what we would say in our report, in essence, would be, `This makes sense,'" said a senior FCC official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, asked the FCC to report how it intends to overhaul a labyrinth of subsidies that support affordable phone service. Fledgling Internet phone companies such as IDT Corp. and Level III are not required by the FCC to pay fees to support universal telephone service as traditional phone companies are. But now the FCC is considering whether that distinction should continue. "Does it make sense to treat phone calls placed over Internet type facilities differently?" the official said. "They probably should be treated just like any other phone call." AT&T supports extending fees AT&T, which plans to offer Internet calling soon, supports extending the fees to Internet phone companies, said spokesman Jim McGann. AT&T has asked the FCC to do just that. FCC Commissioner Michael Powell said the commission has not made any final decisions about the report's recommendations. "Any and all possible responses are still under active consideration," he said. While not commenting on the report's recommendations, FCC Chairman Bill Kennard said in a statement: "We must ensure that Americans have affordable access to telecommunications service as we promote the continued development of information technology." The report to Congress is likely to be followed up by the FCC with an inquiry or proposed rules that would lay the groundwork for requiring Internet phone companies to pay fees to support the affordable phone service, FCC officials said. The FCC has not decided whether fees, if any, for these companies would be at the same level, or assessed the same way, as fees paid by traditional phone companies. Internet long-distance calls can be made on personal computers or on the telephone with calls being routed over the Internet or some other data network. Quality is patchy, however, and special oftware is sometimes needed. Market seen growing Currently, Internet phone calls account for less than a half of 1 percent of all telephone time. By 2003, however, they could account for 10 to 15 percent of the long-distance market, said consultant Jeffrey Kagan of Kagan Telecom Associates in Atlanta. In most cases, Internet phone companies -- just as traditional phone companies -- rely on local phone companies to begin and end calls. Long-distance companies pay local companies fees for this service. A portion of the fees goes to support affordable phone service. If Internet phone companies are required to pay such fees, they are likely to pass them along to consumers in the form of higher rates. Long-distance companies typically pass along their fees -- roughly 5 1/2 cents a minute -- to customers. "Depending on what they did, it could very well double the cost of an Internet telephone call from 5 cents a minute to 10 cents a minute," IDT president Jim Courter said in an interview. "It would be devastating." Beginning Monday, IDT will offer free Internet calls for people to oppose the idea at the FCC and to lawmakers in Congress, a spokeswoman said. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 11:59:30 -0400 From: Angus TeleManagement Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #127, April 6, 1998 ************************************************************ * * * TELECOM UPDATE * * Angus TeleManagement's Weekly Telecom Newsbulletin * * http://www.angustel.ca * * Number 127: April 6, 1998 * * * * Publication of Telecom Update is made possible by * * generous financial support from: * * * * Bell Canada ................. http://www.bell.ca/ * * City Dial Network Services .. http://www.citydial.com/ * * Computer Talk Technology .... http://icescape.com/ * * fONOROLA .................... http://www.fonorola.com/ * * Lucent Technologies ......... http://www.lucent.com/ * * * ************************************************************ IN THIS ISSUE: ** Bell to Bundle Wired & Wireless Service ** Perot Out as LNP Provider ** MetroNet Announces Free Service Offer ** fONOROLA Joins Continental Network Consortium ** Business Rate Reductions Sought ** BC Tel, MTS Raise Residential Rates ** MT&T, Island Tel Defer Residential Increase ** MTS Expands, Reprices Business Internet Services ** BC Telecom Tests High-Speed Wireless Internet Access ** 877 Toll-Free Now in Service ** Clearnet Begins Service in Calgary ** Bell Mobility Reduces Off-Peak Rates ** StatsCan Reports 40% Cellular Growth Rate ** U.S. Threatens WTO Action Over Canadian Rules ** Cantel Appoints Sales VP ** CAIP Elects New Board Members ** Rolm Newsgroup Formed ** ITU Reports on Universal Access ** Correction: Bell Megalink ** Fill Up Your Calendar ============================================================ BELL TO BUNDLE WIRED & WIRELESS SERVICE: On April 2, Bell Canada asked the CRTC to approve "SimplyOne," a service that provides a cellphone with the same phone number as the customer's wired phone and aggregates LD calls from both under one discount plan. PEROT OUT AS LNP PROVIDER: Following Perot Systems' failure to meet scheduled milestones, the Canadian Local Number Portability consortium is now negotiating with Lockheed Martin to provide Canada's LNP database system. ** On March 31, MetroNet told the CRTC that the scheduled LNP introduction dates cannot possibly be met and asked that the telcos be ordered to provide an interim solution. METRONET ANNOUNCES FREE SERVICE OFFER: On April 1, MetroNet Communications announced the commercial availability of its local business service in Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, and Montreal. The company is offering one month of free local, long distance, and Internet service to new customers. fONOROLA JOINS CONTINENTAL NETWORK CONSORTIUM: fONOROLA, American Communications Services, and IXC Communications have formed InterconX, a consortium to coordinate one-stop shopping for their 34,000 km of fiber in the U.S. and Canada. BUSINESS RATE REDUCTIONS SOUGHT: To meet Price Cap constraints, several telcos have filed applications to reduce and simplify business local rates effective May 1: ** BC Tel proposes to decrease business single line rates in the Lower Mainland to $44.95 and in Victoria to $54.75. Multiline service in the Lower Mainland will drop to $57.55. ** MTS wants multiline rates of $49.58 (bands A-C) and $50.65 (bands D-E) across all trunk group sizes. ** MT&T proposes one rate ($49.95) for all single line business customers. ** Island Tel proposes one rate for all single line ($45.00) and multiline ($69.25) business customers. ** As we reported last week, Bell Canada wants to reduce all basic business rates to $39.95. Since this rate does not pass the imputation test in Band D, the CRTC has asked for public comments by April 13. BC TEL, MTS RAISE RESIDENTIAL RATES: BC Tel and MTS have elected to increase residential rates by 40 cents (BC Tel) and 49 cents (MTS) across all rate bands, retroactive to January 1, as allowed in CRTC Decision 98-2. Both telcos plan small residential increases again on May 1. MT&T, ISLAND TEL DEFER RESIDENTIAL INCREASE: The telcos in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island will defer the CRTC- allowed residential increases. MTS EXPANDS, REPRICES BUSINESS INTERNET SERVICES: MTS Advanced now offers Manitoba businesses ADSL Internet access for $129.95/month. T-1 access, previously $10,595/month, is now $1,995/month. BC TELECOM TESTS HIGH-SPEED WIRELESS INTERNET ACCESS: BC Telecom will conduct a six-month technical trial of a wireless Internet access system that downloads at 1.5 Mbps. 877 TOLL-FREE NOW IN SERVICE: The new 877 toll-free code went into service on April 5. CLEARNET BEGINS SERVICE IN CALGARY: Clearnet digital PCS service is now available in the Calgary metropolitan area. ** Clearnet added 46,920 digital wireless customers in the first quarter: 34,032 for its PCS service and 12,888 for Mike. BELL MOBILITY REDUCES OFF-PEAK RATES: Bell Mobility has revised its pricing. Digital PCS plans now offer off-peak airtime for 10 cents/minute. STATSCAN REPORTS 40% CELLULAR GROWTH RATE: According to Statistics Canada, between 1987 and 1996 cellular revenues grew at a compounded annual rate of 40%, and the number of employees almost tripled. http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/980401/d980401.htm U.S. THREATENS WTO ACTION OVER CANADIAN RULES: U.S. Trade Representative Charlene Barshevsky says Canada must remove its prohibition on routing overseas calls through the U.S. by August 1 or face a challenge in the World Trade Organization. CANTEL APPOINTS SALES VP: Rogers Cantel has appointed Patrick J. Bennett, formerly of Sprint PCS, as Senior Vice- President, Sales, effective April 20. CAIP ELECTS NEW BOARD MEMBERS: The Canadian Association of Internet Providers has elected four new members to its 12- person Board: Julie Garcia (AOL Canada), Chris Scatliff (Uunet Canada), John Nemanic (Internet Direct), and Margaret Row (Internet Kingston). http://www.caip.ca ROLM NEWSGROUP FORMED: Peel Memorial Hospital has launched an Internet mailing list for Rolm PBX users. To subscribe, send the message "join rolm_list" to listmaster@pmh.on.ca ITU REPORTS ON UNIVERSAL ACCESS: The International Telecommunication Union has released a study of universal access to telecommunications, focusing on developing countries. http://www.itu.int/indicators CORRECTION -- BELL MEGALINK: Bell Canada has filed for a rate reduction for Megalink service -- not Megaroute, as reported in Telecom Update #126. FILL UP YOUR CALENDAR: The Angus TeleManagement Web site lists nearly 100 telecom events scheduled during the next six months: go to http://www.angustel.ca and click Telecom Calendar on the main menu. ** For a more selective listing of major North American trade shows and conferences, see the "Calendar" column in each issue of Telemanagement. To subscribe, call 1-800-686-5050 ext 225 or go to http://www.angustel.ca/teleman/tm-sub.html ============================================================ HOW TO SUBMIT ITEMS FOR TELECOM UPDATE E-MAIL: editors@angustel.ca FAX: 905-686-2655 MAIL: TELECOM UPDATE Angus TeleManagement Group 8 Old Kingston Road Ajax, Ontario Canada L1T 2Z7 =========================================================== HOW TO SUBSCRIBE (OR UNSUBSCRIBE) TELECOM UPDATE is provided in electronic form only. There are two formats available: 1. The fully-formatted edition is posted on the World Wide Web on the first business day of the week. Point your browser to http://www.angustel.ca/update/up.html 2. The e-mail edition is distributed free of charge. To subscribe, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should contain only the two words: subscribe update To stop receiving the e-mail edition, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should say only: unsubscribe update [Your e-mail address] =========================================================== COPYRIGHT AND DISCLAIMER: All contents copyright 1998 Angus TeleManagement Group Inc. All rights reserved. For further information, including permission to reprint or reproduce, please e-mail rosita@angustel.ca or phone 905-686-5050 ext 225. The information and data included has been obtained from sources which we believe to be reliable, but Angus TeleManagement makes no warranties or representations whatsoever regarding accuracy, completeness, or adequacy. Opinions expressed are based on interpretation of available information, and are subject to change. If expert advice on the subject matter is required, the services of a competent professional should be obtained. ============================================================ ------------------------------ From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 13:50:55 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "Hands-On ATM", David E. McDysan/Darren L. Spohn Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKHDOATM.RVW 980130 "Hands-On ATM", David E. McDysan/Darren L. Spohn, 1998, 0-07-045047-1, U$49.95 %A David E. McDysan %A Darren L. Spohn %C 300 Water Street, Whitby, Ontario L1N 9B6 %D 1998 %G 0-07-045047-1 %I McGraw-Hill Ryerson/Osborne %O U$49.95 800-565-5758 fax: 905-430-5020 louisea@McGrawHill.ca %P 641 p. %T "Hands-On ATM" This book is, in a sense, volume one of the second edition of "ATM: Theory and Application." It contains the higher level, conceptual material as well as practical vendor information, while leaving the details to the actual second edition of the theoretical book. The intended audience is the data communications manager as well as the networking professional, and it should also be able to perform as a textbook for a short high-level view of ATM or a course on recent networking technologies. Chapters are short and many. Part one is a conceptual backgrounder, with chapters on business forces driving the adoption of ATM (Ayschronous Transfer Mode), ATM in the marketplace, changes in the network computing environment, foundation technologies for ATM, and ATM introductory concepts. ATM basics become more detailed in part two, covering some of the core operating specifications, the ATM protocol families, signalling and routing, support for voice/video and wide area network data, ATM in local area networks, internetworking using ATM (with excellent coverage of Internet Protocol over ATM), and management and testing. Of course, ATM does you no good if you can't get it, so part three looks at available ATM products in both hardware and software. This starts with a list of ATM device categories and continues with edge and backbone switches (with pages of valuable but not altogether easy to read comparison charts), enterprise and LAN backbone devices, workgroup and desktop products, and comparisons of switch vendors by function. Equally, having ATM devices does you no good without ATM service, so part four reviews carriers primarily in the United States, but also worldwide. Chapters include service access methods, US providers, and (to a very limited extent) global providers. Part five looks at network design, with the design process, practical considerations, and case studies. Part six compares ATM with other technologies, and looks to the future. McDysan and Spohn aim for a "light, easy reading style." Readability I will grant, but this is not the book you want to take to the beach. The occasional attempts at humour are self-conscious, and therefore awkward. However, the material does hit exactly the right tone for its major audience: the telecom manager. The principles are covered well and explained clearly. Practical guidelines and vendor listings are a valuable component missing from too many other works. For the supervisor starting to become involved with ATM, or for the boss trying to decide whether to become involved, this book is the best reference I've seen to date. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1998 BKHDOATM.RVW 980130 ------------------------------ From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 10:58:45 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "The State of the Net", Peter Clemente Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKSTTNET.RVW 980130 "The State of the Net", Peter Clemente, 1998, 0-07-011979-1, U$24.95 %A Peter Clemente %C 300 Water Street, Whitby, Ontario L1N 9B6 %D 1998 %G 0-07-011979-1 %I McGraw-Hill Ryerson/Osborne %O U$24.95 905-430-5000 fax: 905-430-5020 louisea@McGrawHill.ca %P 179 p. %T "The State of the Net" First of all, an awful lot of people who get excited by the title of this book are going to be disappointed. The state under consideration is primarily a mercantile entity. The emphasis is on demographics with a business, and more particularly marketing, orientation. Yet another shock awaits the eager entrepreneur who wants to use the information for those very purposes. The information is not based on the many metrics that do exist in diverse places on the net, but rather in a poll of a thousand "truly representative" Internet users. In fact, this isn't the state of the net, but the net of the States, since the poll was based on a telephone query of random US phone numbers. Oh, and they had to (in descending order of numbers of phones contacted) agree to participate, not immediately hang up, not be a machine, not be working, and speak English. To be included in the study, respondents had to use any Internet application except email. (It would have been interesting to find out how many people *only* used email, but this information is not given.) (It is also very interesting to note that the one calculation we are given from hard data in Appendix B is flatly wrong: an estimate of the total [American] population of the Internet seems to be based on an assumption of one phone number per person, rather than per household.) Chapter one is an introduction, briefly stating Clemente's presumption that there are four types of Internet users. Chapter two is a business oriented history of the net, plus some projections for the future. Chapter three lists the demographic information, and we find that (surprise, surprise) those who have computers at home and pay for Internet connectivity in order to have access to information have higher than average income, more than average education, and that as more people are getting on to the net the net numbers are getting closer to that of the general population. (The only real revelation that I found was that more netizens are married than is the case in the general population, and fewer are divorced or separated.) "What Consumers Are Doing on the Net" is the title of chapter four. Although there is some information about activity and purchasing, most of the content deals with issues of brands of software used and modem speed. Chapter five, on the "Internet household," is much the same, looking at time online plus some geographical distinctives. (Surprise again: there relatively are more Internet households in California than Mississippi.) Chapter six has plenty of data on Internet segments, or different groups, but only seems to have one point: a rather bald assertion that "personal" users are the most significant. Chapter seven is a reasonable, though far from astonishing, introduction to marketing activities on the Internet. Appendices A and B seem to be primarily about why the research that went into this book is so good. The conclusions Clemente draws are not necessarily wrong, but are definitely overstated. For example, there is the assertion that nine out of ten Internauts are online for personal reasons. He admits that ninety percent personal use, sixty percent business use, forty percent academic use (and an unreported amount of corporate use) means that there has to be some overlap, but he allows his statement to stand. If you are a newcomer to the net, and haven't been paying much attention up until now, the data presented in this book will give you a quick introduction to the net, and won't be entirely off the mark. What details there are will be of more use in deciding on a product or type of business than it will be in guiding the marketing or operations of a given venture. The tables of statistics and sometimes facile analysis give little indication of the cultural environment in which any business must function. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1998 BKSTTNET.RVW 980130 ------------------------------ From: Michael A. Covington Subject: 5 a.m. Junk Faxes From Global Computer Supplies Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 13:33:13 -0400 Organization: Covington Innovations Those of you who do business with Global Computer Supplies may want to note that they have been bothering my wife with junk faxes (advertisements) at our home at 5 or 6 a.m. (the latter after Daylight Saving Time began; actually the same time of day). They give a number to call to be taken off the list, but that's not good enough -- getting me up at 5 a.m. even ONCE is too much! Does the junk fax law have a loophole that permits sending ads to former customers? If not, they're breaking it. I also consider their choice of time of day to constitute harassment. Surely (since they sell fax machines) they are aware that some people have fax machines in their homes! Also, can someone tell me what telephone company serves 516-625-4329 (the apparent originator of the junk faxes) and whom I should contact there to complain? Michael A. Covington covington@mindspring.com Author, Astrophotography for the Amateur http://www.mindspring.com/~covington/astro ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #52 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Apr 14 22:50:22 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA17239; Tue, 14 Apr 1998 22:50:22 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 22:50:22 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199804150250.WAA17239@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #53 TELECOM Digest Tue, 14 Apr 98 22:50:00 EDT Volume 18 : Issue 53 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson BellSouth to Introduce "BusyConnect" (?) Feature (Mark J. Cuccia) Denver Final: 303 10D Mandatory Sept. 1, New Users Get 720 (Don Heiberg) CPUC Approves Sharing Information on Risky Customers (Anthony Argyriou) Callers Pay High Price for Dialing Long-Distance Area Code 500 (Tad Cook) Strangest LD Promotion Yet (Linc Madison) Upstart Offers Free U.S. Residential Telephone Service (jnorton@vol.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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 17:22:18 -0500 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: BellSouth to Introduce "BusyConnect" (?) Feature I was alerted by a reader of TELECOM Digest that the BellSouth website announces that BellSouth will soon be offering "BusyConnect" service. Readers of TELECOM Digest might remember that Bell Canada (and other Stentor/Canada telcos?) and NYNEX have offered their own marketing name versions of what BellSouth will be offering. "BusyConnect" is similar in many ways to AT&T's (abominable) "True Messages" interrupting prompts. What will happen is that on BellSouth handled inTRA-LATA calls (either local or toll), if the called line is busy (as determined by the SS7 signaling network and AIN platform), instead of the calling party hearing a busy-signal, they will rather hear a recorded announcement indicating that the line is busy. And for a fee of 75-cents, they can press '1' to activate the per-use "Repeat Dial" CLASS ("Touchstar") feature. If the calling party did enter '1', the AIN will then DTMF a '*66' vertical code back to the originating central office, thus queueing up the line for the CLASS/Touchstar "Repeat Dial" service. If the called (busy) number becomes available within approx. 30 minutes, then the originating central office will signal the calling party back with a 'special ring' (short-short-long). This is the (usual) ring-pattern on signal-backs with *66 (Repeat Dial) or *69 (Return last incoming call). Some people _subscribe_ to repeat dial on a monthly basis. Some people (including myself) have BellSouth's "Complete Choice" plan, which for a fixed monthly fee allows one to have as many (or even all) of (most) available Custom Calling / CLASS / "TouchStar" / Vertical services on their line. But even the "monthly" customers of *66 Repeat Dial will get the recorded prompt which indicates the "per-use" charge of 75-cents! I seem to remember that Bell Canada's version of BusyConnect _ALSO_ gave an option for the calling party to record a message (for a fee) for delayed network delivery to the called party (a-la-AT&T's "True (?) Messages". But I don't think that BellSouth will necessarily offer that capability at this time (probably regulatory/tariff/divestiture situations). And also (a-la-AT&T True-Messages), BellSouth also plans to offer a BusyConnect-like prompt on BellSouth-handled inTRA-LATA local/toll calls which have been ringing with no-answer after a predetermined amount of time. The BellSouth website indicates that if the caller takes no action at the recorded prompt, the prompt will play itself a second time. If no action is again taken by the calling party, the network will drop the calling party. Well, I remember reading in TELECOM Digest about a year ago, that when Canada and NYNEX introduced their versions of BusyConnect, that those with auto-dialing CPE (particularly in FAX machines and Modems) were unable to have their CPE-dialers to be able to automatically disconnect and automatically keep redialing the desired number to try to get a ringing connection, since there was no 'clean and long enough' busy signal that the auto-dialing device was listening for. Well, Bellcore (and now LM-NANPA) has indicated to Vertical Service *XX codes to toggle off/on or per-call over-ride such BusyConnect call treatments. *02 (11-02) will toggle the line back and forth, from receiving or not receiving originating BusyConnect prompt treatment. *03 (11-03) will per-call over-ride any possible BusyConnect treatment on that originating line. And both of those codes were mentioned in the posts to TELECOM Digest regarding Canada's and NYNEX' versions of "BusyConnect". Also, certain originating lines will be default set _not_ to receive BusyConnect prompt treatment in BellSouth-land. Such will include PBX lines, Centrex, most (or all) lines classed as "Business", Cellulars, payphones, etc. And calls _to_ such PBX/Centrex/Cellular/Payphones will most likely not receive BusyConnect prompts. Also, (POTS) residential lines which have requested BLOCKING of pay-per-call *66 Repeat Dial will be flagged _NOT_ to receive any BusyConnect prompts. I did talk to a BellSouth rep in Atlanta regarding their new Busy- Connect 'feature'(?), and was told the following ... BellSouth is _NOT_ planning on offering the toggle off/on or per-call over-ride *02/*03 codes initially. (More on that later) BellSouth is _NOT_ going to initially offer the service on most/all business-classed lines. For a residential line to _NOT_ have BusyConnect prompts, one will have to have Repeat Dialing turned off from their line, and then have the PAY-per-use feature disabled as well! :( The feature is initially going to be offered on originating calls from WECO ('Loose-End') #5ESS switches. BellSouth is working with Nortel to get the feature available on calls originating from DMS-100's. And it will be about another year before the feature will be available from WECO #1AESS switches. (I'm served by a #1AESS, and I would HOPE that they will be offering the *02/*03 toggle/over-ride codes by then). When I asked the Atlanta rep WHY they aren't going to offer the *02/*03 toggle-off or over-ride codes, I was told that there are some problems with offering the over-rides in Nortel DMS offices. And they wanted a uniform service offering among all types of switches. They want to roll out the feature "ASAP", and waiting for the software or hardware patch to allow *02/*03 over-ride would delay the deployment of BusyConnect, as well as make it more expensive for them. IMAGINE THAT! They are giving me something that I did NOT ask for, NOR do I want, as my fax machine needs to HEAR a busy signal, but they are going to FORCE the prompts on me!!! (Because it might be too 'expensive' or delay deployment of the service to offer me the *02/*03 toggle-off codes). The rep asked me if the fax machine were on a business line, since business lines won't get originating busy-connect prompts. He seemed 'puzzled' that someone would have a modem or fax machine at their residence!!! (I wonder what was in HIS mind! Ironic ... he represents BellSouth's new AIN features, yet he wonders WHY someone would have a modem or fax machine at their home!) I also told the rep that many elderly people might be confused by the prompts, and that they might be accidently running up a bill. He told me that the BusyConnect prompts have been test-marketed (and happily accepted - yeah-I'll _BET_) in Florida, in areas with a large population of retirees and elderly people. (Yes, but many who retire to Florida are quite wealthy and educated upper-level people!) Well, while _I_ have *66 Repeat Dial in my Complete Choice package, and when BusyConnect comes to my central office, pressing-1 on the prompts won't chalk up a 75-cent charge, I'm going to have to inform many elderly relatives about what Bell is doing now, and that they might want to consider getting *66 (and even *69) pay-per-use BLOCKED! I've already told them that they might want to consider getting PAY- per-use 3-way BLOCKED (particularly if they are served out of a #5ESS or DMS-100, since from those switches, you don't initiate a per-use 3-way with *71 / 11-71, but rather have FULL FLASHING privilages, at 75-cents-a-pop, during an existing call!) Incidently, BellSouth does NOT have a monthly price-cap (at least not in Louisiana) on lines which pay-per-use *66 / *69 / 3-way! :( OTHER states/LECs _DO_ have a monthly cap at twice the subscribed monthly fee - why can't BellSouth / Louisiana!? I also asked the rep if BusyConnect were tariffed by the Louisiana PSC, and was told it was. Well, I think I'm going to give my friends at the PSC in Baton Rouge a call about this - particularly if BellSouth is not going to allow use of *02/*03 toggle/override. MOST of my posts over the past few years, regarding BellSouth, have been VERY favorable towards them. As I compare BellSouth service with that of others in the US and Canada, as I read about other areas in the Digest, I still feel that BellSouth is the _BEST_ LEC in the NANP. BUT certain departments or managers at BellSouth should REALLY consider the CONSUMER/CUSTOMER, FIRST, and do EVERYTHING possible to make SURE that features should NEVER be FORCED/THRUST on us! If I get any info from the Public Service Commission (and hopefully favorable), I'll post it here. 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: Donald M. Heiberg Subject: Denver Final: 303 10D Mandatory Sept. 1, New Users Get 720 Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 07:23:19 -0600 Denver, Colorado, Rocky Mountain News, Tuesday, April 14, 1998 http://www.insidedenver.com/yourmoney/0414code0.html Area-code remedy to start Sept. 1=20 PUC gives nod to 10-digit dialing in 303 area; new customers to get 720 code By Rebecca Cantwell Rocky Mountain News Staff Writer AT A GLANCE Starting Sept. 1, dialing 303 in front of local calls will be mandatory. New area code 720 will be given new users in 303 territory. That means your teenager could have an area code different from yours if you add a line to your home. Dialing 303 or 720 in front of a number will not make a local call long-distance. In fact, the local area for 303 calls will be expanded this fall. --------------------------------------------------- Residents of the 303 dialing area will dial 10 numbers for all local calls starting Sept. 1, the Colorado Public Utilities Commission said Monday. Under the ruling, some residential and business customers also may end up with two area codes under the same roof. A new area code 720 will be allotted to all new customers in the existing 303 territory starting this fall. PUC members rejected the idea they explored in recent hearings of imposing the new area code only on wireless phone and pager users.=20 After months of seeking ways to avoid or delay 10-digit local dialing, the commission essentially acknowledged defeat, with a 2-1 majority deciding it's time to impose the unpleasant duty. After months of seeking out ways to avoid or delay 10-digit local dialing, the commission essentially acknowledged defeat, with a 2-1 majority deciding it's time to impose the unpleasant duty. But the regulators extended a trial dialing period from June 1 to Sept. 1, at which time putting the area code in front of local calls will be required. "I'm a little disappointed we haven't been able to achieve number conservation of significance," said Chairman Robert Hix. Experts estimate that about 3 million 303-area numbers remain unused, with most of them allocated to telecommunications companies in blocks of 10,000 based on prefixes. But the commission was unable to figure out a way to free the unusued numbers quickly enough to avoid running out of available 303-area numbers. The 720-area numbers will be allotted to new users when 303-area numbers run out. A family adding a second line or a business putting in a line for a fax machine could be among those with two area codes in use at the same location, with everyone needing to dial the area code with the number. PUC spokesman Terry Bote noted that when people move from the area, 303-area numbers will go back into a pool, so some will always be available to future users. Starting in September, "local number portability" is supposed to be available in Denver, so that people moving within the metro area could take their number with them. The commission set Sept. 1 for the start of mandatory 10-digit dialing after deciding that's how long remaining 303-area numbers will hold out. A trial period began in February to give residents and businesses time to get used to dialing 303 in front of local calls, and to reprogram necessary equipment. Burglar and fire alarm companies, which sought more time to make the changes, will be allowed to apply for waivers if they can't meet the Sept 1. deadline. Monday's two-hour discussion illustrated the commissioners' divisions over the complex issues. The use of telephone numbers nationally has exploded since 1995, when competition in local markets dawned. Commissioner Vince Majkowski had urged his colleagues to stick with the decision made last summer to impose area code 720 over the existing 303 territory. "If we could go back a year and a half, my decisions would have been different," Majkowski said Monday. "But to turn back now or delay now will not be in the public interest." Commissioner Brent Alderfer argued Monday that more effort is needed to recapture unused 303-area numbers before forcing people to dial 10-digit local numbers. Alderfer said his second choice was for a wireless-only area code. "The lawyer in me says to forget it, but the hint of an engineer in me says there's a win-win," he said. "We have a duty to fully play out these 303 numbers." The tie came down to Hix, as it has on numerous occasions on area code issues. Hix noted the commission could get embroiled in a nasty legal battle over trying to recapture unused numbers from telephone companies. And trying to impose a wireless-only overlay would probably lead to lawsuits and fights with the Federal Communications Commission, which has ruled against such use of area codes. "We need to go forward and give some certainty to the public," Hix said. Members of an industry public education task force, which postponed some of the advertising they had planned for this spring, had asked for two months to gear up their campaign. Mary Ireland of AT&T Wireless, who also serves with that group, was one of the relieved industry observers watching Monday's debate. "With all the legal issues and timing issues, it's very much in the public interest to go with an all services overlay," she said. Monday's oral decision will be followed by a written legal ruling, with the opportunity for appeals. ------------------------------ From: anthony@alphageo.com (Anthony Argyriou) Subject: CPUC Approves Sharing Information on Risky Cuustomers Date: Sun, 05 Apr 1998 20:07:58 GMT Organization: Alpha Geotechnical Reply-To: anthony@alphageo.com California Public Utilities Commission 107 S. Broadway, Rm. 5109, Los Angeles CA 90012 NEWS RELEASE (CPUC news releases are listed and linked at http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/news/news_index.html ) CPUC APPROVES SHARING INFORMATION ON RISKY CUSTOMERS The California Public Utilities Commission yesterday approved the request of Air Touch Cellular Inc., Pacific Bell Mobile Services, Inc., Cox Communications PCS, L.P., and Sprint PCS, Inc. to share customer credit information on risky customers. These cellular, pager and PCS companies will list the names of customers - who have disconnected service and have not paid their bills - on a shared data base which will be checked when customers request service. If a prospective customer's name appears on the list, the customer may be required to pay a deposit based on the former usage before the customer will be given new service. This should reduce the amount of revenue utilities are not able to collect from the customers who have not paid their bills. In turn, this benefits customers who pay their bills because the utilities recover this loss from the other customers through rates, just like any business may recover a loss as part of the cost of its product. The service is similar to other credit check systems now used by local service telephone companies. Other cellular, pager and PCS companies may join the system once their requests are approved by the CPUC and they have notified their customers that they will share information about their customers who do not pay their closing bills. Anthony Argyriou http://www.alphageo.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: One thing AT&T had in their favor for many years following divestiture was that they refused to share any such information with any of the other companies. If they chose to disconnect someone for non-payment the customer would merely sign up with someone else. Now although this did remove some of the incen- tive for the delinquent customer to pay -- other carriers would take him on no questions asked -- it none the less helped lower AT&T's rate of delinquencies since they were more than happy to encourage the deadbeats to move along and go get (what amounted to) free service from one of the competitors. Since the rate of collection on delinquent customers is very poor anyway, AT&T figured they were not losing anything much, and it was certainly a diabolical way of passing some added grief on to your competitors: let them have all the deadbeats, increasing *their* collection costs and lowering *their* profits. (Here, MCI, have a couple thousand of our best customers; gee, we sure are sorry to lose them!) I am reminded of the old trick landlords use when they want to get rid of a slow- or non-paying tenant. The tenant cannot move until he finds a new apartment, and the new landlord wants references from the old landlord. Now is the old landlord to tell the truth and have yet another month go by with a rotten tenant who is polluting his whole property (non-paying tenants are often times also disgusting, noisy, trouble-making tenants) sticking around because he has nowhere to move, or is the land- lord better off giving a bogus reference? Which do you suppose they do? ... "I really am going to be sorry to lose Mr. Jones as a tenant, but I was not able to offer him as good a deal as he is getting from you, and it would not be right to hold him to his lease here when he is able to have much better accomodations in your building. I strongly doubt that AT&T will participate in any such sharing of information program, even if it became national in scope. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Callers Pay High Price for Dialing Long-Distance on Area Code 500 Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 22:21:46 PDT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Callers Pay High Price for Dialing Long-Distance on Area Code 500 By R.F. Sharp, Lexington Herald-Leader, Ky. Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News Apr. 10--It's getting to the point that dialing an unfamiliar number can be a major risk. Just ask Lexington's Lee Allen. Someone with access to his phone -- he prefers not to say who -- made several calls to a number with a 500 prefix. The calls were forwarded to Vanuatu, a small island nation in the Pacific, not far from New Zealand. Talk about a long-distance call. Allen's phone bill rocketed from $118.62 to a staggering $2,342.38 in one month. "Everybody had a universal response when I showed them the bill," Allen said. "Their eyes got wide, their mouths made an 'O' and they did a little dance on their tiptoes." AT&T Media relations manager Andy Boisseau said that 500 numbers were originally created to allow customers to keep one phone number that would follow them everywhere. When used to call within the United States, the charge is only 20 cents per minute for the caller. When the calls are forwarded overseas, the often inflated charges of the country where the call terminates apply. Unlike 900 numbers, 500 numbers carrying "entertainment" services cannot bill callers directly. Instead the callers are billed as part of their long-distance bill. AT&T speculates that the 500 service operators are being compensated by foreign telephone administrations out of the high fees. The use of 500 numbers for this type of business has cropped up recently, with the calls being forwarded to three countries in particular: The Republic of Vanuatu, Antigua and Niue. One option AT&T has is to block all 500 calls made to those countries, but that raises issues that go beyond simple phone bills. "It's kind of a delicate issue: There are legitimate calls that go to those locations," Boisseau said. "It's difficult. You're dealing with State Department issues as well." As for customers confronted with eye-popping bills, the company will usually try to work something out, Boisseau said, either removing charges or arranging a payment schedule. "Generally, in cases like this there are allowances made," Boisseau said. "Assuming the customer doesn't show a record of this." This latest twist fits into a pattern: As soon as phone companies figure out how to prevent misuse, along comes a new way to separate consumers from their money. "It's hard to keep up with what they'll do next," said Dave Weller, spokesman for BellSouth. GTE spokesman Brack Marquette said that, depending on where they live, consumers can block long-distance calls, but there's no way to prevent calls to a single area code. He stressed the importance of checking phone bills. Not every irregularity will be as eye-catching as a $2,000 jump in a phone bill, he said. "Customers have got to read through their bills very carefully," Marquette said. While 500-number abuse hasn't been a particularly large problem for AT&T, the company would like to stop it before it becomes one. The company is moving to remove offending countries from those to which the calls can be forwarded, and to block the numbers that have received customer complaints. "Our attempt now is to nip it in the bud," Boisseau said. Allen has discussed his problem with representatives of AT&T. The company is removing the 500-number charges, much to his relief, he said. Still, the $2,300 bill was a shock, and Allen hopes that he can keep others from a similar jolt. Said Allen, "You've got to ask someone if they've got a good heart before you show them your bill." ------------------------------ From: Telecom@LincMad.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: Strangest LD Promotion Yet Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 04:21:03 -0700 Organization: LincMad Consulting; change NOSPAM to COM I've been seeing TV ads recently that win my prize for most bizarre long distance promotion yet. "Call 1-800-425-9873 for a !!FREE!! 12-minute reading from our genuine psychics." Yes, that's 12 minutes all in one call (not the first 20 seconds of 36 calls, then $4.99/minute, or whatever), and completely free. The catch? The fine print under the 800 number says, "To be eligible, caller must sign up for long distance carrier change." The ad says something about "great long distance rates," but doesn't say anything, even in the fine print, that identifies the reseller, much less the underlying carrier. I can't say that 12 minutes with a genuine psychotic is much of an inducement for me to change my long distance carrier, so I haven't called yet. On the other hand, I did recently switch long distance carriers, under a promotion that AOL is running. You get 5 cents/minute 24-by-7 for the introductory promotional rate, and then 9 cents/minute. The bill is supposed to be delivered to you online, but all I get is "the attempt to load http://...... failed" when I try. The underlying service is AT&T, but it's through a reseller called The Phone Company, using carrier code 1016746. I keep having visions of The President's Analyst ... ** Do not send me unsolicited commercial e-mail spam of any kind ** Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * Telecom@LincMad-com URL:< http://www.lincmad.com > * North American Area Codes & Splits >> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must change "NOSPAM" to "com" << ------------------------------ From: jnorton@vol.com Subject: Upstart Offers Free U.S. Residential Telephone Service Date: 14 Apr 1998 14:38:27 GMT Organization: All USENET -- http://www.Supernews.com BY JON VAN, CHICAGO TRIBUNE Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News Apr. 9--In the race to win long-distance phone customers by cutting rates, Thomas Hurkmans thinks he's got a deal you can't resist. Forget a dime a minute to call anyplace anytime or even a nickel a minute on Sundays. Instead, how about absolutely free? That's right, call anywhere in the country for free. There's only one catch: You have to listen to commercials first. Hurkmans' company, Duquesne Enterprises Inc., this week started signing up customers in Pittsburgh to test its free phone technology, and if things work as he hopes, the service will be available nationwide before year's end. A few experts say this high-tech wizardry is the wave of the future, an inevitable destination on the information superhighway, but many others say it's just a new twist on an old idea and that only cheapskates will be motivated to give up their time listening to commercials in return for free minutes on the phone. The people who sign up for the service, called Freeway, must fill out a questionnaire about themselves, their hobbies and their interests. The computer system handling Freeway is supposed to send individuals ads geared toward their tastes. ``If we know you're an avid reader, you might listen to a message from a bookstore,'' said Hurkmans, president of Pittsburgh-based Duquesne. Eventually, the system is intended to be interactive so that after callers hear an ad for an upcoming concert, for instance, they can punch a phone key to be connected to the box office and buy a ticket. Hurkmans system works like this: Subscribers call a toll-free number and enter a personal identification number. Then callers will choose how long they'd like to talk; the longer the call, the more 10 or 15-second commercials they'll hear before the call goes through. Callers will get a warning when their time is almost up, as they do on pay phones, and once time expires, the call is cut off. For his test, Duquesne Enterprises has signed up two large advertisers, Pittsburgh-based utility Duquesne Light Co. and the Pittsburgh Symphony, as well as some smaller firms. Hundreds of Pittsburgh-area customers have already signed up for the service, he said, and Hurkmans doubts that they're all cheapskates. ``Our focus group studies were surprising,'' he said. ``They suggest that some fairly affluent people will use the service. These are the same people who save frequent-flyer miles. If someone doesn't have time to listen to a commercial, he can use his regular long-distance service. This is completely voluntary.'' Some phone companies in Italy, Germany, Norway and Sweden offer free calling to people who will listen to commercials, and though firm numbers are hard to come by, the companies' computers occasionally have been overwhelmed by demand. The idea has popped up in the United States from time to time, too, but it has never caught on before. Bruce Egan, executive vice-president of Indetec, a consultancy based in Del Mar, Calif., several years ago worked with a concern called Telespots to sell phone companies on the notion of giving discounts to customers who agreed to listen to commercials while their phone calls were being connected. ``It didn't work,'' said Egan. ``The idea fell of its own weight. But in today's more competitive market it's possible that some firms looking for table scraps could make some money this way.'' Executives at AT&T Corp., the nation's No. 1 long-distance firm, also said they don't think the offer will appeal to many consumers who, they said, want to pick up the phone and talk to whomever they've called immediately. ``With so many discount deals available, I can't imagine that many consumers want to listen to advertising to make a phone call,'' said AT&T spokesman Tom Hopkins. Most other consultants agree that while phone commercials may have a limited audience, they will never become a major force. ``This is a risky idea,'' said Roger Wery of Renaissance Worldwide Inc., a Boston-based consultancy. ``The customers attracted to this service are likely to be non-loyal, non-profitable customers. Stealing them from traditional long-distance companies won't hurt those companies a bit.'' The Freeway service is really a telephone version of free e-mail on the Internet, which requires users to see advertisements when they get and send electronic messages. ``This is a common on-line scenario,'' said Rob Rich of the Yankee Group, a Boston consultancy. ``You give up some time in exchange for something you want.'' People who choose to listen to commercials to save the cost of a phone call ``are real penny-pinchers,'' said Jeffrey Kagan, an Atlanta-based consultant. ``They're the kind of people who don't care what city they fly to as long as they can get there on a cut-rate ticket. There may be a niche market for this service, but it will never be mainstream.'' But a few observers think the free phone service is the wave of the future. Some European marketers are talking about using commercials to introduce customers to wireless phones, said Tom Warren of consultants Arthur D. Little Inc. in Cambridge, Mass. ``I think that's an appealing idea,'' Warren said. ``People listen to ads to get free airtime on their wireless phone. The more they use the phone, they get hooked on the service and you gain another wireless customer.'' Watts Wacker, chairman of First Matter, a consulting firm in Westport, Conn., said phone commercials are a natural extension of where the information age is going. Wacker said that it's already true that TV Guide is more profitable than the networks in providing information on TV fare. And likewise, the Official Airline Guide makes more money in providing up-to-date flight information than do airlines. ``Information about our transactions is becoming more valuable than the transactions themselves.'' Wacker said that within a generation people will hire agents to help them sell demographic information about themselves to companies that are trying to get their attention to make sales. If the commercial information provided by phone becomes valuable to customers, affluent people as well as penny-pinchers will use a service like Freeway, Wacker said. ``Consuming in America has moved beyond the tactical and strategic,'' he said. ``It is our No. 1 skill. Buying a Lexus isn't enough by itself. You have to get a good price as well.'' ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #53 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Apr 14 23:52:11 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id XAA20370; Tue, 14 Apr 1998 23:52:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 23:52:11 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199804150352.XAA20370@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #54 TELECOM Digest Tue, 14 Apr 98 23:51:00 EDT Volume 18 : Issue 54 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Telecom Update (Canada) #128, April 13, 1998 (Angus TeleManagement) Telephone 'Gag' on "People Are Funny" in 1957 (Mark J. Cuccia) IEEE RTSS 98 -- Submission Deadline May 1 (Richard Gerber) Justice Gives Qualified Nod To Bell Atlantic Plan (Monty Solomon) Class Action Suit in Sprint "Friday Free" Program (hemanir@hotmail.com) 1 877 DISARRAY (James Bellaire) Vatican City Dialing Access (Bob Zartarian) GTE Plans Big ASDL Rollout (The Old 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 10:38:48 -0400 From: Angus TeleManagement Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #128, April 13, 1998 ************************************************************ * * * TELECOM UPDATE * * Angus TeleManagement's Weekly Telecom Newsbulletin * * http://www.angustel.ca * * Number 128: April 13, 1998 * * * * Publication of Telecom Update is made possible by * * generous financial support from: * * * * Bell Canada ................. http://www.bell.ca/ * * City Dial Network Services .. http://www.citydial.com/ * * Computer Talk Technology .... http://icescape.com/ * * fONOROLA .................... http://www.fonorola.com/ * * Lucent Technologies ......... http://www.lucent.com/ * * * ************************************************************ IN THIS ISSUE: ** Number Portability Bid Gets Fast Track ** Call-Net to Offer Overseas Service ** Fido Reaches 100,000 Subscribers ** CRTC Permits Contribution Boundary Shifts ** Newbridge Scores $520M ATM Deal ** Aspect Sets Up Shop in Canada ** CRTC Foresees Rising Surplus ** Mpowered Rents Out Software Via the Internet ** Telesat Orders "World's Most Powerful Satellite" ** Shaw Sells Stake in Moffat ** Ottawa Asks Comment on Encryption Standards ** Canada Payphone to Market Internet Terminals ** Cancom Appoints New CEO ** Stentor Publishes Views on New Media ** Find That Web Site ============================================================ NUMBER PORTABILITY BID GETS FAST TRACK: MetroNet Communications has asked the CRTC to order Bell Canada, Telus, and BC Tel to provide an interim solution to local number portability, given the delay in deployment of a system by the Canadian LNP Consortium. (See Telecom Update #127) The Commission has begun an expedited process; replies to MetroNet's application are due April 17. CALL-NET TO OFFER OVERSEAS SERVICE: Call-Net Enterprises, parent of Sprint Canada, says it is talking to international carriers and buying switches in order to provide overseas service after October 1, when Teleglobe's monopoly ends. FIDO REACHES 100,000 SUBSCRIBERS: Microcell's Fido wireless service now has more than 100,000 subscribers, after 31,500 net additions in the first quarter. ** In a "preemptive" move, Microcell has installed the FraudWatch fraud detection system from California-based Subscriber Computing. CRTC PERMITS CONTRIBUTION BOUNDARY SHIFTS: Overruling objections by competitive local carriers, the CRTC ruled April 6 that changes in incumbents' Extended Area Service borders will shift the limits that define calls requiring contribution payments. ** Among other local competition issues addressed in the Commission's April 6 letter: Stentor will not be required to provide competitors with direct access to its toll- free number database. NEWBRIDGE SCORES $520M ATM DEAL: Newbridge Networks has sold Cable & Wireless about $520 Million worth of ATM equipment for the C&W global network, to be supplied over five years. ASPECT SETS UP SHOP IN CANADA: Aspect will sell and service its call center equipment through Aspect Telecommunications Canada, a newly established subsidiary based in Willowdale, Ont, which will share Canadian distribution rights with Norstan. CRTC FORESEES RISING SURPLUS: CRTC estimates foresee a $47.9-Million surplus for fiscal 1997-98, rising to $58.3 Million in 2000-2001. MPOWERED RENTS OUT SOFTWARE VIA THE INTERNET: Users of MT&T's Mpowered high-speed Internet service can now rent downloaded software by the hour, week, or year. Charges range down to $1.50 for two hours. (See Telecom Update #97) TELESAT ORDERS "WORLD'S MOST POWERFUL SATELLITE": Telesat Canada has ordered an 84-transponder Anik F1 satellite from Hughes Space and Communications for delivery in the first quarter of 2000. Hughes says this will be the world's most powerful commercial satellite. (See Telecom Update #110) SHAW SELLS STAKE IN MOFFAT: Shaw Communications has sold its 10% stake in Winnipeg-based cableco Moffat Communications for $35 Million. OTTAWA ASKS COMMENT ON ENCRYPTION STANDARDS: Industry Canada is inviting comment on "A Cryptography Policy Framework for Electronic Commerce," a policy paper of its Task Force on Electronic Commerce. Deadline for submissions: April 21. http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/cy00005e.html CANADA PAYPHONE TO MARKET INTERNET TERMINALS: Canada Payphone's line of "intelligent competitive payphone products" are to include public Internet terminals, to be developed jointly with Mississauga-based King Products and Atcom/Info of San Diego. CANCOM APPOINTS NEW CEO: Canadian Satellite Communications has appointed Duncan McEwan, formerly VP of Business Development, as President and CEO. He replaces Alain Gourd, who will head a new satellite division at BCE. STENTOR PUBLISHES VIEWS ON NEW MEDIA: Stentor Resource Centre's new discussion paper, New Consumers, New Technologies, and New Media, is available at: http://www.stentor.ca/corporatepapers FIND THAT WEB SITE: Links to almost all Canadian telecom Web sites are provided in the Telecom Resources section of the Angus TeleManagement Web site (http://www.angustel.ca). ** Among the 500 listed Web sites are those of all organizations mentioned in Telecom Update or Telemanagement. ** If you know of a Web site that you think should be added, send an e-mail to ianangus@angustel.ca ============================================================ HOW TO SUBMIT ITEMS FOR TELECOM UPDATE E-MAIL: editors@angustel.ca FAX: 905-686-2655 MAIL: TELECOM UPDATE Angus TeleManagement Group 8 Old Kingston Road Ajax, Ontario Canada L1T 2Z7 =========================================================== HOW TO SUBSCRIBE (OR UNSUBSCRIBE) TELECOM UPDATE is provided in electronic form only. There are two formats available: 1. The fully-formatted edition is posted on the World Wide Web on the first business day of the week. Point your browser to www.angustel.ca and then select TELECOM UPDATE from the Main Menu. 2. The e-mail edition is distributed free of charge. To subscribe, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should contain only the two words: subscribe update To stop receiving the e-mail edition, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should say only: unsubscribe update [Your e-mail address] =========================================================== COPYRIGHT AND DISCLAIMER: All contents copyright 1997 Angus TeleManagement Group Inc. All rights reserved. For further information, including permission to reprint or reproduce, please e-mail rosita@angustel.ca or phone 905-686-5050 ext 225. The information and data included has been obtained from sources which we believe to be reliable, but Angus TeleManagement makes no warranties or representations whatsoever regarding accuracy, completeness, or adequacy. Opinions expressed are based on interpretation of available information, and are subject to change. If expert advice on the subject matter is required, the services of a competent professional should be obtained. ============================================================ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 16:47:36 -0500 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Telephone 'Gag' on "People Are Funny" in 1957 Art Linkletter's "People are Funny" was a program that began on network radio in the 1940's and continued on through the 1950's (or early 60's?) on network television. Sometimes it was on CBS-Radio/TV, other times it would be on NBC-Radio/TV. I recently had the chance to see a 1957 TV episode (NBC-TV) on a videotape, all with the original commercials! (Toni Beauty Products, White Rain Shampoo, Camel Cigarettes). The telecast originated from Hollywood. "People are Funny" was similar to Ralph Edwards' and Bob Barker's "Truth or Consequences". In both programs, contestants and audience members would have 'gags' played on them, or they played 'gags' on other unsuspecting people (kind-a like Alan Funt's "Candid Camera", too!), and if the 'gag' played out well, the people would win cash and/or prizes! In the episode I recently saw from 1957, a peppy teenage girl, selected randomly from the studio audience, was to play a 'telephone gag' on some unsuspecting randomly-selected party from the Milwaukee and Vicinity Telephone Directory. A (black) rotary-dial '500' desk-set telephone was brought out onto the stage (incidently, this phone had a _straight_ handset cord-- _NOT_ a coiled one). The teenage girl was to select a name and telephone number from the Milwaukee directory as mentioned above, and she was to call them, trying to keep them on the line for three minutes, asking them about advice on how to compose a "love-letter". If she was successful in keeping them on the line, she would win $3000.00, and the party on the other end would win $1000.00! So, she selected a party from the Milwaukee directory, ORchard-1-xxxx. Art Linkletter picked up the telephone, and said: "Now first, we'll dial 4-1-4, and now, what's that number- OR.1-xxxx" And he then dialed all ten-digits out. Note that he did _NOT_ dial an initial "1+". I have some questions about customer originating DDD from the Los Angeles area further below. Well, the house-speakers in the studio hadn't been connected into the telephone line at first, so we didn't hear the dialtone, nor any MF tones from the Los Angeles XB toll machines or elsewhere in the DDD telephone network. But the studio speakers were connected in by the time the Milwaukee end began to ring. It 'sounded' like "City-Step" ring tone, a deep warble for two-seconds on, four seconds-off. However, the called central office in Milwaukee was most likely a Panel, #1XB, or maybe even an early #5XB switch. We also heard the _incessant_ 'beep' ... 'beep' ... 'beep' ... tones every several seconds, from the Hollywood production board at NBC, indicating to the called party that the telephone conversation was being recorded. The called party answered, and the clock started to tick. The teenage girl began to babble on about how she needed assistance in writing a "love-letter", and why she couldn't ask her friends, because she said they'd just laugh at her. The gentleman on the line in Milwaukee seemed a bit puzzled or cautious about talking to her. When she paused at one point, you hear the distinct 'beep' of the recording equipment, and the man on the line said: "Young lady, WHAT are you up to? You are _RECORDING_ this telephone call!" She came up with some excuse that she didn't know what the 'beep' tone was, and how telephone repair hadn't located the trouble condition. Eventually, three minutes concluded, and a bell rang on stage. Art Linkletter took the handset from the young lady, and identified himself to the man on the line in Milwaukee. Art told the gentleman that he had just won $1000.00 for being a "good sport", and that the young lady had just won $3000.00! When Art Linkletter asked the man on the line what he did for his occupation, he said that he was a police officer! The audience _gasped_ and giggled (oooooo, ahhhhh, ha-ha). Of course, the man KNEW what the 'beep' tones were! And then Art Linkletter thanked the man for his time, and they hung up. Now, for my question. Through the late-50's and early-60's, Los Angeles and southern California was predominantly a SxS (Step-by-Step) metropolitan area. Yet, in the 1960's, I'd heard that L.A. did _NOT_ have to dial a '1+' or '112+' DDD access prefix for home-NPA seven-digit toll or ten-digit for 'foreign' NPA calls. They just dialed 'straight' "7D" or "10D", and common-control-like registers or senders or 'directors' in the Step offices would store and translate the dialed digits first, to determine local vs. home-NPA toll vs. distant-NPA toll. Does anyone have any further info on early Los Angeles originating customer DDD? (Lauren?) Thanks! 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: I can tell you that is exactly what the arrangement was here in Chicago in those same years. From anywhere in 312 with a couple exceptions, long distance calls were dialed as a straight ten digits without a leading '1'. Since area codes were dis- tinctly different than prefixes (no zero or one as the second digit) it was easy to tell one from the other. If you dialed an area code as the first three digits, then seven additional digits were expected, and your local central office in effect gave you a free ride to the AT&T toll switch on South Canal Street in downtown Chicago. The few exceptions were in cases like Antioch, Illinois, a far north suburban community on the Wisconsin state line which could do 'community dialing' (seven digits only) to North Antioch, Wisconsin which was (is) in the 414 area code. A prefix conflict there meant that the subscribers in Antioch had to dial a '1' to get some southern exchanges in the old 312 area. Ditto Beloit, Wisconsin and South Beloit, Illinois. The extreme northwest corner of northern Indiana (219) dialed into all of 312 with seven digits only -- including long distance calls to other area codes with ten digits only since toll calls were handled by the same AT&T switch in Chicago. But yet, to call more than a few miles *east* or *south* into other parts of 219, the residents of Hammond, East Chicago, Whiting and environs had to dial '1' first, plus the seven digit number. Is there anyone here besides me old enough to remember when Ma Bell did *not* duplicate prefixes in adjoining states, in an effort to make 'community dialing' in metro areas which crossed state lines possible for everyone? In other words, since Whiting, Indiana had 219-659, and Hammond, Indiana had 219-931/932/933 and 219/844, the 312 area did *not* have 659, 844, 931, 932, or 933. That was the case for many, many years through the 1950-70's. Then one day, the residents of that area were told to start dialing the area code -- 312 -- but no leading '1' was necessary, on all calls into Illinois, even if it was a place right across the street from you on State Line Avenue. The same routine was true almost everywhere. If there existed AC-xxx in one state, then 'xxx' was not used in the state next to it, or at least not in the area codes next to it. Ah, that such luxury in numbering should be available today! About the time that occurred in Whiting with its 219-659, all of a sudden a brand new prefix started in the Chicago metro area: 312-659 became the very first cellular prefix anywhere, when Cellular One Chicago commenced operations as the first cellular carrier in the USA, or maybe the second carrier, since Ameritech started at about the same time in the early 1980's. I remembered 'discovering' 312-659 late one evening and wondering what it was used for. This was back when perhaps there were a hundred cell phone users total in the USA, all centered in the Chicago area. PAT] ------------------------------ From: rich@cs.umd.edu (Richard Gerber) Subject: IEEE RTSS 98 -- Submission Deadline May 1 Date: 14 Apr 1998 13:10:54 -0400 Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742 CALL FOR PAPERS (Deadline: 1 May 1998) IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium Madrid, Spain December 2-4, 1998 Sponsored by The IEEE Computer Society Technical Committee on Real-Time Systems ======================================================================= OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE: RTSS '98 brings together a wide body of researchers and developers, to advance the science and practice of real-time and embedded systems. All papers on real-time, embedded or reactive systems are welcome, including (but not limited to) the following topics: modeling and design methods, operating systems, scheduling algorithms, databases, file systems, networks and communications, programming languages, formal methods, architecture, middleware and APIs, instrumentation, fault tolerance, software engineering, performance analysis, embedded systems, signal-processing, multimedia applications, process control, tool support -- and a lot more. Of particular interest are case-study reports on experimental results, from any core application area in real-time systems. ======================================================================= SUBMISSIONS: Papers should describe original research (i.e., not published elsewhere), and should not exceed 20 double-spaced pages (or approximately 5000 words). Submissions should be made electronically, either in postscript or PDF format. Additional details on submission guidelines are posted on the RTSS'98 Home Page: http://www.cs.umd.edu/~rich/rtss98/ ======================================================================= IMPORTANT DATES: * May 1, 1998 -- Deadline for paper submissions * July 25, 1998 -- Notification of acceptance * September 1, 1998 -- Final paper due * December 2-4, 1998 -- RTSS '98, Madrid, Spain ======================================================================= EXHIBITION, WORKSHOP AND WORK-IN-PROGRESS SESSIONS: Exhibition and Show: RTSS '98 will include an industrial exhibition in a centrally located space, for vendors to demonstrate state-of-the-art systems, development tools and applications; where RTSS attendees can engage in technical discussions with product engineers and developers; and where company representatives meet (and potentially recruit) young researchers specializing in real-time and embedded systems. To reserve space for the exhibition, please contact the RTSS '98 Industrial Chair, Dr. Alan Burns (burns@minster.cs.york.ac.uk). Workshop: RTSS '98 will co-host a workshop on December 1, 1998, directly before the conference. The focus of the workshop will be a "hot topic" of special interest to researchers and developers of real-time systems. Recent RTSS workshops were on topics such as Middleware/APIs (1997) and Multimedia Systems (1996). More information on the 1998 workshop topic will be announced shortly, and publicized on the conference home page. Work-in-Progress Session: As in previous years, RTSS '98 will include a Work-In-Progress (WIP) session, featuring short presentations on new and evolving work. Accepted WIP papers will be included in a special proceedings, and distributed to RTSS'98 conference participants. The proceedings will then be published electronically on the IEEE-CS TC-RTS Home Page. WIP papers will be due approximately one month before the Symposium. ======================================================================= ORGANIZING COMMITTEE: General Chair: Kwei-Jay Lin, University of California, Irvine Program Chair: Richard Gerber, University of Maryland Finance Chair: Walt Heimerdinger, Honeywell Technology Center Registration Chair: Linda Buss Local Arrangements Chair: Angel Alvarez, Universidad Politecnica de Madrid Local Treasurer: Juan A. de la Puente, Universidad Politecnica de Madrid Publicity Co-Chairs: Alejandro Alonso, Universidad Politicnica de Madrid (Europe) Chao-Ju Jennifer Hou, Ohio State University (Americas) Joseph Ng, Hong Kong Baptist University (Asia/Pacific) Industrial Chair: Alan Burns, University of York Ex-Officio: (RTS-TC Chair) Doug Locke, Lockheed Martin Corporation ======================================================================= PROGRAM COMMITTEE James Anderson (University of North Carolina) Azer Bestavros (Boston University) Sanjoy Baruah (University of Vermont) Giorgio Butazzio (Scuola Superiore e Sant'Anna) Gerhard Fohler (Malardalen University) Michael Gonzalez Harbour (Universidad Cantabria) Jeffrey Hollingsworth (University of Maryland) Seongsoo Hong (Seoul National University) Farnam Jahanian (University of Michigan) Kevin Jeffay (University of North Carolina) Hermann Kopetz (Vienna University of Technology) Kim G. Larsen (Aalborg University) Insup Lee (University of Pennsylvania) Jane W.S. Liu (University of Illinois) Keith Marzullo (University of California at San Diego) Sang Lyul Min (Seoul National University) Al Mok (University of Texas at Austin) Ragunathan Rajkumar (Carnegie Mellon University) Jennifer Rexford (AT&T Research) Manas Saksena (Concordia University) Bran Selic (ObjectTime, Ltd.) Andy Wellings (University of York) David Wilner (Wind River Systems) Sergio Yovine (CNRS/VERIMAG) Hui Zhang (Carnegie Mellon University) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 02:35:35 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Justice Gives Qualified Nod To Bell Atlantic Plan The Justice Department gave qualified support this week to Bell Atlantic's petition to enter New York's $7 billion long distance market. http://www.techweb.com/news/story/TWB19980407S0013 ------------------------------ From: hemanir@hotmail.com Subject: Class Action Suit in Sprint "Friday Free" program Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 15:44:11 -0600 Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Hello everybody, An update to my earlier message about the "Sprint Friday Free" calling program. In 1996 Sprint had the "Fridays Free" calling program which could be used to call any country free on Fridays. Later in April 1996 Sprint unilaterally modified this program and started charging customers of this program for international calls made on fridays, to these countries : India, China, Pakistan, Ecuador, Iran, Israel, Myanmar (Burma). To seek redressal, my attorney in Dallas, TX is filing a Class action suit against Sprint. To be able to get the benefits of this suit, one should have been a Sprint customer under the "friday free" program. All those who would like to be part of this suit and wish to be named in this suit, please send me a mail with the following details to hemanir@hotmail.com : First name, Last name, Current Address. I will forward the same to my attorney and keep everybody informed through the newsgroup. If this does not apply to you please ignore this message. Thanks, RSN ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 11:08:38 -0500 From: James Bellaire Subject: Re: 1 877 DISARRAY In TELECOM Digest 51 Judith Oppenheimer wrote: > It opened in predictable -- but inexcusable -- disarray. > About twoseconds after the opening bell, most RespOrgs found their > systems frozen -- locked up -- for over an hour. By the time smaller > RespOrgs gained gradual (hense inequitable) access, a reported 10,000 > numbers were already taken. Seems like they need a better way of handling opening day. How about a system where everyone submits their '1st day' list (to a neutral third party if you don't trust SMS) and the lists are scanned for mutually exclusive assignments - numbers that are only being asked for by one company are assigned (effective opening day), and contested numbers are delt with in some other way (rationing by percentage?). If only we could prove that the RespOrgs were reserving numbers for which they had no customer. Then we could punish them for their reservations. The whole toll-free area is turning into the same kind of 'vanity land' that domain names have become. (Does BT really need to be BT.COM, BT.NET, BritishTelecom.COM, etc...?) I also wonder if the same business may be asking two RespOrgs to get the same number for them. I might, just to increase the odds of getting my number. > P.S. One small victory for small business-kind - we're told 877 CALL > ATT was not snagged by the #1 carrier. Will wonders never cease. Who else would want it? Someone who wants to skim off callers who dial 877 instead of 800/888? Unless 225-5288 spells something else it SHOULD be taken by ATT. You can't complain that 1-800-FLO-WERS is being skimmed by the owners of 1-888-FLO-WERS and 1-877-FLO-WERS and glory that ATT is being skimmed by 1-877-CAL-LATT. (BTW: I programmed the PBX at work to accept 1-877 this morning. I had to reprogram the stupid thing from scratch anyways, it lost it's memory last night. 40 obsolete Vantage sets reprogrammed by hand - only took six hours at the master set ...) James E. Bellaire (JEB6) bellaire@tk.com Telecom Indiana Webpage http://tk.com/telecom/ ------------------------------ From: bobzar@webtv.net (Bob Zartarian) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 07:47:03 -0400 Subject: Vatican City Dialing Access Confusion reigns as to the actual country and city code required to reach numbers in Vatican City. Common opinion is that it is (39) 6 just like Rome but the rates from the underlying transport carriers price Italy differently from Vatican City. A new country code (379) is sometimes mentioned for Vatican City but even a call to the Vatican did not reveal an awareness of its existence. When prefixing the Vatican switchboard number with (379) instead of (396) the call was not successful. I seek an authoritative source that will tell us how to differentiate Rome from Vatican City prior to and after implementation of the (379) dialing code (if it exists). Bob Zartarian TeleSys Commuications Atlanta P.S. Do not use the address shown above. Use the bob@telesyscom.com address as usual. Thanks. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 21:43:15 -0400 From: The Old Bear Subject: GTE Plans Big ASDL Rollout GTE says it will begin a large-scale deployment of asymmetric digital subscriber line (ADSL) service beginning in June. "This is the largest announcement on ADSL deployment to date," says the president of GTE Network Services, who adds that the market for data services is expected to balloon to $400 billion in the next decade, up from $100 billion in 1995. The high-speed service is expected to cost $30 a month, not including Internet-access fees, installation fees and monthly equipment charges of $12. source: {Wall Street Journal} April 13, 1998 as summarized in {edupage} ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #54 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Apr 15 09:23:03 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA10357; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 09:23:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 09:23:03 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199804151323.JAA10357@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #55 TELECOM Digest Wed, 15 Apr 98 09:23:00 EDT Volume 18 : Issue 55 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson NPA Chronological List, 1995-on (Mark J. Cuccia) Flat-Rate Call Plans Lose Ruling in Colorado Supreme Court (Tad Cook) Growing Practice of 'Cramming' Sneaks Charges on Phone Bills (M. Solomon) Push For Sell-off of Bells' Network Operations Gains (Monty Solomon) What's Up With Area Code 609 (South N.J.) Split?? (Linc Madison) Telephone Calls While You're Logged on! (David Clayton) 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 16:53:50 -0500 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: NPA Chronological List, 1995-on Old New Geographic Location Permissive Mandatory Test Number(s) 312/ 708 630 Chicago (temp.wireless OVERLAY) 07-JAN-1995 630-204-1204 205 334 southern AL 15-JAN-1995 13-MAY-1995 334-223-0600 206 360 wstrn WA (ex Seattle) 15-JAN-1995 20-AUG-1995 360-532-0023 713 281 Houston (temp.wireless OVERLAY) 01-MAR-1995 281-792-8378 602 520 AZ (exc.Phoenix) 19-MAR-1995 21-OCT-1995 520-782-0100 303 970 n, w CO (exc.Denver) 02-APR-1995 14-JAN-1996 970-241-0022 813 941 sw FL (exc.Tampa Bay) 28-MAY-1995 03-MAR-1996 941-959-1650 703 540 western VA 15-JUL-1995 27-JAN-1996 540-829-9910 404 770 suburban Atlanta GA 01-AUG-1995 01-DEC-1995 770-666-9999 203 860 eastern, northern CT 28-AUG-1995 04-OCT-1996 860-203-0950 615 423 eastern TN 11-SEP-1995 26-FEB-1996 423-283-4424 423-594-9040 423-634-1928 305 954 Broward County, FL 11-SEP-1995 01-AUG-1996 954-236-4242 809 441 Bermuda 01-OCT-1995 30-SEP-1996 441-295-7606 503 541 OR (exc.Portland) 05-NOV-1995 30-JUN-1996 541-276-0192 541-334-0057 803 864 northwestern SC 03-DEC-1995 01-MAY-1996 864-242-0070 904 352 w/cntrl(Gains'vll) FL 03-DEC-1995 20-MAY-1996 352-848-0517 (new code was to be 850 for Daytona) NEW 880 "Caller-Pays" 800 (NEW SAC) 11-DEC-1995 (none known) 314 573 se MO (exc.St.Louis) 07-JAN-1996 07-JUL-1996 573-792-8378 708 847 north Chicago suburbs 20-JAN-1996 20-APR-1996 847-958-1204 NEW 888 ADDITIONAL Toll-Free (NEW SAC) 01-MAR-1996 888-250-xxxx NEW 881 "Caller-Pays" 888 (NEW SAC) 01-MAR-1996 (none known) (877, 866, 855, 844, 833, 822 are reserved for additional toll- free service; any remaining ring-down pts using billing id codes 881-XXX & 888-XXX have had to be moved to other 88X-XXX ranges) 809 787 Puerto Rico 01-MAR-1996 31-JAN-1997 787-756-9399 787-781-0199 787-787-0399 216 330 northeastern OH 09-MAR-1996 29-JUN-1996 330-783-2330 612 320 central Minnesota 17-MAR-1996 15-SEP-1996 320-629-5975 (exc. Minneapolis) 320-252-0090 809 268 Antigua & Barbuda 01-APR-1996 31-MAR-1997 268-268-4482 407 561 east central FL 13-MAY-1996 13-APR-1997 561-615-8484 809 758 St. Lucia 01-JUL-1996 01-JAN-1997 758-785-8242 809 246 Barbados 01-JUL-1996 15-JAN-1997 246-809-4200 809 664 Montserrat 01-JUL-1996 01-JUN-1997 664-491-0025 804 757 southeastern VA 01-JUL-1996 01-FEB-1997 757-627-1615 708 (630) w/cntrl Chicago subs 03-AUG-1996 30-NOV-1996 630-204-1204 (was originally a wireless overlay) 809 345 Cayman Islands 01-SEP-1996 31-AUG-1997 345-949-2680 214 972 suburban Dallas TX 14-SEP-1996 19-APR-1997 972-792-8378 (was to be an overlay to take effect Feb.1996) 513 937 sw OH (ex Cincinnati) 28-SEP-1996 14-JUN-1997 937-223-4937 809 242 Bahamas 01-OCT-1996 31-MAR-1997 242-352-0000 242-356-0000 242-393-0000 809 869 St. Kitts & Nevis 01-OCT-1996 31-MAR-1997 869-468-8001 312 773 Chicago exc.The Loop 12-OCT-1996 11-JAN-1997 773-838-1204 604 250 British Columbia 19-OCT-1996 06-APR-1997 250-372-0123 (exc.Vancouver) 250-372-0124 713 (281) suburban Houston, TX 02-NOV-1996 07-JUN-1997 281-792-8378 (was originally a wireless overlay) 310 562 Long Beach area CA 25-JAN-1997 26-JUL-1997 562-317-0317 (WAS to be OVRLY over L/A metro: 213/818/310/714/909 to take effect in Aug 1995. Prior to that date, relief plans changed several times) 317 765 cntrl IN (ex Indnpls) 01-FEB-1997 27-JUN-1997 765-281-6988 619 760 se CA (exc.San Diego) 22-MAR-1997 27-SEP-1997 760-200-0760 760-400-0760 760-600-0760 809 264 Anguilla 31-MAR-1997 30-SEP-1997 264-672-8378 501 870 AR (ex.NW,LittleRock) 14-APR-1997 06-OCT-1997 870-251-1003 206 425 Everett(n.Seattle) WA 27-APR-1997 16-NOV-1997 425-452-0009 206 253 Tacoma (s.Seattle) WA 27-APR-1997 16-NOV-1997 253-627-0062 809 876 Jamaica 01-MAY-1997 01-MAY-1998 876-526-2422 810 248 Oakland County, MI 10-MAY-1997 13-SEP-1997 248-253-9717 817 254 TX (s pt of old 817) 25-MAY-1997 24-AUG-1997 254-955-8378 817 940 TX (n pt of old 817) 25-MAY-1997 24-AUG-1997 940-955-8378 301 240 western Maryland (OVERLAY) 01-JUN-1997 240-999-8378 410 443 eastern Maryland (OVERLAY) 01-JUN-1997 443-999-8378 201 973 north western NJ 01-JUN-1997 06-DEC-1997 973-759-3816 908 732 east central NJ 01-JUN-1997 06-DEC-1997 732-663-0285 809 649 Turks & Caicos Is. 01-JUN-1997 31-MAY-1998 649-946-1496 809 868 Trinidad & Tobago 01-JUN-1997 31-MAY-1998 868-809-8378 809 340 US Virgin Islands 01-JUN-1997 30-JUN-1998 340-715-1234 818 626 Pasadena and east, CA 14-JUN-1997 17-JAN-1998 626-777-0626 904 850 west panhandle FL 23-JUN-1997 28-MAR-1998 850-455-4597 (split new codes were to be 234 Jacksonville; 386 Daytona) Intl 670 N. Mariana Islands 01-JUL-1997 01-JUL-1998 670-682-8800 Intl 671 Guam 01-JUL-1997 01-JUL-1998 671-479-4826 210 830 TX (n pt of old 210) 07-JUL-1997 06-OCT-1997 830-401-0371 210 956 TX (s pt of old 210) 07-JUL-1997 06-OCT-1997 956-519-7339 913 785 n.Kansas (exc.Kan.Cy) 20-JUL-1997 03-OCT-1998 785-368-9722 414 920 se WI exc.Milwaukee 26-JUL-1997 25-OCT-1997 920-448-0050 415 650 so.sb.SanFrancisco CA 01-AUG-1997 01-FEB-1998 650-777-0650 216 440 northeast OH 16-AUG-1997 04-APR-1998 440-943-7220 508 978 n.e. MA 01-SEP-1997 01-FEB-1998 978-725-3228 617 781 outer Boston area MA 01-SEP-1997 01-FEB-1998 781-575-6748 601 228 Miss. (Gulfcoast) 15-SEP-1997 14-SEP-1998 228-388-8186 615 931 cntl TN(ex.Nashville) 15-SEP-1997 19-JAN-1998 931-684-2460 801 435 Utah, except SLCity 21-SEP-1997 22-MAR-1998 435-792-0049 809 284 British Virgin Is. 01-OCT-1997 30-SEP-1998 284-493-4800 809 767 Dominica 01-OCT-1997 30-SEP-1998 767-447-3576 816 660 nw.MO (ex.KCy,St.Joe) 12-OCT-1997 19-APR-1998 660-263-9999 660-627-9999 403/ 819 867 YT(403), NWT(403;819) 21-OCT-1997 26-APR-1998 867-669-5448 809 473 Grenada & Carriacou 31-OCT-1997 31-OCT-1998 473-440-4933 405 580 w, sw OK (ex.Ok.City) 01-NOV-1997 01-APR-1998 580-762-6266 916 530 ne CA (ex Sacramento) 01-NOV-1997 16-MAY-1998 530-461-0530 530-444-0530 614 740 se OH (ex Columbus) 08-NOV-1997 06-JUN-1998 740-373-7403 313 734 Detroit suburbs MI 13-DEC-1997 25-JUL-1998 734-457-0148 910 336 nrth-cntl No.Carolina 15-DEC-1997 15-JUN-1998 336-230-0698 (WAS to be 265 for southeastern NC) 404/ 770 678 Atlanta GA (OVERLAY) 06-JAN-1998 678-666-9999 412 724 sw PA (NOT Pittsbgh) 01-FEB-1998 01-MAY-1998 724-999-1111 (was to be overlay eff.1-May-97; plan changed in 4/97) 724-991-2222 510 925 CA - east of Oakland 14-MAR-1998 14-SEP-1998 925-341-0925 704 828 western NC 22-MAR-1998 22-SEP-1998 828-255-0998 919 252 northeast NC 22-MAR-1998 22-SEP-1998 252-446-4917 803 843 coastal So.Carolina 22-MAR-1998 27-SEP-1998 843-667-0998 843-937-0998 205 256 northern/eastern AL 23-MAR-1998 28-SEP-1998 256-532-5126 256-830-1572 NEW 877 ADDITIONAL Toll-Free (NEW SAC) 04-APR-1998 877-250-xxxx ??? ?882? "Caller-Pays" 877 714 949 southern Orange Co,CA 18-APR-1998 17-OCT-1998 949-482-0949 303 720 Denver CO (OVERLAY) ?01-JUN-1998? 720-200-0000 809 784 St.Vincent/Grenadines 01-JUN-1998 31-MAY-1999 784-485-8378 213 323 Los Angeles ex.Dwntwn 13-JUN-1998 16-JAN-1999 323-946-0323 514 450 sw PQ (exc. Montreal) 13-JUN-1998 16-JAN-1999 450-443-2739 450-443-2836 305 786 Miami FL metro (OVERLAY) 01-JUL-1998 786-242-9998 212 646 Manhattan NYCity (OVERLAY) ?01-JUL-1998? 646-???-???? 718 347 other boroughs NYCity (OVERLAY) ?01-JUL-1998? 347-???-???? 813 727 St.Petersburg FL area 01-JUL-1998 01-FEB-1999 727-???-???? 408 831 CA - so. of San Jose 11-JUL-1998 20-FEB-1999 831-669-0831 612 651 St.Paul/east metro MN 12-JUL-1998 10-JAN-1999 651-296-2644 504 225 Baton Rouge LA LATA 17-AUG-1998 05-APR-1999 225-???-???? (orig.intended to be 351, then maybe 985, until 225 was chosen) 209 559 Fresno CA area 14-NOV-1998 15-MAY-1999 559-666-0209 702 775 NV ex Las Vegas metro 12-DEC-1998 15-MAY-1999 775-550-0775 403 780 cntl(Edmntn)/north AB 25-JAN-1999 12-JUL-1999 780-459-2325 805 661 Bakersfield CA area 13-FEB-1999 14-AUG-1999 661-820-0661 809 (n/a) Dominican Rep, EXCLUSIVELY (1958)(01-JUN-1999) further "TOLL-FREE" relief: new SACs to be 866, 855, 844, 833, 822 test nums of the form 8zz-250-xxxx further "PCS" relief new SACs to be 533, 544, 566, 577, 588 (533 might be needed in Spring 1998) Intl 684 American Samoa dd-mmm-yyyy dd-mmm-yyyy 684-???-???? 416 (and 905?) Toronto ON area - East/West City split? (416 only) inner/outer city split? (416 only) overlay on 416? (wireless? general?) overlay on 416 & 905? (wireless? general?) 318 ??? sw? cntrl/north? LA dd-mmm-yyyy dd-mmm-yyyy ???-???-???? further relief for 504 (New Orleans LATA only) needed circa 2001 612 952 further relief for Minn/St.Paul MN metro (maybe overlay?) 703 VA needs a *second* new code (post 540; maybe overlay this time?) 417 ??? sw MO dd-mmm-yyyy dd-mmm-yyyy ???-???-???? 314 MO needs a *second* new NPA (post 573; maybe overlay this time?) 602 AZ needs a *second* new NPA (post 520; maybe overlay this time?) 604 BC needs a *second* new NPA (post 250; maybe overlay this time?) further relief for all of Houston metro's NPAs (post 281) and all of Dallas metro's NPAs (post 972); (maybe overlays this time?) further relief for some of Chicago's NPAs (particularly 847) ANOTHER split seemed to be first choice; now a "creeping overlay" is being considered- first overlaying 847 and slowly extending over all of metro Chicago. further relief for both of CT's NPAs (post 203/860 split) (new codes rumored to be 475 and 959) further relief for FL's NPAs: 407, 954 (rumored to be 656) (other possibilities for new codes rumored to be 234, 386, 550) Relief for 609 NJ; FURTHER relief for other NJ NPAs (201, 908, even the new 973 and 732) 215, 610, 717 PA need relief (maybe even 814) (proposed to have temporary 'shadow' overlays) 419 ??? nw OH (exc.Toledo) dd-mmm-yyyy dd-mmm-yyyy ???-???-???? (rumored to be 848 or maybe 878) 513 ??? outer Cincinnati OH dd-mmm-yyyy dd-mmm-yyyy ???-???-???? (**additional** relief; rumored to be 275 after I-275 beltway, or 375) More Colorodo relief (719, rumored to be 335; 970, rumored to be 557) California will have at least THIRTY (!) area codes by 2000. Further relief will be needed for: 619 (post 760), 310 (post 562), 408 (post 831), and 415 (new NPA for north of Golden Gate; post 650); 909 and maybe 707 will need some initial relief circa 2000. Other NPAs speculated to need relief by 2000 or EARLY in next century: south KS 316; ne OK 918; both KY NPAs; other MI NPAs (517, 616); 505 NM more GA NPAs; 306 SK; more IL NPAs; more IN NPAs; other WI NPAs; more TX NPAs (915, 512); many NY NPAs (914, 516; 716, 518); east NE 402; some/all IA NPAs; etc .... Special/Reserved NPA's and other NXXs which are NOT-ASSIGNABLE as (geographic) NPAs: 710 (assigned in 1983) reserved/used by the US Federal Government (NCS-GETS & other services) 456 (assigned in 1993) reserved/used for International Inbound Services (mainly switched 56-KBps Digital Data) 37X, 96X (reserved in 1994) reserved for some future function needing an entire block-of-ten codes 521 -> 529 (used since the 1970's) used for billing/rating for calls to +52 Mexico (IDDD points) 886, 889 (used since the 1970's) used for billing/rating for calls to non-dialable points (NANP & Mexico) N9X (reserved in 1994) reserved for future expansion to a greater-than-ten-digit format N00, N22, N33, N44, N55, N66, N77, N88 reserved for "Easy-to-Recognize" functions (existing and future) N00's began being used for non-geographic services first with Toll-Free 800 numbers in 1966; the other Nzz's were reserved in 1994 (skip 522, 555, 377, 966) N11 - NOT ASSIGNABLE used for three-digit local service-codes (since the 1920's) 555, 950 - NOT ASSIGNABLE (decided upon in 1994) There could be possible customer dialing confusion with existing NPA-555-xxxx & 950-xxxx numbers 0XX, 1XX - NOT ASSIGNABLE.... These have ALWAYS been used for non-customer-dialable internal network / system / operator / testing / switching / routing functions; ALSO used by billing equipment for rating/billing/accounting/etc; AND there would be conflicts and possible customer dialing confusion with existing customer prefixes/codes- 1/0+ NANP toll - sent-paid / spcl.billing 011/01+ IDDD toll - sent-paid / spcl.billing 0(#)/00 Operator - local / IXC 101-XXXX(+) Carrier Access Codes to reach alternate carriers 11-XX(X) alternate way to dial *XX(X) Vertical Service Codes as well as customer-to-TOPS/OSPS codes entered at the 'bong'- 1X/19X special billing request (Collect, 3rd Party, etc) and 0(#) cut-thru to a live operator ------------------------------ Subject: Flat-Rate Call Plans Lose Ruling in Colorado Supreme Court Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 23:47:47 PDT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) By Roger Fillion, The Denver Post Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News Apr. 14--The state Supreme Court dealt a major blow Monday to three Colorado phone companies that offer customers a flat-rate monthly plan for long-distance calls to Denver from outlying communities, saying the calls should be subject to long-distance charges. The court's ruling would mean higher phone bills for residents of Bailey, Longmont, Fort Collins and other communities who use the companies to dial Denver and elsewhere and avoid paying per-minute long-distance fees. But a recent plan by Colorado regulators to make nearly all calls within the 303 area code local ones is expected to bring rate relief to many of the customers. The three carriers are Mountain Solutions Ltd. of Lakewood, AviComm Inc. of Englewood and Denver Direct Dial of Boulder. Together they serve anywhere from 10,000 to 15,000 customers. The Colorado Public Utilities Commission had argued the companies are long-distance carriers under the law and should pay US West Communications access charges to complete calls -- much like AT&T Corp. and other long-distance companies now pay such fees to US West. But the companies had said they were not true long-distance carriers and should be allowed to buy phone service from US West at a flat, monthly rate. The companies resell the service through a computerized call-forwarding system that allows customers to call another local calling area without paying long-distance charges. The court, in its decision, said it agreed with the PUC and that any other reading of the law would "lead to absurd results." The court also noted that access charges are an important source of revenue that US West uses to fund its local phone system, and that by avoiding access charges the three companies put upward pressure on the price of local phone service for all customers. Executives from Mountain Solutions and AviComm were unable to provide immediate comment because they had not seen the decision. A Denver Direct Dial executive was not immediately available. The companies charge anywhere from $20 to $30 a month for their service. Barbara Fernandez, a spokeswoman for the PUC, called the decision a "victory." "We feel this is for the benefit of all customers," she said. Residents of outlying towns in the 303 area code -- such as Longmont, Bailey, Idaho Springs and Elizabeth -- are expected to get some rate relief soon, however. To extend the life of the state's area codes, the PUC last month agreed to a plan that would make nearly all calls in the 303 area local calls. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So now we have the judiciary deciding what makes up long distance calls and what the rates should be. Isn't that wonderful ... :( PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 01:11:05 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Growing Practice of 'Cramming' Sneaks Charges on Phone Bills 04/12/98 By Patricia Wen & Bruce Mohl, Globe Staff Denise Stone always thought a telephone bill was just a telephone bill. So she was stunned when a $4.95 monthly fee for Privacy Guard popped up on her Bell Atlantic bill. She'd never heard of the company. She made a few phone calls, discovered Privacy Guard was a credit reporting service, and after considerable hassle, got the charge removed. But she was left with a nagging concern: Why was her local telephone company billing her for this non-telephone service that she didn't want? ''I thought it was strange that Bell Atlantic would be billing me for this,'' said Stone, a Wakefield software analyst. ''Actually, that was the part that bothered me most.'' Stone could be a victim of what is known in the lingo of the consumer world as ''cramming.'' It is a new, fast-growing practice in which companies tuck unauthorized charges into your local phone bill, hoping busy consumers won't notice. Cendant Corp. of Stamford, Conn., which operates Privacy Guard, denies ever tricking consumers, but Stone insists she never signed up for the service. ''I'm sure that I didn't,'' she said. For years, Bell Atlantic and other local carriers have agreed, for a fee, to provide billing services for long-distance and other telecommunications companies. It's known as third-party billing. Trying to encourage competition, federal deregulators insist that if local carriers bill for big companies, such as AT&T, they must bill for small ones, too. Given the vast number of these contracts, Bell officials acknowledge that they have unwittingly allowed some non-phone services to slip through on their bills. Also, some companies have managed to put through charges unauthorized by the customers. Crammers usually put through false charges for phone-related services, such as pagers or voice mail, but they also bill for discount clubs, dating services, or insurance programs. And these scams often find their victims among those who enter sweepstakes contests. Hopeful prize winners don't realize that in the fine print, they agreed to a new service. ''Counselors at our fraud center are getting lots of calls about cramming,'' said Susan Grant, vice president of public policy for the National Consumers League. While the Massachusetts attorney general's office has yet to hear many cramming complaints, it expects the practice to increase in the Commonwealth. States receiving the most cramming complaints include Illinois, California, and Maryland. ''I'm anticipating the bomb to drop,'' said Ron Sheehan, who follows telecommunications scams for the attorney general. With so many complaints, the consumers league decided in October to establish a category for cramming. In November and December, it logged 96 cramming complaints, making it the fifth-highest consumer gripe in the two-month period. (It fell just behind ''slamming,'' the unauthorized switching of a person's long-distance carrier, which is dealt with later in this column.) Bell Atlantic officials say they feel like innocent victims in cramming schemes, because their policy is to do third-party billing only for legitimate telephone charges. In the case of Stone's experience with Privacy Guard, the billing may have twice violated Bell Atlantic's rules: The company appears to have put through a charge unauthorized by the customer, and it's not for charges related to phone use. As of last month, Bell Atlantic stopped billing for Privacy Guard and many other services of Cendant after learning that many of its operations are not phone-related. Bell launched its inquiry after this column Feb. 22 raised questions about its billing for Cendant's Buyers Advantage program, an appliance repair service. Peter Taktikos, Cendant's vice president of marketing, said he hopes some additions to its program offerings, such as pre-paid calling cards, will convince Bell to bill for them again. He said the firm, in business more than 20 years, prides itself on honest business practices. Bell spokesman Jack Hoey said that in the past year Bell has vigorously combed its third-party billing files to look for companies that fail to meet its requirements. Of the 249 programs reviewed, 28 were rejected, 98 were sent back for further review, 96 were approved, 26 are pending, and one withdrew. To avoid future cramming problems, Bell is considering a plan allowing customers to request a block on any monthly charges that are unrelated to Bell Atlantic or their long-distance carrier. Some federal and state officials are pushing other reforms, such as prohibiting sweepstakes entries as an endorsement of new phone service. In Illinois, the attorney general is also pushing for easy-to-read phone bills. After almost getting duped, Stone said she's going to be more alert to all new charges on the phone bill. ''It's only after taking the time did I notice something wrong,'' she said. And now for slamming: S lamming, the unauthorized switching of your long-distance carrier, has been around longer than cramming, and it's far from gone. Just ask John Foster, a Boston-area physician. In January, Foster's long-distance company was switched without his permission from AT&T to Amerinet Services Corp. He first heard about Amerinet when it sent him a letter, which began, ''You have registered to win the Grand Prize - a new BMW Roadster or the cash equivalent of $30,000.'' It went on to say, ''Your signature has authorized us to change your long distance service for the telephone number listed above ...'' Foster, who doesn't recall signing up for any sweepstakes, called the company's 800 number to cancel the long-distance carrier switch. The letter said such a cancellation could be done in five days. Nonetheless, his next Bell Atlantic bill showed Amerinet as his new carrier. ''I was obviously outraged,'' he said. Amerinet attorney Zachary Grayson blamed a computer error for failing to pick up Foster's cancellation. He said Amerinet does market through sweepstakes but insists all entrants know it's related to phone service. After many phone calls, Foster managed to straighten out the mess and is back with AT&T. Foster may want to take advantage of Bell Atlantic's program, which allows customers to put a ''freeze'' on their long-distance carrier just by calling the phone company. If frozen, customers can switch long-distance companies only if they call or write themselves. For now, Foster is left with this sobering learning experience. ''Now I know how a slam works,'' he said. Some happy phone news: Jennifer LeDuc of Salem wasn't pleased when her phone went dead recently, but she was pleasantly surprised at how Bell Atlantic responded. It took more than a day for a company technician to locate and fix the problem, which was a major inconvenience. But LeDuc said the technician called her back after making the repairs to make sure everything was in working order. He then called back three days later to check again. Then she received a recorded message from Bell Atlantic apologizing for the inconvenience and later a letter of apology from Fred D'Alessio, president of consumer sales and service. ''Nothing I can say or do can make up for the frustration you have experienced,'' D'Alessio wrote. He included a 20-minute prepaid local calling card for her trouble. ''I really didn't expect that,'' said LeDuc, who works for Sears, Roebuck & Co. ''They went beyond what you'd expect from a company their size.'' It seems the local phone monopoly is gearing up for competition. ''This is standard operating procedure now,'' said spokesman Hoey. ''We're aware that customers increasingly have a choice and we want to be that choice.'' ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 01:08:56 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Push For Sell-off of Bells' Network Operations Gains 04/12/98 By Elizabeth Douglass In proposals reminiscent of the landmark 1984 breakup of AT&T, two long-distance companies have asked federal regulators to consider splitting up parts of the Baby Bell phone companies to break the competitive logjam in the residential market. MCI Communications has filed paperwork with the Federal Communications Commission suggesting that the regional Bells be required to sell off their network operations. In late January, LCI International, another big long-distance carrier, floated a similar proposal. The idea, though somewhat drastic, comes at an opportune time since both federal and state regulators are puzzling over why the two-year-old Telecom Act has failed to draw new rivals into the consumer local phone market. Much to the dismay of the local phone companies, which flatly reject the concept, some regulators are at least willing to consider the arguments. LCI's plan is under review by the FCC, as well as by state regulators in Illinois and Oklahoma. At a recent hearing held by California regulators, LCI urged the state to consider its plan. ''My experience in attempting to pry open local markets for LCI has convinced me that we need a new approach if we are to see broad-based local competition develop,'' Anne Bingaman, a former Justice Department antitrust chief and president of LCI's local phone division, said during the California Public Utilities Commission hearing late last month. Under LCI's plan, Pacific Bell would create one unit (nicknamed ''ServCo'') for selling phone service to customers, and a separate unit (''NetCo'') for selling access to its lines to rival phone companies. The units would operate separately but remain under common ownership until being sold off, according to LCI's plan. Any Bell company that adopted the separation concept would win fast-track entry into the long-distance market if other requirements were met. MCI's proposal is more aggressive. It requires the local phone companies to immediately sell off their network business to ensure the elimination of any conflicts of interest. ''I'm proposing a complete divestiture,'' said Michael Pelcovits, chief economist for MCI. ''I agree that it's radical, but so was the divestiture in the early 1980s, and the result of that was a tremendous amount of customer benefit in competition in long distance.'' Both companies say that breaking up the Bells would resolve one of the biggest sticking points in deregulation: how to guarantee equal access to the priceless phone networks that connect Pacific Bell and its sister Bell companies to homes and businesses throughout their regions. Rivals can get around the problem by installing their own phone lines to the home, but that kind of massive network project is too costly to pay off in the consumer market. Only cable companies and others with existing lines into homes have even attempted that route. Many companies, therefore, have focused on offering local phone service as a reseller. Under that strategy, competitors buy access to the existing lines through discount wholesale agreements with the incumbent Bell company. But long-distance carriers have long questioned the viability of a wholesale plan that requires Baby Bells to cooperate with rivals and sell them access to their networks, and at the same time compete with them for phone customers. Bingaman noted that the inherent conflict of interest creates an incentive for each Bell ''to block the ability of those carrier-customers ... to take away their near-monopoly hold on the local telephone market.'' Not surprisingly, the response from the Bells has been less than enthusiastic. ''The [regional Bells] don't seem to be in favor of it,'' MCI spokeswoman Barbara Gibson deadpanned. Pacific Bell spokesman Steve Getzug declined to comment on the plans, except to say, ''We believe the process that's in place is going well.'' Elizabeth Douglass is a member of the Los Angeles Times staff. ------------------------------ From: Telecom@LincMad.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: What's up with area code 609 (south N.J.) split?? Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 17:26:44 -0700 Organization: LincMad Consulting; change NOSPAM to COM The 1997 COCUS (which I think is now overdue for an update) shows an exhaust date for area code 609 of 2Q-1998. There was talk about a split (after the customary "trial balloon" suggestion of an overlay went down like the Hindenburg), and even a quite specific boundary, complete with complaints from the handful of municipalities that would be divided by the new split line. However, all of that news is *months* old. There's nothing new on the NANPA website, the Bell Atlantic website, or the NJ-BPU website. (In fact, the NJ-BPU has nothing at all that is less than three months old, and the most recent Bell Atlantic press release about 609 is from 1996.) If the COCUS is anywhere near correct, we're on the verge of seeing spot shortages of telephone numbers in southern New Jersey, with waits of potentially days, weeks, or even months just to get a number. This is one of those times that the prolonged uncertainty is worse than any possible decision the BPU could render. The "last minute" came and went months ago, and yet we still have no announcement of a decision. Perhaps the NJ-BPU is planning to inform the residents of South Jersey of their new area code several months after it goes mandatory -- after all, telling people in advance takes all the mystery out of it. Area code 609 contains two LATAs. The Atlantic City LATA is expected to retain 609, as will about 40% of the other LATA. (I don't know the customary designation of the other LATA in 609.) Trenton will keep 609, but Camden and Vineland will change to the unannounced new code. [acronyms... COCUS = Central Office Code Utilization Survey NANPA = North American Numbering Plan Administration NJ-BPU = New Jersey Board of Public Utilities] ** Do not send me unsolicited commercial e-mail spam of any kind ** Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * Telecom@LincMad-com URL:< http://www.lincmad.com > * North American Area Codes & Splits >> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must change "NOSPAM" to "com" << ------------------------------ From: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au (David Clayton) Subject: Telephone Calls While You're Logged On! Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 10:12:02 GMT Organization: Customer of Access One Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia Reply-To: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au Pat, this article was "cut" from the aus.comms newsgroup, it may be of interest to your readers: From "The Australian" newspaper, Tuesday 14 April 1998, Section 3 page 5 is an article called "Telstra clicks onto web icon". [lots cut] Telstra's Virtual Second Line is an extension to its Easycall Service that will allow incoming calls to be answered while surfing the internet. To activate the service, users will divert their phone to Telstra's gateway before logging onto the internet. Once logged on, starting up the web phone will send Telstra information about the IP address and their e-mail. Incoming calls will be automatically diverted via the internet PSTN gateway, where the call information is matched with the IP address, translated into IP packets and then pumped back into the phone line. The two projects, which are still in the final stages of development, are already being demonstrated and trialled with customers. [end quote] Regards, David Clayton, e-mail: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. "I refuse to short-change the 20th century to only allow it 99 years, the 21st century begins with the year 2001, not 2000.", check this URL for details: http://riemann.usno.navy.mil/AA/faq/docs/faq2.html ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #55 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Apr 16 19:22:32 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id TAA20457; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 19:22:32 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 19:22:32 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199804162322.TAA20457@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #56 TELECOM Digest Thu, 16 Apr 98 19:22:00 EDT Volume 18 : Issue 56 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Book Review: "An Engineering Approach to Computer Networking" (Rob Slade) Informal Denver Survey Shows Perils of 10-Digit Dialing (Tad Cook) +690 Tokelau - City Codes (Mark J. Cuccia) ADL, La Raza Tell Sprint to End Threatening Messages (Nigel Allen) Re: 1 877 DISARRAY (Judith Oppenheimer) Re: BellSouth to Introduce "BusyConnect" Feature (Randal Hayes) 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 16:03:26 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "An Engineering Approach to Computer Networking" Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKAEATCN.RVW 980222 "An Engineering Approach to Computer Networking", S. Keshav, 1997, 0-201-63442-2 %A S. Keshav skeshav@cs.cornell.edu %C P.O. Box 520, 26 Prince Andrew Place, Don Mills, Ontario M3C 2T8 %D 1997 %G 0-201-63442-2 %I Addison-Wesley Publishing Co. %O 416-447-5101 fax: 416-443-0948 Fax: 617-944-7273 bkexpress@aw.com %P 660 p. %T "An Engineering Approach to Computer Networking" The term "engineering," when used as a book title, tends to mean different things to different authors. For some, it means heavily laden with mathematics. For others, it commands a formal, rigid, and rigorous approach. In the present case, engineering can probably be read as "based on reality." This book presents a course on networking concepts based on three networks that are arguably the most successful in the world. The telephone system is the world's largest network, the Internet is the world's most widely used data net, and Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM), while not yet widely implemented, is certainly the only protocol I can recall to have excited such interest among lay people. Part one is an introduction. Chapter one, oddly, takes on a task usually left to the introduction or preface, and gives an outline of the book. Chapters two, three, and four review the history and basic technologies of the telephone system, the Internet, and ATM. These background papers are quite readable, and raise the important points and problems that each system addresses, and faces. Section two looks at the tools and techniques that are represented by these networks. Chapter five discusses protocol layering, using the OSI (Open Systems Interconnection) model with examples from the real networks. System design is often dealt with very badly in supposedly "practical" books on networking. This "academic" work does substantially better in this regard, and chapter six provides clear and incisive explanations and examples of the factors that must be considered. Chapter seven looks at the problem of, and solutions to, the need for multiple entities to have access to the same transmission medium. Switching, in chapter eight, uses mostly examples from the telephone and ATM networks. Scheduling can be seen as a special case in multiple access, so, as good as chapter nine is, I'm not sure why it is separate from chapter seven. Naming and addressing in chapter ten is illustrated primarily by examples from the Internet, although the problem should be generic to all networks. Chapter eleven's discussion of routing benefits a great deal from the inclusion of examples from both voice and data networks. These complementary approaches are not always considered together. At first I thought the handling of error control, in chapter twelve, was incomplete. However, I realized that what I was missing was covered in the immediately following chapter on flow control (thirteen), since one very often affects the other. The section closes with traffic management in chapter fourteen, including not only the technical aspects, but also the economic framework. Section three returns again to the real world, to see how some of the technologies studies have worked out in practice. Chapter fifteen looks at common protocols, how they apply the concepts studied, and how well they have functioned. Protocol implementation, in chapter sixteen, considers the difficulties of translating concepts into products. The questions and exercises at the end of chapters don't appear until chapter seven. They do, however, cover a good range of difficulty, from simple repetitions of the text material to analytical problems. Answers to selected questions are given at the end of the book. An appendix of references at the end of the book provides a reasonable annotated bibliography, although it is rather heavily loaded with articles and papers. An interesting and valuable approach to the topic, with a number of strengths on its side. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1998 BKAEATCN.RVW 980222 ------------------------------ Subject: Informal Denver Survey Shows Perils of 10-Digit Dialing Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 13:59:35 PDT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) By Roger Fillion, The Denver Post Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News Apr. 16--As you flex your fingers in anticipation of 10-digit dialing in the Denver area, you might want to know it will take an extra two seconds to make a local call and that your chances of dialing a wrong number will jump by more than 40 percent. That according to an informal -- make that highly informal -- survey of amateurs and experts on the gentle art of dialing. Officials studies on the subject don't appear to exist. The Colorado Public Utilities Commission agreed Monday to set a Sept. 1 date for when all local calls in the 303 area code will need the three-digit code plus the usual seven digits. Just what will that mean in human terms? "One would have to believe that adding three digits increases the error rate by 43 percent," said Mark Cooper, research director at the Consumer Federation of America in Washington. "The rate is higher when you make a number change." Cooper came up with that figure simply by calculating that with 10 digits, you have 43 percent more digits than seven digits. No calculus required there. But Cooper, who has testified at government hearings on area-code changes, can offer up more figures that may interest Colorado residents, especially those in the 303 area, who account for more than 2 million of the state's approximately 2.5 million phone customers. Cooper calculates that based on 1995 data -- which show that 8 billion local calls were made in the state -- the additional two seconds he figures it will take to dial translates into $22 million worth of lost time annually. That's based on valuing the average person's time at $10 an hour. When you increase the 8 billion calls to 9 billion -- to account for population growth and economic growth -- the dollar figure becomes $25 million. "People hate 10-digit dialing," Cooper concluded. "It costs them time." The Denver area is one of only a handful of places that will require 10 digits to call the local pizza parlor. That's because at least two area codes -- 303 and a new 720 code -- will serve the existing 303 area come Sept. 1. Similar 10-digit dialing has been the norm in the Atlanta area since the start of the year. Maryland residents have had mandatory 10-digit dialing since May 1997. "It really was not as bad as some people thought it might be," said Sandra Arnette, Bell Atlantic Corp. spokeswoman in Maryland, where the Baby Bell has 2.8 million customers. Arnette said that on the first day of mandatory 10-digit dialing there were "maybe hundreds of thousands" of incorrect seven-digit calls that came into Bell Atlantic's local network. She said some people did not realize the need for 10 digits, while others wanted to test the system to see if a 10-digit reality had indeed set in. Callers were then reminded, via a recording, of the new requirement. "After 24 hours, there was a tremendous reduction in the calls using seven digits," Arnette added. Of course, there was some griping. "People just did not want to change. They were comfortable with the old way," said Chrys Wilson, spokeswoman for the Maryland Public Service Commission. But she added that there were "very few complaints because there was a large consumer-education effort." In Atlanta, the "complaint level has been relatively low," said Shawn Davis, spokesman for the Georgia Public Service Commission. In the Denver area, regulators have not been barraged by worried consumers and businesses -- at least not yet. "I expect we'll hear a major outcry in September as this begins," said Terry Bote, spokesman for the Colorado Public Utilities Commission. "I don't know that people are out there practicing yet." But many residents probably already have some experience in dialing more than seven digits. Take the use of a phone card, for example, which requires plenty of extra digits. People who use a "dial-around" long-distance service -- which can require a five-digit access code plus the number 1 -- also have experience with dialing extra digits. It is not always a happy experience. Ed Leeper, a physicist and mathematician who makes mountain-climbing equipment, has to dial 16 digits to make a long-distance call from his home in Boulder. "By the time I dial 16 digits, I make a mistake about half the time or I think I make a mistake. So I hang up and start over again," he explained. David Beigie, a spokesman for US West Communications, reminded phone customers that while the extra three digits may take more time, they should remember the time savings offered by the Internet and other forms of modern communications. "You can definitely do the math and there is more time spent dialing the phone. But on the other end, telecommunications technology saves people a ton of time," said Beigie, the head of an industry task force that is educating the public about 10-digit dialing. His advice to those who want to avoid misdialing and save time: "We're hoping that people dust off their speed-dialing features." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 13:13:54 -0500 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: +690 Tokelau - City Codes +690, Tokelau is a small island in the south Pacific, and similar to Pitcairn (which might now have an ITU country code, but not yet known), is politically/jurisdictionally administered-by / associated-with the UK, New Zealand, Australia. From TeleGlobe-Canada's website: +690 Tokelau 2 Atafu 3 Fakaofo 4 Nukunonu local-number length not indicated, though ... http://www.teleglobe.ca/en/codes/codes_t.html AT&T still tells me that only the AT&T International Operator in Pittsburgh PA can handle calls from the US to Tokelau. But it now seems that Tokelau can be customer direct-dialed from Canada! 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, 15 Apr 1998 22:29:53 -0400 From: Nigel Allen Subject: ADL, La Raza Tell Sprint to End Threatening Messages Here is a press release from the Anti-Defamation League and the National Council of La Raza. I do not work for or belong to either group, but I thought the press release would be of interest to readers of this Digest, particularly those who have concerns about Sprint's promotional efforts or employment practices. ADL, La Raza Tell Sprint to End Threatening Messages to Hispanic Clients Contact: Myrna Shinbaum of the Anti-Defamation League, 212-885-7747, or Lisa Navarrete of the National Council of La Raza, 202-776-1744 NEW YORK, April 15 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Two of America's most prominent civil rights organizations have called on the telecommunications company, Sprint, to immediately rewrite its billing reminder notice written in Spanish which contains abrupt and threatening language, to conform to its more polite English-language version. According to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the National Council of La Raza (NCLR), the Spanish-language version threatens a cutoff of service, while the English version does not. In a letter to William Esrey, Sprint CEO, Abraham H. Foxman, ADL national director, and Raul Yzaguirre, NCLR president, said they found the Spanish version of the billing reminder "abhorrent," and the disparity between the two versions "highly offensive." The two civil rights leaders called on Sprint to take "immediate action" to standardize their customer communications, regardless of language. The reminder in Spanish says, "Your Sprint bill has a past due amount. Please send a check or money order in the amount of $... You should remit this amount by March 31, 1998, if we do not receive this amount by that date, your phone service will be disconnected ..." The English version states, "Dear Customer, our records, as of March 20, 1998, indicate we have not received full payment on your outstanding balance of $... Please mail payment immediately. Thank you for using Sprint. As a customer you are Sprint's number one priority. We are pleased to provide you with the clearest service and look forward to serving your communication needs for many years to come. Please disregard this notice if payment has been sent." ------ The Anti-Defamation League, founded in 1913, is the world's leading organization fighting anti-Semitism through programs and services that counteract hatred, prejudice and bigotry. ------ The National Council of La Raza was established in 1968 to reduce poverty and discrimination and improve life opportunities for Hispanic-Americans. forwarded by Nigel Allen ndallen@interlog.com http://www.ndallen.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 12:14:42 -0400 From: Judith Oppenheimer Reply-To: joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com Organization: ICB TOLL FREE NEWS. 15 Day FREE Trial: http://icbtollfree.com Subject: Re: 1 877 DISARRAY James Bellaire wrote: > If only we could prove that the RespOrgs were reserving numbers for > which they had no customer. In the inimitable words of Donny Brosco -- fugetaboutit! The FCC sees clear-cut evidence every week in SMS reports - and then ignores it. > Then we could punish them for their reservations. Re enforcement, even when supplied with tangible evidence of wrong- doing, the FCC leaves the fox to guard the henhouse. One ICB client was recently told by an FCC Enforcement exec that it only "sets policy", and couldn't help in resolving this person's (legit) problem. > The whole toll-free area is turning into the same > kind of 'vanity land' that domain names have become. (Does BT > really need to be BT.COM, BT.NET, BritishTelecom.COM, etc...?) The marketplace - RespOrgs and users - treat 800 numbers in the same manner as domain names and trademarks. Legitimately, IMHO, as this reflects both marketplace reality, and the responsibility to protect and promote one's corporate or business interests. However, the FCC continues to insist on treating 800 numbers in the same manner as bank account numbers. (all the same etc.) It's a very dysfunctional, and polluted, system. And getting smellier by the day. As one AT&T insider recently told me, the FCC is fully aware, and just trying to "contain" the situation. > I also wonder if the same business may be asking two RespOrgs to > get the same number for them. I might, just to increase the odds > of getting my number. Of course! FYI, SMS/800 data shows that the growth in use of toll free numbers (800 and 888) for the week ending April 4th was 50,000+ numbers, consistent with the figure it had remained for months, perhaps only 55% or so of the allocation allowed by the FCC. The growth number spiked for the week ending April 11th, however, to a whopping 337,780 -- but only 43,000 of those were 888's, again consistent with actual "usage" need. The balance of 294,645 numbers was 877's reserved on or after April 5th, nearly matching the total amount of numbers in the 888 set-aside pool. This SMS/800 data confirms that the release of 877 was prompted not by 888 exhaust or pent-up demand, as larger RespOrgs insisted to the FCC, but rather, to fulfill replication demands of preferred customers. >> P.S. One small victory for small business-kind - we're told 877 CALL >> ATT was not snagged by the #1 carrier. Will wonders never cease. > Who else would want it? Someone who wants to skim off callers who > dial 877 instead of 800/888? Yes. Like it or not, "misdials" is a legitimate business, at least in the eyes of the courts, as long as no trademark infringement or consumer fraud takes place. > Unless 225-5288 spells something else it SHOULD be taken by ATT. Now we're on the same page - you're saying that AT&T has an "interest" in that number. We agree. AT&T agrees - but only for AT&T and its preferred customers. The FCC doesn't agree, although it allows AT&T and its preferred customers (along with MCI's etc.) the loopholes to maintain status quo. Judith Oppenheimer, Publisher ICB TOLL FREE NEWS The Daily News Service of the Toll Free Industry 15-day, no-obligation FREE trial: http://icbtollfree.com ------------------------------ From: Randal.Hayes@uni.edu (Randal Hayes) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 10:56:10 -0600 Subject: Re: BellSouth to Introduce "BusyConnect" Feature Mark Cuccia wrote in great detail regarding the upcoming implementation of the "BusyConnect" feature by BellSouth (if you place a call and the line is busy, the LEC provides the customer the choice of having "BusyConnect" redial the number when available and then call you back....for a fee). I have been following this story, as well as that of PacBell and Bell Atlantic implementation of similar services, as USWEST introduced a like service here in Iowa recently. In addition to the complaints of a blanket-offering of a service which, if unwanted, requires positive action by the customer to remove,we also had other problems in Iowa: 1) Although USWEST did not intend for the service to be active on business lines, a number of businesses in Iowa (some with many trunks) found the service operational on their lines. Interestingly, while end-users (behind a PBX) could activate the feature, the return call simply went back to the trunk used to make the call, not the extension number (and, of course, for $.75/call up to a maximum of $6.00/line/month). 2) In addition, while the USWEST announcement did include notice of the $.75 charge (if you listened to the entire announcement before acting on it), if you followed the instructions, pressing (1) NOW to activate the feature, that activity also blanked-out the rest of the message....including the notification of the charge! So, as Mark Cuccia mentioned, many people could activate the service and not know there is a charge associated with it. The one good aspect of USWEST's implementation of the feature was that they at least announced it prior to implementation. When they implemented their Conference Calling feature, the feature (along with the stutter dial tone feature activation step) was activated prior to USWEST's announcement of its implementation. Since that feature caused some interactivity problems between incoming calls to us and our PBX (as well as "held" calls on residential lines), it was interesting that USWEST denied conference calling was live in our area until we proved to them it was indeed active. So, if your LEC indicates this feature will be implemented in your area, check your lines at your business immediately to make sure the feature is NOT active. Randal J. Hayes randal.hayes@uni.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #56 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Apr 16 20:52:21 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id UAA25305; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 20:52:21 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 20:52:21 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199804170052.UAA25305@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #57 TELECOM Digest Thu, 16 Apr 98 20:52:00 EDT Volume 18 : Issue 57 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Dutch Law Goes Beyond Enabling Wiretapping; Makes It Required (M. Solomon) Caller ID Comes to Argentina (David Leibold) $20 Bill For 800 Number Phone Call (Michael Dillon) Re: Upstart Offers Free U.S. Residential Telephone Service (John Nagle) Re: Strangest LD Promotion Yet (Mike Pollock) Re: Strangest LD Promotion Yet (Davew@cris.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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Reply-To: Monty Solomon From: Monty Solomon Subject: Dutch Law Goes Beyond Enabling Wiretapping; Makes It Required Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 11:53:23 -0400 http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/98/04/cyber/eurobytes/14euro.html April 14, 1998 Eurobytes By BRUNO GIUSSANI Dutch Law Goes Beyond Enabling Wiretapping to Make It a Requirement The tapping of the Internet and other new forms of digital communication by government agencies is likely to become one of the hottest issues of the year. With the liberalization of the European telecommunications market continuing, hundreds of new companies from cable operators to Internet service providers (ISPs) are offering a large array of new services and networks. However, accustomed to dealing with state-run companies that used to operate all telephone lines within a country and willingly complied with requests from the police and intelligence agencies, governments now feel now they're losing their grip on telecommunications. And their response is: more and extended wiretapping. Earlier this month, the Netherlands set a controversial benchmark for official snooping on all forms of communications including, in specific cases, private networks. Other countries, and namely those of the European Union, may follow suit. On April 2, the Second Chamber of the Dutch Parliament approved a new Telecommunications Act that includes a chapter intended, among other things, to force cable operators (many of which are preparing to sell phone services) and ISPs to make their networks tappable by the police and intelligence services. Mainly designed to implement recent decisions taken by the European Union concerning market deregulation and interconnection of telecommunication networks, the new Dutch law includes a chapter 13 labeled "Authorized Wiretapping." The first article reads as follows: "Providers of public telecommunications networks and public telecommunications services shall not make their telecommunications networks and telecommunications services available to users unless they can be wiretapped." A further paragraph adds that the operator of the network or the service must supply the necessary equipment and bear its full cost, while later in the text it is stated that "one or more articles of this chapter" may apply also to private networks if they are "in fact open to third parties" which is, for example, the case of an extranet setup. In monopoly times, telephone calls were routed by the phone companies "to tapping rooms where police officers diligently transcribed tape recordings," said Maurice Wessling, a spokesman for XS4all (pronounced "access for all"), one of the largest Dutch ISPS with nearly 30,000 customers. "They are now trying to force every single operator in the communications market to set up tapping facilities at its own expense," he said. XS4all and other ISPs have opposed the new provision because "we don't want to become an extension of the judicial authorities," Wessling said. We recognize that it is sometimes necessary for law enforcement agencies to be able to intercept communications in order to track criminal suspects," Fred Eisner, the chairman of the Dutch association of ISPs, explained. "Yet it should be sufficient to tap networks without extending the law to services," he added. ISPs and telecom operators are also very sensitive to the financial consequences of setting up snooping facilities, which the Council of Central Business Organizations an alliance of major Dutch employers expects to be in the hundreds of millions of guilders (1 million guilders is approximately equal to $487,000). Legal experts and privacy watchdogs have warned that the new law provides insufficient guarantees for the protection of privacy; they also point out the already generous use of telephone taps in this country. A study, carried out by the scientific research and documentation center of the Dutch Ministry of Justice, revealed in 1996 that police in the Netherlands intercept more telephone calls than their counterparts in the United States, Germany or Britain. "In absolute figures, the Dutch tap three times more phone lines than the U.S. agencies. Imagine if you correct this figure for the population's size," Wessling said. Henrik Kaspersen, a professor at the Institute for Informatics and Law of the Free University in Amsterdam, believes that the high rate of telephone tapping in the country is mostly "a matter of tradition: our police forces are small, therefore they tend to use means that are cheaper and need less personnel," he said. He questioned, however, whether just expanding the principle of lawful interception to cover the new networks and services without a careful evaluation is the right way to go. "Over the last few years the situation has become very different," Kaspersen explained. "Where we had a unique telecom company we have now a long list of private organizations that should all cooperate smoothly with the state. It will not be an easy thing." "There are numerous differences between the old phone networks and the information highways," said Guikje Roethof, a liberal member of the Parliament. Indeed, digital technology allows methods of investigation such as scanning communications for words or patterns which could not be carried out in traditional analog voice telephony. "The authorities are oversimplifying the question when they argue that since they've always tapped the phone, extending this practice to the new networks and services is a no-brainer," she said. Roethof said that "this regulation is premature." The market liberalization "has created a lot of new small players. They may run into financial problems, and I'm not at all sure that once the tapping facilities are in place, they will open them only to the authorities." "We may well end up with commercial companies or even criminal organizations snooping on our communications," she said. Despite all these objections and criticism, the Telecommunications Act has been approved by 121 of the 150 members of the Second Chamber. Only D-66 (Roethof's party) and the Green Party opposed it. All the dissenting parties could obtain is a separate resolution giving ISPs an additional delay in setting up the technical facilities that make the tapping of Internet protocol traffic possible. The time frame for this delay has not been defined, but "it will probably be two years," according to Henk Houtman, a spokesman for the Dutch Ministry of Transportation, Public Works and Water, whose jurisdiction includes telecommunications. A few weeks ago, the Ministry of the Interior sent a letter to the leaders of the four largest political parties. The letter, which strongly advocated unobstructed tapping as an essential tool of criminal investigation, seems to have played a key role in the approval of the new law. Vincent Van Steen, a press officer for the Dutch internal security agency, confirmed on the phone that "there has been a letter sent to the parliamentary committee, which is composed of the leaders of the four major parties." He refused to comment further on the content of the writing. The Lower House, the other chamber of the Dutch Parliament, now has to discuss the Telecommunications Act, yet "it is a formal body and has no authority to amend it," Kaspersen explained. Bruno Giussani at giussani@nytimes.com welcomes your comments and suggestions. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 21:55:47 EDT From: David Leibold Subject: Caller ID Comes to Argentina The following is a press release as found on the Telefonica (Argentina) website, www.telefonica.com.ar: Press information TELEFONICA DE ARGENTINA LAUNCHED THE "CALL IDENTIFICATION" SERVICE For Mendoza and San Juan provinces customers Buenos Aires, February 13. As a brand-new service in the country, Telefonica de Argentina launched the so called "Call Identification" which will allow, in its first stage to Mendoza and San Juan Provinces' customers, to know the phone number of the calling party prior to picking up the handset. The customers willing to hire this new service of Telefonica de Argentina shall have to incorporate an additional device to be connected to their phones, or purchase a phone unit with a built-in display. This service is launched as a promotion in its monthly operating rate, with a discount of 20%, at a price of 3.99 pesos per month. The identifying display can be purchased at Telespacio offices, located at the main shoppings of the country. As a part of this launching, Telefonica is offering in March to use the service during one month (on a free of charge basis) for those individuals hiring the service before February 27. The main advantages of "Call Identification" for the customers are, among very many others, to know the phone number of the calling party before picking up the phone and the date and time the call was made; detect bothering and mischievous (sly and unsuitable) calls; to know who has called (either the call had been attended or not), use the list of calls received as a dairy; the device allows to store in its memory the phone numbers of the incoming calls and take advantage of the service as a complement of the automatic answering machine or Memobox service (for those having this service). Regarding the companies, the service shall allow them to improve the performance in attending their customers, since they will be able to know who is calling them before piking up the phone, thus offering a personalized assistance; calling to the unanswered calls before the customer calls the company for the second time and a great possibility to reach a business opportunity. The way this service works When the customer hiring the service receives a call, the display shall show if this is a local area call, and the phone number of the calling party, and if it is a toll transit one, the display will show the calling party phone number preceded by zero plus the toll prefix number corresponding to the location from which this call is being made. All calling parties' phone numbers shall be automatically recorded in the device memory, and in the case the call is not immediately answered, that phone number can be taken (recovered)= from the memory in order to call to it later. The customer connected with switches without the service connected shall not be able to access this service, and the calls coming from these customers shall not be identified in the display of those individuals having the service, but a text shall appear. In order to obtain more information or hire the "Call Identification" service, the interested parties can request it by dialing 112 Total "Call Identification Restriction". Telefonica de Argentina shall offer on a free of charge basis the "Call Identification Restriction" service for the customers who do not want their phone number appear in the display of the party they are calling to, who shall elect to dial a code before the phone number with which they want to communicate with. Thus, the phone communication origin line number shall not be visible in the receiving phone display; the display shall read "Anonimo" (Anonymous/nameless), with which privacy is kept for those wishing to stay in that position. Besides, the company offers another alternative to avoid that the phone number of the calling party may appear in the phone unit display of the customer receiving the call who had hired the "Call Identification" service, comprising the possibility to restrict on a permanent basis the phone number appearing in the display without the need to dial a code before starting the communication. This facility shall be free of charge for the customers who do not appear in the phone directory, while those appearing in it shall be charged only once with $ 4.20 and a monthly service rate of $ 1.58. International backgrounds This service which is at present marketed in the United Stated, United Kingdom, Germany, France, Chile, New Zealand and Ireland, started to be offered in some of them - the most technologically advanced ones - one year and a half ago, while it has been started more recently in the remaining ones. 2/13/98 ------------------------------ From: Michael Dillon Subject: $20 Bill For 800Nnumber Phone Call Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 11:29:42 -0700 Organization: Memra Software Inc. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This was forwarded to the Digest by Mr. Dillon. It is an old, old story told here many times in the past. I cannot imagine any regular Digest reader who has not heard about this. I've also published the phone numbers to be called at each telco to ask for a permanent block against these charges; it is known as 'Billed Number Screening'. Go through the back issues in the archives if you want to see that list again. PAT] ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 13:06:52 -0400 From: Barry Shein To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Since it's such a slow week on com-priv... Did you know that you can incur a $20 or more charge on your phone bill by just dialing a 1-800 (or 888 etc, "toll-free") number? And, if you don't pay it (or resolve it) you'll be in default on your phone bill. There seems to be this racket run by companies such as Integretel where someone can set up an 800 number and if you call it, wham, there'll be some large charge on your phone bill in the 3rd party section. You don't have to agree to anything, the other party just has to capture your number (which they always can do with toll-free dialing) and bill it. Do you expect a $20 or more charge to appear on your bill as the result of calling an 800 number? I found this out first-hand when not only did I get such a charge, but it kept re-appearing anew month after month! I kept calling my local telco and they kept removing it (warning me each time that the other party could pursue collections by other means), but it became enough of a nuisance that I began to investigate. I was particularly disturbed that a call to Integretel to try to clear this up appeared on my bill as another $20 charge! Not only didn't they remove the call, they tried to bill me for calling them to tell them they made a mistake. A call to the PUC here indicates this is completely legal and they even defended the practice, but did get this month's new charges removed for me and said they called Integretel and asked them to stop adding these charges. This is relevant to com-priv because I believe this started when I called an 800 number during the investigation of a spam message to our system. I think this is crooked, a full-employment act for criminals, and it undermines the utility of 800 numbers for honest people. I know I'll think twice now before dialing any toll-free number and would advise the same hesitation in others. Although it's not that difficult to get the specific charge removed from your bill (yet): A) It's a nuisance to have to call every month to get charges removed. And what right does this company have to add new charges month after month? Why did I have to to spend my time calling the PUC to get them to stop this, and why isn't there any (apparent) sanction against the company for doing this? Even if they claimed I called this 800 number once, I certainly didn't call it every month since August 1997! B) It assumes you carefully check your bill every month, which you should, but I bet that's what these slimebags live off of; people who don't check or just don't understand that they've been ripped-off and assume it must be something they owe. C) The PUC was so certain that this was a legitimate form of business that I wouldn't bet on getting these charges removed politely in the future. I think we're going to find ourselves in a position of "hey, you want your phone service, pay what it says, otherwise we'll shut you off". I realize most people think their shock and outrage at what they'd view as a ridiculous charge should save the day, but believe me that wasn't what the PUC was saying. They were basically saying to me "that's right, that's how it works, we'll remove it this time but get used to it!" Apparently the FCC also thinks this rip-off is a swell idea. SUGGESTIONS: 1. You should be able to block the ability to dial these numbers from your phone, just like you can block 900 numbers. If the telco finds that too complex then they should dump this whole service. 2. Such companies should be required to give a clear message that if you proceed you will be charged, and how much, and give you a chance to hang up before any charges are incurred. 3. The telcos should be required to spend some money informing their customers that they can be liable for large charges on their bills as the result of dialing what appear to be toll-free numbers. Because right now this is just a fraud, plain and simple. I don't believe you could find one person out of a 100 on the street who would know that they can be charged $20 or more for dialing a TOLL-FREE number. -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@world.std.com | http://www.world.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Only a twenty dollar charge? Wow, did you get off cheap. Fifty or sixty dollar charges are quite common. Legally they are in the clear because they *do mot* charge you for the trans- port of the call itself -- it is a toll-free number -- but rather, they charge for the alleged *telecom-related service* performed as part of the call. Under the present law, telecom-related services can be billed to your phone bill. It has always been this way, since nearly a century ago when Western Union first started accepting telegrams by phone and charging them to your phone bill. Now sometimes the defin- ition of 'telecom-related service' gets stretched rather thin, and certainly the prices charged are seldom if ever a bargain, but they are legal as long as they inform you that a charge of X dollars will be levied per minute or call as a result. They can inform you of that with a *tiny* one line message on the bottom of the television screen, or a tiny message printed in very small type at the bottom of an advertising flyer, etc. They can say it verbally using about twenty words pronounced very fast at the start of their conversation with you. But they informed you, you chose not to break the connection, and that makes it legal. Left unstated are whether you completely understood the extent of the charges, or if indeed you have the authority to impose additional charges on the subscriber to the telephone line, i.e. an extension user on a PBX. The ONLY way to assure that it does not happen to you is to get the list of companies which engage in this practice from the Telecom Archives; call each and every one, and provide them with *all* of your telephone numbers -- not just your first, or main listed number -- and insist that each number be placed on their negative list; what the legit, established telcos refer to as 'Billed Number Screening'. Like I said at the beginning, an old story that comes to life about once a month, each time telco has a billing cycle and a few new people get swept up in it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) Subject: Re: Upstart Offers Free U.S. Residential Telephone Service Organization: Netcom On-Line Services Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 02:47:30 GMT jnorton@vol.com writes: > BY JON VAN, CHICAGO TRIBUNE > Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News > Forget a dime a minute to call anyplace anytime or even a nickel a > minute on Sundays. Instead, how about absolutely free? That's right, > call anywhere in the country for free. There's only one catch: You > have to listen to commercials first. Hmm. Does this work for data calls and fax traffic? John Nagle [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: When I make a data call, the speaker on my modem stays open until the connection is established. I suppose I could listen to advertisements through my modem speaker as easily as I could listen to them on the phone itself. The only problem is the modem would have to be set for a much longer timeout before considering the call unanswered. Then again, I suppose I could set the timeout for a larger value and likewise turn the speaker off from the beginning and have it remain silent for the additional 30-45 seconds required. Trouble is, my modem calls tend to go on for an hour or longer. I wonder how many commercial messages that would require? I wonder also if anyone has considered dialing in, setting the number of commercials to be listened to to some obscene value -- an hour or more of them -- and then letting the phone line stay connected all day to their ISP for example. You could have the modem 'listen' to the commercial messages all night long while you were asleep, building up sufficient credit to stay connected to your ISP all day once you woke up. Then when logging off later in the day, dial right back in and build up your supply of credit once again by 'listening' to a few thousand more commercials while you went out to dinner. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Mike Pollock Subject: Re: Strangest LD Promotion Yet Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 22:27:53 -0400 Telecom@LincMad.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) wrote: > > On the other hand, I did recently switch long distance carriers, under > a promotion that AOL is running. You get 5 cents/minute 24-by-7 for > the introductory promotional rate, and then 9 cents/minute. The bill > is supposed to be delivered to you online, but all I get is "the > nattempt to load http://...... failed" when I try. The underlying > service is AT&T, but it's through a reseller called The Phone Company, > using carrier code 1016746. I keep having visions of The President's > Analyst ... I just made that switch, too and, interestingly enough, The Phone Company (which is the d.b.a. name that TelSave uses so that when people are asked to pick a long distance carrier and they say, "Oh, I don't know--The Phone Company," TelSave gets chosen) vehemently denies that they are an AT&T reseller. Even though the main carrier verifcation number (700 500-4141) says AT&T, and the re-seller verification number (700 500-4110) says The Phone Company, TelSave *insists* they do not re-sell AT&T long distance. They *do* admit to having bought some AT&T 5ESS switches, but they claim they don't get a monthly bill from AT&T for services rendered. It is *possible* that a call might spill over to AT&T during times of heavy usage, but that's about it. Needless to say, I don't believe them. Mike ------------------------------ From: Dave Subject: Re: Strangest LD Promotion Yet Date: 15 Apr 1998 03:26:09 EDT Organization: Concentric Internet Services I saw the ad ... "Quintel Communications". Funny ... they claim "No gimmicks, no strings" yet at the bottom of the screen say "Must sign up for long distance service to be eligble." That sounds like a gimmick, an obligation, a catch to me. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Can't you sign up your favorite pay station for service? Or what about your favorite incoming-only DID trunk used for voicemail, etc? Do you suppose their psychic powers would reveal that you were a charlatan, just like them? :) My oh my; times must be getting tough in the psychic reading by telephone business; I can remember when they never used to ever give anything for free, let alone several minutes of their crap. Those late night paid-programming things they put on television for those outfits are funny to watch sometimes. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #57 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Apr 21 22:12:17 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA25268; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 22:12:17 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 22:12:17 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199804220212.WAA25268@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #58 TELECOM Digest Tue, 21 Apr 98 22:12:00 EDT Volume 18 : Issue 58 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Spamford Gives it up (John Rice) Re: What's up With Area Code 609 (South N.J.) Split?? (Scott Rubin) Digital Cell Phone Code Cracked (Mike Pollock) AOL LD Service (Eric Levy-Myers) Re: Upstart Offers Free U.S. Residential Telephone Service (Thor L. Simon) Re: IDT's Lying Spam About FCC Tariffs (Robert L. McMillin) Re: Access Denied! (Hillary Gorman) Re: Access Denied! (Alan Miller) Re: Access Denied! (Stanley Cline) Re: Vatican City Dialing Access (Enrique) 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: rice@SPAMBLOCK.ttd.teradyne.com (John Rice) Subject: Spamford Gives it up Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 15:40:44 GMT Organization: Teradyne Telecommunications Thursday April 16 11:17 AM EDT "Spam King" abdicates PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - "The Spam King," one of the most notorious junk e-mailers on the Internet, says he has abdicated his throne and promises never to sin again. But not everyone believes him. Sanford Wallace, 29-year-old president of Cyber Promotions Inc., abruptly announced his decision to a legion of long-time adversaries who frequent a newsgroup dedicated to fighting bulk e-mail promotions. The term "spamming" was derived from a "Monty Python" sketch in which a waitress offers diners a choice of "spam, spam, spam, spam and spam." As the Internet's so-called Spam King, Wallace once boasted that his Philadelphia-based firm was sending out 25 million promotional e-mails daily on behalf of himself and his clients. But in his parting message, posted last weekend, he said he had not only abandoned the practice but would support anti-spam legislation. "I will never go back to spamming," he wrote. "I apologize for my past actions." He added that although there was money in spamming, profits were outweighed by risks. Some anti-spam activists welcomed the news as a sign that the battle had turned in their favor. But others remained suspicious, recalling that Wallace had once previously promised to desist and form a direct mailing standards organization. His latest change of heart followed a futile six-month attempt to get his operation back online after an angry service provider cut him off. He also had been saddled with expensive legal settlements, ending with a judgment against him last week over unsolicited faxes. Wallace could not be reached for comment. (submitted by) John Rice __|__ K9IJ | "I speak for myself, not my employer". ________(*)________ | o/ \o | Living under a bridge on the Information john.rice(@)teradyne.com | Super Highway... ------------------------------ From: concord@eden.rutgers.edu (Scott Rubin) Subject: Re: What's up With Area Code 609 (South N.J.) Split? Date: 21 Apr 1998 15:41:38 -0400 Organization: Rutgers University Telecom@LincMad.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) writes: > The 1997 COCUS (which I think is now overdue for an update) shows an > exhaust date for area code 609 of 2Q-1998. There was talk about a > split (after the customary "trial balloon" suggestion of an overlay > went down like the Hindenburg), and even a quite specific boundary, > complete with complaints from the handful of municipalities that > would be divided by the new split line. > However, all of that news is *months* old. There's nothing new on the > NANPA website, the Bell Atlantic website, or the NJ-BPU website. (In > fact, the NJ-BPU has nothing at all that is less than three months old, > and the most recent Bell Atlantic press release about 609 is from 1996.) > If the COCUS is anywhere near correct, we're on the verge of seeing > spot shortages of telephone numbers in southern New Jersey, with waits > of potentially days, weeks, or even months just to get a number. This > is one of those times that the prolonged uncertainty is worse than any > possible decision the BPU could render. The "last minute" came and > went months ago, and yet we still have no announcement of a decision. > Perhaps the NJ-BPU is planning to inform the residents of South Jersey > of their new area code several months after it goes mandatory -- after > all, telling people in advance takes all the mystery out of it. > Area code 609 contains two LATAs. The Atlantic City LATA is expected > to retain 609, as will about 40% of the other LATA. (I don't know the > customary designation of the other LATA in 609.) Trenton will keep > 609, but Camden and Vineland will change to the unannounced new code. > acronyms... COCUS = Central Office Code Utilization Survey > NANPA = North American Numbering Plan Administration > NJBPU = New Jersey Board of Public Utilities] Linc, I know the problem you are talking about. I have waited at the edge of my seat just trying to figure out when this is going to happen. The explosion of numbers in 609 within the past few years is staggering. In most towns, in the past 5 years, the number of exchanges has doubled for each town. By looking at all of the possible number combinations, I think that these 11 or 12 NPA's are the most likely assigned ones left for the State of New Jersey: 260. 480, 550, 551, 552, 553, 554, 556, 640, 749, 856, 958 Keep in mind that 732 and 973 have already been taken, and that these NPA's did not appear as local prefixes anywhere in 201, 609, or 908 prior to 1995. Note that there are a lot of 55x numbers. They probably will be used last in future years for an overlay. Out of these numbers, the three most likely to be assigned next are 749, 856, and 958. New Jersey does not have a history of assigning area codes with last digit of zero, the BPU's way of doing things. Of those three, I suspect that, and I'm only guessing here, that 856 will be the most likely assigned here. Once that is assigned, 749 will probably go to a future overlay or split of 732 and 958 will probably go to a future overlay or split of 973. I think that maybe 260 will be the overlay code of 201 that is supposed to take place soon in Bergen County. Note the way I assigned these: 749 for 732 958 for 973 260 for 201 ***The first digit counts here. That is what I think the BPU's method of madness is going to be over the next few years. In the end, my guess is that 856 will be the new area code for Southwestern NJ. P.S. If you go to the Areacode-info.com web site, how do they know that the 609 split has been approved and will proceed on June 1st? BTW, we are already like you said, in 2Q-1998 now, but it ends in June, so maybe we just have to wait a bit longer. Scott ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 11:01:13 -0400 From: Mike Pollock Subject: Digital Cell Phone Code Cracked BERKELEY, Calif. (AP) -- It was a challenge a trio of computer students and professionals could not resist: proving ``tamperproof'' digital cellular phones are actually vulnerable. After about six hours of work, two graduate students at the University of California at Berkeley and a computer cryptologist were able to ``clone'' the phone, allowing them to make unauthorized calls from another phone. ``Given the state of the security of other cellular phone systems, I wasn't terribly, terribly surprised,'' said Ian Goldberg, one of the students. The three looked at the project as a challenge. {USA Today} reported the breakthrough about a week ago. Still, the amount of time and effort it took to clone the codes makes the digital phone security much more difficult to circumvent than analog cellular phones, which in comparison are easily breached. The three cracked the codes guarding a Global System for Mobile Communications phone. The GSM digital standard is the most widely used in the world, with more than 79 million phones in use. The standard is used primarily in Europe. Goldberg and Wagner were part of a group that announced last year they had cracked the weaker encryption codes used by the U.S. cellular phone system. Overcoming the security also revealed a hint that the code may have been intentionally weakened during its design to allow government agencies the ability to eavesdrop on telephone conversations, The New York Times reported today. Marc Briceno of Smartcard Developers Association, who worked with Goldberg and student David Wagner, said the weakened code would let powerful computers available to intelligence agencies decode a voice conversation relatively quickly. ``I can't think of any other reason for what they did,'' Briceno said. For years, the computer industry has been rife with rumors about government intrusion or intimidation. Little evidence has ever emerged to support such speculation, the Times reported, but the origins of the GSM system are hazy. ------------------------------ From: Eric_Levy-Myers@mail.amsinc.com (Eric Levy-Myers) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 13:48:45 -0400 Subject: AOL LD Service telecom@LincMad.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) wrote: > On the other hand, I did recently switch long distance carriers, under > a promotion that AOL is running. You get 5 cents/minute 24-by-7 for > the introductory promotional rate, and then 9 cents/minute. The bill > is supposed to be delivered to you online, but all I get is "the > attempt to load http://...... failed" when I try. The underlying > service is AT&T, but it's through a reseller called The Phone Company, > using carrier code 1016746. I keep having visions of The President's > Analyst ... I have been using the AOL service for three months. It is great, the bills have always been available (via the AOL client), and are interactive. You can sort by various fields and can even list your top ten numbers called. But here is how AOL is soooo different from other telcos. One day BEFORE the one month 5 cents/minute promotion began, AOL sent an e-mail to EXISTING customers giving us the promo rate as well. Has any telco in history dropped its rates to existing customers to match a new promo rate? Unfortunately, they do have some capacity problems. I got circuit busy signals last Sunday evening. Also their basic rate to Canada is very high -- I have not investigated thier international rate plan. elm ------------------------------ From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) Subject: Re: Upstart Offers Free U.S. Residential Telephone Service Date: 21 Apr 1998 23:29:07 -0400 Organization: Panix Reply-To: tls@rek.tjls.com In article , wrote: > BY JON VAN, CHICAGO TRIBUNE > Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News > Apr. 9--In the race to win long-distance phone customers by cutting > rates, Thomas Hurkmans thinks he's got a deal you can't resist. > Forget a dime a minute to call anyplace anytime or even a nickel a > minute on Sundays. Instead, how about absolutely free? That's right, > call anywhere in the country for free. There's only one catch: You > have to listen to commercials first. N.B.: I am *not* a lawyer. And I have no idea what intellectual property rights this particular company doing this may have. However, it's interesting to note that this is hardly a new idea. How do I know that? Because the whole notion of telephone calls subsidised by advertising messages is a veritable minefield of patents. AT&T has at least two notable ones, several years old, which seem to me to cover most implementations that a carrier might use; and there are several others. None are particularly new. A few quick searches on the patent office web site will often turn up the most surprising perspective on newspaper articles trumpeting small companies that some reporter happened to notice (translated: they got lucky or did good PR!) and announce to the world as bringing new and innovative technologies to the market. Or, for that matter, rather large companies. :-) Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com "And where do all these highways go, now that we are free?" ------------------------------ From: Robert L. McMillin Subject: Re: IDT's Lying Spam About FCC Tariffs Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 10:06:48 -0700 Organization: Syseca, Inc. Fred R. Goldstein wrote: > IDT, the callback/reseller low-end LD company, is now spamming > abUsenet as part of their campaign against the FCC. They have a > "service" called Net2phone which makes ordinary telephone calls using > IP, terminating on LEC access lines. Under long-standing (since 1979) > FCC rules, long distance telephone carriers pay "access" charges to > local telcos. IDT is claiming, rather lamely, that because they're > using IP instead of ordinary TDM or (historical interest only) FDM on > their muxes, they are somehow exempt from this, and can hook up to > ordinary business lines. Indeed, this is pretty lame, but what the opposition forgets is that these guys are not selling a clear-channel 64kbps connection; instead, you get a fractional connection with an instantaneously variable bit rate, major voice compression, and other problems you won't find on a conventional LD link. From what I know of IDT, I'm not impressed generally, but you don't find the regulated telco monopolies trying very hard to reduce their tariffed rates. Where I am, a T1 from GTE costs *three times* what it costs from MCI (this for local service). The GTE reps are begging their operations people to cut prices, but the idiots there sit on their hands. What it amounts to is this: it costs a certain amount to move a bit from one place to another. The telcos don't like having to drop their prices to reflect their drastically lowered costs, and are effectively hiding behind the shield of this grossly naive "universal service" fund to forestall someone else from providing cheaper service. Data is data, be it voice, video, or comp.dcom.telecom. >> If these taxes are imposed, you will have to pay more every time you use >> the Internet. > This is a TOTAL falsehood. The fees already exist; the FCC merely > wishes to start enforcing them on companies who carry PHONE calls > "across" the Internet. I defy the FCC to define, in practical terms, what the difference between "voice" calls between two computers hooked up via the Internet, and two people playing Quake. Later on, our correspondant declares that > You can't have exempt data and exempt LD voice. Why not? The Universal Access fund is merely a spackle to cover over the fact that it costs more to serve some customers than it does others. What's more, the people allegedly benefiting from the UA fund (schools, in particular) need funds for maintenance, books, and employee salaries long before they need subsidized Internet connections. I recall in the {Los Angeles Times} a seventh-grade class following the antics of JJ the Whale (recently salvaged after a run-in with the beach) via the Net. Upon this, one little girl remarked that saving the whale was a good thing, because it was an "extinct" species. Could it be that the children would have been better served by spending more time with vocabulary lessons, and books and supplies therefor? 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: hillary@hillary.net (Hillary Gorman) Subject: Re: Access Denied! Date: 21 Apr 1998 23:19:56 GMT Organization: Debugging our net or deworming your pet... On Thu, 09 Apr 1998 16:31:34 -0600, wrote: > I moved into a new apartment a while ago, and when I had signed the > lease and paperwork I found that I would have to get all my phone > service from an outfit called Shared Technology. Apartmently they cut > deals with various apartment management agencies and if you live in an > apartment complex that has such an arrangement, you don't have a > choice. The apartment management co. touts this as a convenience to Are you sure? I had a similar situation, where the building told me it was best to use the in-house service, Fairchild Communications. After a couple of months, since they sucked so much, I just called Bell Atlantic and had them bring in a line for me. I was the only Bell line in the building ... hillary gorman...........Official Token Female..........hillary@netaxs.com "So that's 2 T-1s and a newsfeed....would you like clues with that?" hillary@hillary.net: for debugging your net or deworming your pet Net Access...The NSP for ISPs....The NOC that rocks around the clock. ------------------------------ From: ajm@MCS.COM (Alan Miller) Subject: Re: Access Denied! Date: 21 Apr 1998 18:38:59 -0500 Organization: Bob's Bass House; We Got Bass! irishman@technologist.com wrote: > [apartment complex has phone service only through a company called > "Shared Technology" that doesn't allow 10NNN calls] TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: > Talk to the state commissioners if talking with the company doesn't > work. Actually, his best bet might be talking with the LD carrier he wants to use -- haven't they always taken an interest in this sort of thing from pay phones, and wouldn't this be a similar situation? Alan Miller \\ ajm@pobox.com or ajm@mcs.net Out-of-date Web page: http://www.pobox.com/~ajm s.s.m Boink listing: http://www.pobox.com/~ajm/html/ssm/boink.html ------------------------------ From: roamer1@pobox.com (Stanley Cline) Subject: Re: Access Denied! Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 02:32:28 GMT Organization: very little Reply-To: roamer1@pobox.com On Thu, 09 Apr 1998 16:31:34 -0600, irishman@technologist.com wrote: > I moved into a new apartment a while ago, and when I had signed the What state? In many states (including, from what I understand, all BellSouth states) STS (shared tenant service, which is exactly what this is, unless Shared Tech is a certified CLEC in your state) providers cannot block tenants, whether directly or by means of the property manager, from subscribing to the ILEC's phone service, and must allow a choice of LD carrier. You definitely have fodder for a complaint to your state regulators and the FCC. > lease and paperwork I found that I would have to get all my phone > service from an outfit called Shared Technology. Apartmently they cut > deals with various apartment management agencies and if you live in an > apartment complex that has such an arrangement, you don't have a > choice. The apartment management co. touts this as a convenience to Basically the phone equivalent of private cable, meaning that the property manager takes a cut of the revenue and that switching facilities are on-site (read: PBX) instead of at a distant location, and that the provider is UNREGULATED with regard to rates. (Many of the 'private phone' providers, including GE Rescom and OpTel, are private cable companies as well. Is Shared Tech providing your cable service too?) See http://www.mindspring.com/~scline/telecom/smatv/ for details on the cable side of things. This, unfortunately, is getting more and more common, especially on the cable side, and is causing more and more vocal consumer complaints, whether about cable service or phone service, since the consumer's choice is limited to 'take what we have, or move elsewhere'. Common complaints include: (phone) * can't get ISDN, ADSL, etc. because that requires going to the ILEC, and the tenant can't do that becaue of the 'agreement' between a STS provider and the property owner * can't choose LD carrier * extra charges billed for 900 calls, casual billings for collect calls, etc. -- or 900/collect/etc. calls are blocked * caller-ID goes out blocked by default and caller can't unblock * calls to other carriers' card access numbers routed to STS=20 provider's selected IXC (ILLEGAL WITH PAYPHONES, WHY ISN'T IT WITH STS?) * frequent outages * poor customer service/repair service/service quality/rates/etc. (cable) * can't get cable modems (same thing as ISDN, involves going to the franchise cable company instead of the ILEC, as most SMATV [private cable] cos. don't have the resources to do cable modems; a few that are not true SMATV, such as RCN in NYC and Phonoscope in Houston, do) (second most common complaint, by far) * not enough channels/services (most common complaint, by far) * frequent outages * poor customer service/picture quality/rates/etc. I'm sorry to say, this situation is even worse than private payphones, since at least with payphones, there is the choice (most of the time) of another phone! At this point, I have recommended to various regulators numerous proposals to deal with the STS/SMATV blight, including: * Exclusive contracts between any telecom providers (including cable and phone companies) must be banned, and property managers may not abuse their 'gatekeeper' position to force residents to one provider of cable/phone/etc service. * Names of all telecom/utility providers must be disclosed before the lease is signed (or a condo purchase agreement signed, the problem exists with condos too, but to a lesser degree) to allow the prospective tenant/purchaser to 'opt out' and go elsewhere. * STS/SMATV providers (and property owners with agreements with such providers) may not block access to other providers for access to services that they do not offer (ISDN, ADSL, cable modems, etc.) (These and more are listed on my web page) Where's the 'choice' promised by the Telecom Act when 1/3 of the population (essentially, the amount of the population that rent apartments or mobile home spaces or own condos; this isn't a problem with those that rent or own single-family homes) is denied a choice=20 of basic phone and video service providers on the whims of property managers and sleazy 'private' telecom providers more interested in profit than in providing innovative, cutting-edge telecom services to their residents? Saying 'take this or move elsewhere' is NO CHOICE at all, and MUST be addressed by the FCC and Congress, and by states where this is a major problem (Texas, California, [increasingly :( ] Georgia, etc. -- oddly, it isn't a major problem in the Northeast), NOW. then PAT said: > with the outfit running your phone service; but in the meantime > I suggest you use the 800 number for your carrier as a workaround > for making long distance calls. PAT] Several people have stated that some STS providers route calls to known carrier access numbers, to 'their' carrier. Of course, the STS provider can't do anything with AT&T (non-line-number-based) or prepaid cards, since there's not enough info with which to bill a call. Stanley Cline (IRC:Roamer1).....Telecommunications & Consumer Advocacy Chattanooga & Atlanta..............(no spam!) roamer1[at]pobox[dot]com main web page.......................http://scline.home.mindspring.com/ the payphone page....................http://cocot.home.mindspring.com/ ------------------------------ From: Enrique Subject: Re: Vatican City Dialing Access Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 14:53:58 -0300 According to the TELECOM Digest files the actual code for the Vatican is "39 66982". See : http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/country.codes/zone3. codes.36-39.new or http://www.plato-net.or.jp/usr/vladimir/ugtxt/Phreak%26Telco_Philes/NumS chem.txt But ... I searched for Vatican phone numbers in the web. From http://www.vatican.va/vis/visa5_fr.htm I got the following number: Vatican Information Service V. 00120 Cit=E9 du Vatican Tel : +39-6-69892425 Fax : +39-6-69883053 From http://www.vatican.va/news_services/or/photo/ph_fra.htm : Service photo de "L'Osservatore Romano" 00120 Cit=E9 du Vatican Tel. (+39)06.69884797 - (+39)06.69885041 - (+39)06.69881218 fax (+39)06.69884998=20 And in http://www.ecri.coe.fr/en/01/04/02/e01040250.htm : Holy See * Section Jeunes Conseil pontifical pour les la=EFcs CITE DU VATICAN Tel: +(39) 6 69 88 73 22 Fax: +(39) 6 69 88 72 14 From http://www.ocic.org/sm.html OCIC MISSIONARY SERVICE Palazzo San Calisto, 00120 Vatican City Tel: (39-6) 6988-7255 Fax: (39-6) 6988-7335 E-mail: missions@ocic.org From http://sdieci.sko.it/musei/imi_miol.htm : Musei Vaticani: Museo Sacro Vaticano - tel. 06 / 69883333 And from http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/institutions_connected/lev/c_lev_fr.htm : Librairie =C9ditrice du Vatican 00120 Cit=E9 du Vatican Tel. +39 6 698.85003 Fax. +39 6 698.84716 From here it appears as if the Vatican has gotten more numbers, occupying "39 669 88" and "39 669 89" . I've found no number "39 66982". Maybe somebody can call one of these numbers and get more complete information. Enrique MTI Montevideo, Uruguay ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #58 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Apr 21 23:00:44 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id XAA27879; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 23:00:44 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 23:00:44 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199804220300.XAA27879@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #59 TELECOM Digest Tue, 21 Apr 98 23:00:00 EDT Volume 18 : Issue 59 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson AT&T Operator-Handled Manual Non-Dial Countries (Mark J. Cuccia) 617 and 508 May Split Again (Eric Ewanco) Contel Club Website (Lee Johnson) Telecom Update (Canada) #129, April 20, 1998 (Angus TeleManagement) UCLA Short Course: Project Management Principles and Practice (Bill Goodin) From NCP to UNIX Based TCPp/IP (ARPANET to Internet) (Ronda Hauben) 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 19:59:19 -0500 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: AT&T Operator-Handled Manual Non-Dial Countries Here is the most recent information I have on those parts of the world which are still AT&T Operator-Handled manual non-customer-dial. AT&T states that all calls via AT&T from the US to these countries must be handled by the AT&T International Operator Center in Pittsburgh PA. A call would start off by dialing the 'local' AT&T operator as: 00 (if the line is presubscribed to AT&T) or the following additional access methods, if necessary ... 10(10)288-0('#'/0) 800-CALL-ATT, 800-321-0288, 800-OPERATO(R), etc. The originating AT&T "OSPS" operator will then connect to the AT&T IOC in Pittsburgh PA, and pass all necessary billing information to the IOC which will handle the billing/ticketing for the call. Back in "Bell System" days, there were several more IOC's throughout the US, usually located in the same cities where there were a #4A-XB or #4ESS switch which performed international/overseas gateway functions, but since most every country in the world is now customer dialable, it probably has made more sense for AT&T to consolidate these functions to just one IOC location. In 1979, the Pittsburgh IOC operator positions were cordboards, with associated Nortel-TOPS-like terminals -- keyboard and _TWO_ video-monitors. I don't know if the AT&T Pittsburgh IOC still uses a cordboard or if it is exclusively now using OSPS-like equipment. The countries/regions which _must_ still be handled by the AT&T IOC in Pittsburgh PA, when calling from the US via AT&T include: Afghanistan Tokelau Pitcairn Easter Island Spanish/Western Sahara Midway / Wake / other miscellaneous US Pacific islands miscellaneous islands in South Pacific, South Atlantic, Indian Ocean ------- Afghanistan has had ITU/CCITT-assigned country code +93 for probably 30 years (and a two-digit country-code at that), but probably due to the war or conflict there, AT&T doesn't yet have the necessary relationship with connecting carriers to provide customer-dial service. I understand that BT (British Telecom) offers customer-dial service from the UK to Afghanistan. I was unable to get any city/area code information for locations in Afghanistan from "BT-Direct", and was also unable to get such from MCI. MCI's customer service told me that they _do_ offer customer-dial service from the US to Afghanistan, probably due to their association with BT. However, MCI did quote me the rates for dial calls to Afghanistan. These are the "basic" or "tariffed" rates, unless one is on an MCI international discount rate-plan, and these rates are in effect 24-hours/day 7-days/week: Peak (7am-6pm) US$ 7.53 initial minute US$ 5.03 additional minute Off-Peak (6pm-7am) US$ 6.21 initial minute US$ 4.15 additional minute I did check with Telecom NZ Direct, Canada Direct, and Australia's Telstra-Direct. Only Australia currently offers customer-dial service to Afghanistan. The Telstra-Direct Operator was only able to find a city/area code for one city, Kabul, the Capital. But he was unable to determine the local number digit-length. +93-121- Kabul ------- Tokelau has had ITU/CCITT-assigned country-code +690 since the mid-80's however there was no 'regular' telephone service on the island until about a year ago. In my recent post to TELECOM Digest, I was able to determine the three "city" codes in use in Tokelau, from Teleglobe Canada's website, but unable to determine the local number-length. http://www.teleglobe.ca/en/codes/codes_t.html The Bell Canada (Montreal PQ) "Canada Direct" operator was also unable to determine the local number-length, but she did tell me that Tokelau is now customer dialable from Canada. A Canadian reader of TELECOM Digest emailed me that he tried to dial to +690 Tokelau, and had to keep trying the call, reducing the total local digit length, as he kept getting recordings from Bell Canada or Stentor or Teleglobe that his international call could not be completed as dialed. He eventually stumbled upon the _three_ digit local number length, after the single digit "city" code. I also called NZ-Direct, and the operator there told me the local number-length for Tokelau. The three-digit local number length, when added to the single "city" code digit gives a national/domestic number of four-digits for Tokelau, and when adding in the three-digit +690 country-code, the worldwide or international number is seven-digits (not including the originating country's international exit/access prefix), and seven-digits is the _shortest_ possible worldwide/international number-length as per the ITU recommendations: +690-n-xxxx Seven-digits _also_ happens to be the latest ITU recommendation on the minimum number of digits that the originating country must translate for routing and rate determination from that originating country. I also did some AltaVista searches on Tokelau and came up with the following URL(s) of a Forbes article on Tokelau's new telephone system: http://www.forbes.com/tool/html/tokelau.htm http://www.forbes.com/tool/html/tokelau_cont.htm It seems that Tokelau received regular telephone service about a year ago, on 11-April-1997. Prior to that, telecommunications between the three atolls, and with the rest of the world was via Shortwave radio. The new system has three satellite earth stations and cables connecting the atolls. Australia's "Telstra" (formerly Telecom) gave assistance in the project. The name of the new non-profit Tokelau Government regulated telecom is Telecommunications Tokelau Corporation, aka TeleTok. The new system can also handle high-speed/wide-band data. Their Internet domain extension is (will be) ".tk". An Australian reader of TELECOM Digest emailed me that the system's hardware is going to have to have major replacements or maintenance every year, due to climate conditions and the saltwater spray. The population of Tokelau numbers only about 1600, and is decreasing. I also looked at some old Atlases, and have the following place-names: +690 Tokelau (or Union Group Islands) +690-2-xxx Atafu Atoll (or Duke-of-York Island) +690-3-xxx Fakaofo Atoll (or Bowditch Island) +690-4-xxx Nukunonu Atoll (or Duke-of-Clarence Island) It doesn't seem that Sprint or MCI offer dial service to Tokelau. And since no non-AT&T carrier in the US seems to offer Operator-Handled service to non-customer-dial locations, the only way to call Tokelau from the US still is via the AT&T IOC in Pittsburgh. She probably 'rings-forward' to a New Zealand international inward operator who will then complete the call. But since Tokelau now has automated 'regular' telephone service, the New Zealand operator probably just dials the Tokelau number, rather than trying to reach them via a two-way radio patch. ------- Pitcairn doesn't yet seem to have a telephone country-code. I've heard unconfirmed rumors that the ITU has already assigned them one, but I haven't yet seen any official documentation. My guess is that their country-code will be +693 or +698, but then again, they might happen to 'share' from Tokelau's +690. Both Pitcairn and Tokelau are associated politically and jurisdictionally with New Zealand, and since Tokelau will probably never need more than '2/3/4' for city/area codes in the +690 numbering space, it might be that Pitcairn will use one of the other single digits for a city/area code in +690. Last Summer (1997), I did a post for TELECOM Digest regarding Pitcairn and had mentioned that Pitcairn has a Inmarsat earth-station, and two dialable telephone numbers within the Inmarsat service Pacific Ocean country-code: +872-144-5372 (Telephone) +872-144-5373 (Fax) This service can be _QUITE_ expensive (approx. US$ 10.00 per minute)! It is more reliable than the two-way radio connections that Pitcairn also uses for communications with the rest of the world, but since just about all essential supplies for Pitcairn are delivered by boat about two to four times a year, fuel for the electrical generators and back-up batteries are used sparingly, therefore communicatins with Pitcairn aren't available on a 24-hour-a-day basis. I did recently read at the Pitcairn Island Homepage (based in the US; http://www.wavefront.com/~pjlareau/pitc1.html) that advanced telephone equipment is expected for Pitcairn, which might make it possible for telephone service to come down to US$ 3.00 instead of US$ 10.00 per minute! However, there were some problems with the first 1998 supply ship delivery. I wonder if this equipment will be used with a distinct telephone country-code for Pitcairn, or if this is for Iridium Global Mobile Satellite Serivce. As for service via the AT&T IOC in Pittsburgh, I would assume that the AT&T operator rings-forward to New Zealand, and then two-way radio communicatins is then used. Pitcairn probably still has their own internal magneto party-line telephone system. I also wonder if this will be replaced whenever more modern equipment eventually arrives and is installed. ------- Easter Island is also in the South Pacific, east of Pitcairn, and is politically a part of Chile. However, it is quite a distance west of the Chilean mainland. Chile's country-code is +56, and has been customer-dialable from the US for many years now, yet Easter Island, which has dial service with the Chilean mainland, is still not yet customer-dialable from the US. Easter Island _is_ dialable from the UK, from Australia, from New Zealand, and from Canada. It is probably still not dialable from the US, not because the AT&T IOC needs to use two-way radio with Easter Island, but _probably_ because of the tariff and mileage distance between the Chilean mainland, and Easter Island itself, for _rate_ determination in billing the calling party. Most US-based carriers give most of each non-NANP overseas/international locations a single rate for calling anywhere in that country-code, for a particular time-of-day, regardless of where in that country the called party is located. Mexico is an exception, with its bands/zones, but Mexico isn't routed from AT&T in the US via an "overseas" gateway, but rather on a 'direct' basis, "as-if" it were a NANP location. But the (non-US) NANP Caribbean, while billed at a single rate for calling anywhere on that particular island is the same, is billed at rates noticeably higher than "US" locations (continental US, AK, HI, PR, USVI, Guam, Mariana Islands). In my post to TELECOM Digest last Summer (1997) on Easter Island, I had mentioned that telephone numbering for Easter Island indicated on a webpage regarding Easter Island, as 223-XXX (where xxx could be 1xx, 2xx, 3xx, 4xx, 5xx). But also I stated that some of the Country-Direct operators for countries which offer customer-dial service to Easter Isl (including Chile-Direct) quote Easter Island telephone numbers as +56-32-100-XXX. I recently again checked with Canada-Direct, BT-Direct, NZ-Direct, Australia's Teltra-Direct, and the numbering quoted by all of them is +56-32-100-xxx, _NOT_ +56-32-223-xxx. ------- Spanish/Western Sahara in Western Africa, is situated between, and also claimed _AND_DISPUTED_BY_ both +212 Morocco and +222 Mauritania. While I have done some web-searches for Spanish Sahara or Western Sahara and did come up with some webpages regarding the legal / political / jurisdictional / etc. situation, I really couldn't find anything on telecommunications as it is today. AT&T still lists the area, but as Operator-Handled Only. I _assume_ that the AT&T Pittsburgh IOC will ring-forward to an international inward operator in Morocco, and then it is unclear as to what happens from there - whether there are direct trunks to 'something' in Western Sahara, or if there is only a two-way radio-patch. I don't know of any country-code nor any city-codes, not even within the country-codes for Morocco and Mauritania which would apply to this "no man's land" of Spanish/Western Sahara. ------- There are various miscellaneous islands in the Southern Hemisphere, in the Southern Atlantic, Southern Pacific, and in the Indian Ocean south of the Equator. I don't know if there is any population on these islands and if so, any 'regular' telephone service. There might be some military/government/scientific posts, and if so, the only way to reach them telephonically would probably be by a two-way radio-patch. Some of these islands are politically/jurisdictionally associated with France, Norway, and the UK. There are some UK-administered islands in the South Atlantic and in the Indian Ocean (e.g. Ascension Island, Saint Helena, Diego Garcia), which _DO_ have ITU/CCITT-assigned telephone country-codes, and are customer-dialable from most parts of the world, including from the US (at least via AT&T). ------- Midway / Wake / other miscellaneous US Pacific Islands Midway is located at the very end of the "lesser" islands and atolls of the Hawaiian Islands chain, right at the Intenational Date Line. Wake Island is _west_ of the International-Date-Line, roughly due-west of Hawaii, north of the Marshall Islands, and east of Guam/CNMI. Midway and Wake had been US Military locations for many decades, and did have telephone service. For a while, any "Bell System" operator in the NANP could call Honolulu HI inward (808+121) to complete calls to Midway and Wake. Billing was done as an operator-handled NANP call, with "mark-sense" billing-identification codes using Hawaii's 808 NPA: (+1)-808-998 Wake (+1)-808-999 Midway I've been told that in more recent times, both Midway and Wake had direct 'FX-like' tie-line trunks with the Pearl Harbor (Hawaii) military PBX/Centrex, and could be direct-dialed in, within a certain 'thousands-group' of the -xxxx line-number, as if it were "DID" (Direct Inward Dialable). But now that the US military has been leaving Wake and Midway, and civilian tourist interests have taken over, I wonder what the present status of each are. AT&T still states each area as operator-handled ONLY, but not via any originating OSPS operator, yet rather via the AT&T IOC in Pittsburgh. Wake and Midway _are_ listed as their own LATA #836, in the various Bellcore-TRA rating and routing products! In the "special report" I prepared for the TELECOM Digest/Archives last Summer (1997), regarding the US/UN Pacific Islands (including Guam, CNMI, American Samoa, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, and Wake/Midway/etc.), I also mentioned the following miscellaneous US Pacific islands: - Johnston Atoll (just west-southwest of Hawaii) - Howland Island - Baker Islands (southwest of Hawaii, just north of the Equator, and just east of the International-Date-Line) - Kingman Reef - Palmyra (south-southwest of Hawaii, somewhat north of the equator) - Jarvis Island (roughly due-south of Hawaii, and right on the Equator--actually just slightly south) If any of these islands have any population, it is only government / military / scientific personnel, and communications with these islands are most likely on private/government radio channels operated on a two-way radio-patch. And the various "outer islands" of the US/UN Pacific Islands (Marshall Islands +692, Micronesia +691, Palau +680), as well as Swain's Island associated with American Samoa (+684), and the northernmost islands of the Marianna Islands (+1-670) don't (yet) seem to have 'regular' telephone service. Again, a two-way radio hookup might be needed for interconnection with these remote "outer islands", probably via the AT&T IOC in Pittsburgh, although the "main" islands of these regions have been customer-dialable for some time. ------- Within any customer-dialable country-code, there can always be remote or rural towns or villages which are not customer-dialable. The actual status of these places can vary-- It could be that nearby larger automated towns can dial directly to such small villages. It could be that an operator in that small village doesn't need to speak with the calling party, but sees the dialed digits light up on her board, or hear them announced in her headset like an automated intercept or directory quote system would. (This was possible back since the 1920's in the US and Canada, when there were mixed manual and dial exchanges in the same city). If the small village is not yet automated but rather manual, it could be common-battery or it could be magneto. Some of these places might be reached from the US by an AT&T IOC Pittsburgh operator ONLY, or some places can be reached where 'any' AT&T originating OSPS operator rings-forward to the inward operator in that country who then assists in completing the call. Even in the NANP, there are numerous non-dialable locations, mostly in Nevada/California/Oregon as well as in Canada. These are VERY remote or isolated locations. Any originating AT&T OSPS operator (or if when calling from within the same LATA, the LEC operator) can assist in completing a call, by ringing-forward to the LEC inward operator in that LATA. At one time, these remote/rural/isolated points might have been on a magneto party-line, or some other form of manual party-line (or even 'straight' line), where the inward LEC operator had a direct connection to that place (i.e., a "ringdown"). Today, most of these places are automated phones, which have regular "POTS" numbers, however the numbers are NON-published, and not even known to the subscriber with such service. Only the inward LEC operator has the actual seven/ten-digit non-published number. The phone or phones in these places might actually have a rotary dial (with only the '0' position finger-hole cut-out), or a twelve-button touchtone (DTMF) keypad. But the only _single_ digit when entered which will 'break' dialtone is the '0'. Any other single-digit if dialed/entered will cause the LEC's TOPS switch to give a 're-order'. Alaska, Hawaii, and the (NANP) Caribbean might also still have some of these places. Remote/rural/isolated parts in northern Canada also have such service, but it is usually a "radio-patch". Mexico might also have such non-customer-dialable locations, but to reach them from the US doesn't require the AT&T IOC in Pittsburgh, but rather 'any' AT&T OSPS operator can call a Mexican inward operator to assist in completing the call. The reason for such non-published operator-dialed/handled service _might_ be is that all incoming and outgoing calls with that number can be billed at operator HANDLED (more expensive) rates, which help to 'make-up' some of the revenue lost on the monthly charge for basic telephone service. Due to the remoteness or isolated status of these locations, the actual _cost_ of providing an access line might be quite expensive for the telephone company, but tariffs might require that the cost to the customer be within the same basic range as that of 'easy-to-service' customers. Such locations in the NANP, for the most part, have "mark-sense" billing-identification (only) codes of the format 88x-Xxx. These are _NOT_ routing or operator-dial codes, but are strictly billing-codes. No (dialable) area codes are of this format since there would still be a "code-conflict". However, with the 888 toll-free SAC, and the more recent 88x (880, 881, 882) "international caller-pays" access to NANP toll-free +1-800/888/877, the billing-identification 88x-Xxx codes for billing calls to/from non-customer-dialable remote/rural NANP points are presently being migrated to 886-Xxx and 889-Xxx. ------- These are the toll-free (800) numbers for the Country-Direct numbers mentioned in the texts above. I don't know whether or not these 800 numbers necessarily work from Canada, or if they can be dialed (for a charge) from _OTHER_ countries as a call to the NANP +1-800- (+1)-800-555-1111 Canada-Direct (+1)-800-445-5667 and (+1)-800-445-5678 BT-Direct (+1)-800-682-2878 and (+1)-800-676-0061 Australia-Direct (+1)-800-248-0064 NZ-Direct (+1)-800-552-0056 Chile-Direct Some of these numbers are automated (with live-operator option), while others route directly to a live operator. Note that some of them contain the digits of that country's telephone country-code in the number (even prefixed with the internationally recommended international-exit access digits of '00'), or spell out part of the country's name (2878 for AUSTralia). ------- _ONE_ of these days, it might come to be that _ANY_ telephone in the world might be able to _DIAL_ to just about _ANY_OTHER_ telephone in the world (the exception being certain PBX extensions, certain pay/ coin/public telephones, etc.), without _ANY_ routing or billing assistance of an operator. But _MOST_ of the world _ALREADY_IS_ customer-dialable from _MOST_EVERY_ other part of the world! ------- 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: eje_usenet@yahoo.com (Eric Ewanco) Subject: 617 and 508 May Split Again Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 12:48:35 -0600 Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion According to , 617 and 508 in Eastern Mass., which only recently split into 978 and 781 (mandatory dialing began early this year), 508 and 617 may need to split *again* within two years. 508 split from 617 I think in 1989 or so. That would give Eastern Mass. *six* area codes where there once was one. They are evening talking about having to split the city of Boston into two area codes. Overlays have been, so far, categorically rejected by all involved. We know of course that this lust for area codes is driven more by exchange requirements for CLECs than it is by exhausing phone numbers. I have to ask, is there any reasonable bar for entry into the local telephone market? Can any yahoo who's acquired a name for doing business request and receive an exchange assignment? Perhaps telephone exchanges need to be rationed like wireless frequencies: You pay a large sum of money (perhaps at an auction) for exchanges. That money would then be used for funding universal access or something useful (hopefully obviating the need for the FCC to find creative but perverse ways of collecting charges for this purpose). It boils down to this: if there is no restriction placed on the number of companies who can hoard exchanges, then this absurdity of rapidly dwindling area codes will never cease until the telephone network is paralyzed. We cannot have hundreds of tiny local telcos upsetting the balance of a network that was never built for such a market. A solution to this problem must be found. Eric Ewanco [Send all personal mail to eje @ world.std.com] ------------------------------ From: Lee Johnson Subject: Contel Club Website Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 12:53:51 -0600 Organization: gte.net If you are an former Contel employee you should stop by the Contel Online website at: http://ask.simplenet.com/contel.htm Information on reunions, the latest news, and and a big list of email addresses of ex-Contel employees is on the website. Lee Johnson ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 10:22:54 -0400 From: Angus TeleManagement Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #129, April 20, 1998 ************************************************************ * * * TELECOM UPDATE * * Angus TeleManagement's Weekly Telecom Newsbulletin * * http://www.angustel.ca * * Number 129: April 20, 1998 * * * * Publication of Telecom Update is made possible by * * generous financial support from: * * * * Bell Canada ................. http://www.bell.ca/ * * City Dial Network Services .. http://www.citydial.com/ * * Computer Talk Technology .... http://icescape.com/ * * fONOROLA .................... http://www.fonorola.com/ * * Lucent Technologies ......... http://www.lucent.com/ * * * ************************************************************ IN THIS ISSUE: ** Call-Net Bids $1.6B for fONOROLA ** Telus Ends Talks With AT&T ** Mitel Buys Centigram's CPE Business ** Nortel Creates Optical Networks Division ** Cantel, Ericsson to Offer Dual-Mode Wireless ** Fido Launched in Barrie ** Clearnet to Offer Equity, Debt ** CRTC Limits Telco "Winback" Activities ** Optel Raises $50 Million for Local Service ** Stentor Requests Private-Line Forbearance on More Routes ** Star Choice, ExpressVu Claim 140,000 Subscribers ** Shaw Buys Cable Modems ** Intersat, Shaw Join for Internet Faxes ** Westel Offers 14-Cent BC Calling ** Bruncor Buys IT Company ** Contour Lands Management Contracts ** PIAC Publishes Report on CRTC ** Sheridan to Build High-Tech Center ** Patrick Daly to Leave CBTA ** Get the Scoop on Telecom Books ============================================================ CALL-NET BIDS $1.6B FOR fONOROLA: Call-Net Enterprises, parent of Sprint Canada, is offering $1.6 Billion in cash and shares to purchase fONOROLA Inc. The offer represents a 44% premium above fONOROLA's previous share value. fONOROLA says it is studying the offer. ** Call-Net reported net income of $16.3 Million in 1997 on $921 Million in revenues; fONOROLA's 1997 net income was $10.0 Million on $400 Million revenues. ** AT&T Canada President Bill Catucci says his firm has no plans to bid for fONOROLA. ** Noting that the deal would add $770 Million to Call-Net's debt, Standard & Poor's put Call-Net and fONOROLA on "CreditWatch with negative implications." TELUS ENDS TALKS WITH AT&T: Citing unnamed issues that "could not be resolved in the best interests of our shareholders," Alberta telco Telus Corp. has broken off merger negotiations with AT&T Canada Long Distance Services. (See Telecom Update #126) MITEL BUYS CENTIGRAM'S CPE BUSINESS: Mitel is buying the Customer Premises Equipment business of Centigram Communications, the San Jose-based voice messaging manufacturer, for US$26 Million. NORTEL CREATES OPTICAL NETWORKS DIVISION: Northern Telecom has formed an Optical Networks business unit, to be headed by Mike Unger. Nortel has also bought a 20% stake in Avici Systems, a Massachusetts-based start-up that is developing a terabit routing platform. CANTEL, ERICSSON TO OFFER DUAL-MODE WIRELESS: Rogers Cantel and Ericsson Communications plan to market a wireless office phone that connects to Cantel's digital PCS service when the user leaves the premises. Availability: November. ** Cantel already offers a similar product under the name, Cantel AT&T Wireless Office Service. FIDO LAUNCHED IN BARRIE: Microcell's Fido digital PCS service is now available in the city of Barrie and along the Highway 400 corridor to Toronto. CLEARNET TO OFFER EQUITY, DEBT: Clearnet Communications plans to raise $300 Million in debt and an undisclosed amount from an equity issue. CRTC LIMITS TELCO "WINBACK" ACTIVITIES: The CRTC has ruled that the incumbent telcos must wait three months after a customer's service has been completely switched to another local service provider before trying to win back the customer. OPTEL RAISES $50 MILLION FOR LOCAL SERVICE: Optel Communications, a Toronto-based Centrex reseller, has raised $50 Million in debt and will expand its operations into Western Canada. STENTOR REQUESTS PRIVATE-LINE FORBEARANCE ON MORE ROUTES: Stentor asked the CRTC April 14 to forbear from regulating the following private-line routes: Vancouver-Victoria, Vancouver-Kamloops, Toronto-Hespeler, Quebec City-Halifax, Halifax-Moncton, Moncton-Saint John-Fredericton, Moncton- Bathurst-Quebec border. (See Telecom Update #113) STAR CHOICE, EXPRESSVU CLAIM 140,000 SUBSCRIBERS: Almost 140,000 customers have signed up with Canada's two direct- to-home satellite TV companies. Star Choice reports 70,000 customers; ExpressVu, 68,000. SHAW BUYS CABLE MODEMS: Shaw Communications is buying 40,000 cable modems and related equipment from California-based Terayon Communication Systems in order to bring high-speed Internet service to smaller communities across Canada. INTERSAT, SHAW JOIN FOR INTERNET FAXES: Calgary-based Interprovincial Satellite Services will use the infrastructure of Shaw's FiberLink subsidiary to set up a fax-over-Internet service. WESTEL OFFERS 14-CENT BC CALLING: Westel Telecommunications has launched Flat Talk, a residential plan offering calling within BC for 14 cents (10 cents weekend) and across Canada for 15 cents. BRUNCOR BUYS IT COMPANY: Bruncor, parent of NBTel, is paying $22.6 Million for a 94% stake in Maritime Information Technology, a Saint John-based IT management company with 234 employees. CONTOUR LANDS MANAGEMENT CONTRACTS: Contour Telecom Management has signed with Zurich Canadian Holdings and Centra Gas Manitoba to manage their telecom services. PIAC PUBLISHES REPORT ON CRTC: The Public Interest Advocacy Centre has published a report on the CRTC and the Competition Bureau. To obtain "Communications Regulatory Agencies for Canadians," call 613-562-4002 x50. SHERIDAN TO BUILD HIGH-TECH CENTER: Next January Sheridan College in Oakville, Ontario, will begin construction of its Centre for Animation and Emerging Technologies, which will incorporate Sheridan's well-known telecom management program. PATRICK DALY TO LEAVE CBTA: Patrick Daly will resign as Executive Director and COO of the Canadian Business Telecommunications Alliance on expiration of his contract June 10. GET THE SCOOP ON TELECOM BOOKS: Keep up to date on the latest and best in telecom education through the Bookshelf column in Telemanagement, written by internationally known reviewer Rob Slade. ** Among recent topics: "Some Stellar Books on ATM" -- "Keeping Computer Viruses at Bay" -- "Straight Answers on ISDN" To subscribe to Telemanagement, call 1-800-263-4415 ext 225, or go to http://www.angustel.ca/teleman/tm-sub.html ============================================================ HOW TO SUBMIT ITEMS FOR TELECOM UPDATE E-MAIL: editors@angustel.ca FAX: 905-686-2655 MAIL: TELECOM UPDATE Angus TeleManagement Group 8 Old Kingston Road Ajax, Ontario Canada L1T 2Z7 =========================================================== HOW TO SUBSCRIBE (OR UNSUBSCRIBE) TELECOM UPDATE is provided in electronic form only. There are two formats available: 1. The fully-formatted edition is posted on the World Wide Web on the first business day of the week. Point your browser to http://www.angustel.ca/update/up.html 2. The e-mail edition is distributed free of charge. To subscribe, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should contain only the two words: subscribe update To stop receiving the e-mail edition, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should say only: unsubscribe update [Your e-mail address] =========================================================== COPYRIGHT AND DISCLAIMER: All contents copyright 1998 Angus TeleManagement Group Inc. All rights reserved. For further information, including permission to reprint or reproduce, please e-mail rosita@angustel.ca or phone 905-686-5050 ext 225. The information and data included has been obtained from sources which we believe to be reliable, but Angus TeleManagement makes no warranties or representations whatsoever regarding accuracy, completeness, or adequacy. Opinions expressed are based on interpretation of available information, and are subject to change. If expert advice on the subject matter is required, the services of a competent professional should be obtained. ============================================================ ------------------------------ From: bgoodin@unex.ucla.edu (Bill Goodwin) Subject: UCLA Short Course: Project Management Principles and Practice Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 01:57:09 GMT Organization: University of California, Los Angeles On July 7-10, 1998, UCLA Extension will present the short course, "Project Management Principles and Practice", on the UCLA campus in Los Angeles. The instructor is Arnold M. Ruskin, PhD, PE, PMP, Partner, Claremont Consulting Group and Technical Manager, Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Each participant receives the text, "What Every Engineer Should Know About Project Management", 2nd Edition, Arnold M. Ruskin and W. Eugene Estes, 1995, and extensive course notes. This course is for project managers and personnel, functional managers whose staff participate in projects, and executives to whom project managers report. Corporate personnel increasingly work on "one-time" assignments called projects. These efforts require particular approaches, methods, and systems for their planning, execution, and control. The purpose of this course is to develop insight into the special characteristics of projects and the tools and techniques needed to manage them. Specific objectives for the course are: o to understand the nature of project management o to understand the importance of end-item focus, careful planning, appropriate control, open and timely communication, and interproject coordination and prioritization o to gain an appreciation of project planning, control, and other useful tools o to understand alternative organizational structures, elements of leadership, and ways of maximizing personal and project effectiveness. Specific topics include: Nature of projects, Group exercise: anatomy of a project, Duties of the project manager, Project planning techniques, Measuring cost, schedule, and technical performance, Project control techniques, Implementing planning and control techniques, Project organizations and staffing, Project management in multiproject and matrix environments, Fiedler's contingency model of team effectiveness, Team-building, Project startup meetings, Case study: integrated project management, Risk management, Project management exercise: complex project decision-making. Prerequisite: Firsthand involvement in or responsibility for projects or some portion thereof. UCLA Extension has presented this highly successful short course since 1982. The course fee is $1295, which includes the text and course materials. These course materials are for participants only, and are not for sale. For additional 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: rh120@sawasdee.columbia.edu (Ronda Hauben) Subject: From NCP to UNIX Based TCP/IP (ARPANET to Internet) Date: 20 Apr 1998 17:38:55 GMT Organization: Columbia University I am working on a paper for a survey of technology engineering class about the role that Usenet newsgroups and ARPANET mailing list played in the period of transition from the IMP based NCP ARPANET to the tcp/ip UNIX based ARPANET II (the virtual network) which became the Internet. I am trying to study the role that the communication played and how it was helpful in this transition. Describing this transition, Vint Cerf wrote: "People participating in this transition of the ARPANET into the internet environment are participating in an event as exciting as the construction of the ARPANET and I am very proud to be a part of it." I am interested in the transition from NCP to tcp/ip which was distributed with the BSD UNIX distribution. It would be helpful to have sources about the work done at the University of California Berkeley on the improvement of UNIX and the extensions to UNIX V7 to support networking and the discussions and work around the transition to UNIX based tcp/ip for the ARPANET nodes. Also I wondered if anyone has copies of the tcp/ip digest mailing list after the January 18, 1982 issue and can make them available. Earlier issues were both posted on Usenet and distributed as an ARPANET mailing list. I am also interested in the development of tcp/ip for other operating systems as part of this transition from the ARPANET to the Internet. I welcome suggestions of sources, papers etc. that may be helpful in researching this period, and particularly on the role that Net communication played in this transition. Also I would be interested in email contact with Network pioneers who were involved in this transition, accounts of the transition, etc.. Thanks for any help with this. Ronda ronda@panix.com Other draft papers about the development of the Net and of UNIX are online at http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~ronda Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/ and in print edition ISBN # 0-8186-7706-6 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #59 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Apr 27 15:13:07 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id PAA06760; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 15:13:07 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 15:13:07 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199804271913.PAA06760@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #61 TELECOM Digest Mon, 27 Apr 98 15:13:00 EDT Volume 18 : Issue 61 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Canadian Cities Want Rent for Telecom Rights-of-Way (Nigel Allen) An Instrument of Theft (Boston Globe via Monty Solomon) Telecom Update (Canada) #130, April 27, 1998 (Angus TeleManagement) It's Been a While Since We Checked Out Make Money Fast! (Bill Levant) UCLA Short Courses on ATE and Design for Testability (Bill Goodin) 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 12:04:07 -0400 From: Nigel Allen Subject: Canadian Cities Want Rent for Telecom Rights-of-Way Here is a press release from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. I don't work for the FCM, but I thought that the press release might be of interest to readers of this Digest. Journalists may want to contact Alex Smith, Manager, Communications/ Public Relations of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities at (613) 241-5221, ext. 227 or by e-mail at asmith@fcm.ca. The FCM's web site is http://www.fcm.ca APRIL 24, 1998 Federation of Canadian Municipalities Seeks Amendments to Federal Telecommunications Act TORONTO, Ontario -- Mayors of Canada's largest cities called today for amendments to the federal Telecommunications Act. FCM President and Deputy Mayor of Winnipeg, Jae Eadie commented that, "municipal governments are demanding fair rent for municipal property used by telecommunications firms. In addition we must have the ability to recover administrative and infrastructure costs associated with this private sector business activity." FCM's request for regulations to govern access of municipal rights-of-way was denied by federal officials following passage of the Telecommunications Act in 1993. Since that time, discussions with the national associations representing telephone and cable television companies have been unsuccessful in achieving a consensus of terms. FCM's campaign to establish an equitable resolution to the municipal rights-of-way issue is gaining momentum. Currently, over 85 cities and towns from across Canada, encompassing approximately one-third of the national consumer market, have formally endorsed FCM's position. Negotiations are underway with a number of local telephone and cable television companies to ensure that municipal taxpayers receive fair compensation for the use of public assets. Up to this point, the telecommunications industry has been receiving what amounts to subsidies in the form of administrative and infrastructure costs which are absorbed by municipal governments. In many jurisdictions, municipal governments are refusing to grant new approvals for access to rights-of-way unless companies sign agreements conforming to FCM's model agreement distributed in July 1997. Howard Moscoe, Toronto Councillor and Chair of FCM's Subcommittee on Telecommunications, stated that municipal governments can no longer afford to subsidize the telecommunications industry's access to their rights-of-way. "Deregulation and convergence have caused this industry to explode. There are multiple carriers with an expanded menu of products. The demands on our property, personnel and resources continue to increase. Our costs must be met and municipal governments must be allowed to generate a reasonable amount of revenue from properties which they own and maintain." A growing number of telecommunications firms have signed municipal access agreements based on the FCM model. However, there is still a great deal of reluctance from the major telephone and cable television companies to embrace FCM's objectives. "It is clear that fairness, uniformity and the rights of municipal governments must be addressed. Throughout the United States, telecommunications firms routinely pay fees for the use of municipal rights-of-way to cover all costs associated with access and in addition pay fair rent for the use of municipal property. FCM is pressing for clarification of the Telecommunications Act to ensure that these practices becomes the norm in Canada", said Eadie. forwarded by Nigel Allen ndallen@interlog.com http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/1383/telecom.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 23:39:14 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: An Instrument of Theft ECONOMIC PRINCIPALS An instrument of theft By David Warsh, Globe Staff, 04/26/98 At first I thought that I simply had forgotten to pay the previous month's phone bill: The monthly charges were twice what I usually see. Then I found it, tucked away on the last page of the bill: a $75 charge from a 900 number - for five minutes of phone sex at 9 on a Thursday morning, as it turned out. I called Bell Atlantic. It wasn't me, I said, nor anyone in my house. Nicely but blandly, the operator invited me to repudiate the charge - but warned me the company might bill me directly. She helped me put a block on my telephone to prevent it from being used to call 900 numbers. A couple of months later I had a bill in the mail directly from the company. A pornographic circular came the same day. I wrote back, questioning the charge. A day or two later they called - at suppertime Saturday - demanding payment. I didn't make that call, I said. We've got the same machine police use to trace 911 calls, she said; how do you think it got on your bill? I don't know, I ventured, maybe a little fraud along with the sleaze? ''Well, this sleazy company is going to wind up on your TRW [credit report],'' she threatened, and hung up. A few days later a form letter arrived, informing me ominously there could be no appeal. I phoned Bell Atlantic; they referred me to the Federal Communications Commission, because the bill originated in California. I paid the charge, and talked a little with some engineering friends about the possibilities for hackers to generate phony records in the age of caller ID. Then, like many others before me, I began to search for efficient avenues of complaint. Fifteen years after deregulation, the telephone has become an instrument of theft. Nearly everybody has a story like mine. Enormous benefits no doubt have arisen as a result of fostering competition among telecommunications firms. But so have the opportunities for new varieties of digital crime. The practice of being charged for services you did not order is known as ''cramming''; of being involuntarily switched from one long-distance company to another as ''slamming.'' At least a million customers were ''slammed'' last year, according to some estimates. No one knows how much is lost to phony billings but, at $75 or so a pop, it is a good deal more lucrative - not to mention safer - than street crime. What to do? The regional phone companies are reeling from their attempts to police the market. With somewhere between 500 and 600 long-distance carriers in existence, some of them switching their headquarters from state to state whenever local investigators begin to close in, the Bell operating companies say they are all but powerless to ride herd. The FCC is beleaguered, too. But before very long I found Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine). It was Collins who was elected in 1996 to replace William Cohen when he left the Senate to serve as secretary of defense. In 1994, she had almost been elected governor; for a dozen years before that she had been Cohen's chief staff adviser on business matters; deputy treasurer of Massachusetts; and commissioner of professional and financial regulation in Maine. Nobody had to draw her a map of Capitol Hill. Nobody has to teach her about small business either. For five generations - since 1844! - her family has operated a lumberyard in the town of Caribou in northern Maine. Among Collins's committee assignments was the chairmanship of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. It was the perfect vantage point from which to review the forest of complaints that were arriving in the regulators' office in Maine. Buttressed by a report from the General Accounting Office showing telephone crime is on the rise, Collins announced a set of hearings on the slamming trade. So last week a parade of uncomfortable officials trooped before the committee for a consciousness-raising session. At one point, the senator grilled the deputy chief of the FCC's Common Carrier Bureau on the patently fraudulent application of PSI Communications Inc., which received government clearance to go into the long-distance business last year. Patently fraudulent? PSI stood for Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, whose staffers simply made the application up, including the phone number for its headquarters. At another point, Collins showed an enlarged copy of a phone bill to FCC chairman William Kennard and asked if he could identify the long-distance carrier that billed the charges. He couldn't - because the company's name, Phone Calls, looked like the the heading on the page. Finally, Collins surveyed the practice of Daniel H. Fletcher, a minister's child who founded slamming companies like Church Discount Group Inc. at the tender age of 19. Between 1993 and 1997, he is thought to have defrauded AT&T and Sprint of $20 million. How? A variety of sharp practices from the audacious to the outrageous - none more so than the dodge that his telephone solicitors used for a time. They would ask those unlucky enough to take their calls, ''Can I put you on hold? '' - then abruptly switch their victims to high-priced Home Owners Long Distance. The battle against telephone crime is just beginning. But it has found a worthy champion in the senator from Maine. This story ran on page E01 of the Boston Globe on 04/26/98. opyright 1998 Globe Newspaper Company. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 10:53:10 -0400 From: Angus TeleManagement Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #130, April 27, 1998 ************************************************************ * * * TELECOM UPDATE * * Angus TeleManagement's Weekly Telecom Newsbulletin * * http://www.angustel.ca * * Number 130: April 27, 1998 * * * * Publication of Telecom Update is made possible by * * generous financial support from: * * * * Bell Canada ................. http://www.bell.ca/ * * City Dial Network Services .. http://www.citydial.com/ * * Computer Talk Technology .... http://icescape.com/ * * fONOROLA .................... http://www.fonorola.com/ * * Lucent Technologies ......... http://www.lucent.com/ * * * ************************************************************ IN THIS ISSUE: ** Bell Plans National Broadband Network ** fONOROLA Retains Advisors ** Stentor Opposes MetroNet "Interim LNP" Request ** CRTC Issues Report Card, New Calendar ** Bell Mobility Gains 20,000 Subscribers ** Long Distance Price War Update ACC AT&T ** Cities Seek Changes to Telecom Act ** Bell Appeals Nuvo Networks Contract ** SaskTel Expands Calling Areas, Internet Service ** Telesat, Nortel Join for Satellite Telephony ** Anik Gets a Partner -- "Nimiq" ** Mitel Announces a PBX Based on Windows NT ** Dial "TOP" for North of 60 ** Netcom Upgrades to 56K Modems ** Videotron Selects Unified Billing Platform ** Profits Rise at BCE, Bell, Nortel ** CRTC High-Cost Service Hearing Schedule ** "A to Z on Call Centre Management" ============================================================ BELL PLANS NATIONAL BROADBAND NETWORK: Bell Canada has announced plans to launch a new company to provide coast-to- coast data and Internet services to its national business customers. The Toronto-Vancouver portion of the new company's broadband network will use 24 strands of fiber purchased for $175 Million from the fONOROLA-Ledcor consortium. fONOROLA RETAINS ADVISORS: Following Call-Net's unsolicited $1.6-Billion takeover bid, fONOROLA Inc has retained Goldman, Sachs & Co. for financial advice, and Griffiths McBurney and Partners for legal advice. (See Telecom Update #129) ** On April 22, fONOROLA ran full-page ads in many newspapers offering a 15% discount from the rates Sprint offers residential and business customers. ** On April 25, Call-Net mailed fONOROLA shareholders its formal offer, valid if two-thirds of fONOROLA shares are tendered by May 19. ** fONOROLA has announced it will build a US$7.9-Million fiber link from Seattle to Portland, Oregon, by the end of the year. STENTOR OPPOSES METRONET "INTERIM LNP" REQUEST: On April 24, Stentor told the CRTC that negotiations between the LNP Consortium and Lockheed Martin are "making excellent progress," and so far there is no reason to expect delays in the CRTC-mandated LNP implementation schedule. The operation and pricing of the interim LNP solution requested by MetroNet is inappropriate, Stentor says. (See Telecom Update #128) CRTC ISSUES REPORT CARD, NEW CALENDAR: The CRTC has issued a "Report Card" on its accomplishments in 1997-98 and a revised "Vision Action Calendar" setting out its planned activities for the next three years. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/backgrnd/reptcrde.htm http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/backgrnd/cal9804e.htm BELL MOBILITY GAINS 20,000 SUBSCRIBERS: On March 31 Bell Mobility had 1,241,000 PCS and cellular subscribers, a net gain of 20,000 for the quarter. Mobility Canada recorded 61,000 net activations for this period, reaching 2,555,000 subscribers. (See Telecom Update #127, 128) LONG DISTANCE PRICE WAR UPDATE: ** ACC: ACC TelEnterprises has added two residential plans: 9 Cent Evening and Weekends (weekday calls are 20 cents) and 10 Cent Home Province (rest of Canada: 15 cents; U.S.: 20 cents). ** AT&T: AT&T Canada's True Choice Anywhere has increased its peak-time discount to 25%. True Choice North America's 15-cent Canada/U.S. rate now applies evenings and weekends only; the $29.95 minimum has been removed. A new plan, True Choice Anytime, offers calls at any time for 15 cents (Canada) and 20 cents (U.S.). CITIES SEEK CHANGES TO TELECOM ACT: The Federation of Canadian Municipalities has called for amendments to the federal Telecommunications Act. The cities want the right to charge telcos and cable companies for using municipal rights-of-way, and to recover their administrative and infrastructure costs from the carriers. BELL APPEALS NUVO NETWORKS CONTRACT: Bell Canada is appealing the award of a $2.6 Million standing offer to manage federal government networks to Ottawa-based Nuvo Networks Corp. SASKTEL EXPANDS CALLING AREAS, INTERNET SERVICE: In June, SaskTel will eliminate 50 rural exchanges and modify 36 others, expanding the local calling area for 50,000 customers. In addition, Sympatico High-Speed Internet service is now available in Battleford and North Battleford. TELESAT, NORTEL JOIN FOR SATELLITE TELEPHONY: Telesat and Northern Telecom will join to develop a satellite-based telephony system that will use new-generation geostationary satellites to bring inexpensive phone service to developing countries. ANIK GETS A PARTNER -- "NIMIQ": Canada's first direct broadcast satellite will be named "nimiq," an Inuit word for an object or force that unites things. The winning entry, among 36,000 submitted, came from Sheila Rogers of Nepean, Ontario. MITEL ANNOUNCES A PBX BASED ON WINDOWS NT: Mitel is beginning trials of SX-2000 for Windows NT, a telecom system for businesses with 40-120 users running on a Windows NT platform. Price: US$950-$1,350/user. DIAL "TOP" FOR NORTH OF 60: Introduction of the Canadian North's new 867 ("TOP") area code was completed April 26, as permissive dialing ended for the previous 403 and 819 codes in Yukon and the Northwest Territories. NETCOM UPGRADES TO 56K MODEMS: Netcom Canada says it is the first Canadian Internet provider to implement the new V.90 standard for 56 Kbps modems. V.90, approved two months ago, replaces the proprietary x2 and K56flex protocols. VIDEOTRON SELECTS UNIFIED BILLING PLATFORM: Videotron has chosen Massachusetts-based Kenan Systems to provide a unified billing platform for cable, Internet, telephony, and paging services. PROFITS RISE AT BCE, BELL, NORTEL: BCE reports first-quarter net income (before special items) of $325 Million, a 43% increase. Revenues rose 5% to $8.0 Billion. ** Profits at Bell Canada were up 46% to $274 Million; at Nortel, up 29% to US$141 Million (before special items); at BCE Mobile, down to $3.1 Million from $18 Million. Bell Canada International's loss deepened to $17.1 Million from $10 Million. CRTC HIGH-COST SERVICE HEARING SCHEDULE: The CRTC has scheduled regional hearings on telephone service in high-cost areas as follows: Whitehorse YT, May 26; Prince George BC, May 28; Prince Albert SK, June 2; Grande Prairie AB, June 4; Timmins ON, June 8; Thompson MB, June 10; Val-d'Or PQ, June 18; Deer Lake NF, June 22; Iqualuit NT, June 25. To participate in a hearing, notify the CRTC two weeks in advance. "A TO Z ON CALL CENTRE MANAGEMENT": Participants are giving rave reviews of Angus Dortmans' in-house seminar, "Essential Skills and Knowledge for Effective Incoming Call Centre Management," led by Henry Dortmans. Among recent comments: ** "The most knowledgeable facilitator I have had the pleasure of being with. You really know your stuff!" ** "Should be a mandatory course for all call centre managers and team leaders." ** "A great A to Z on call centre management." For information, call 1-800-263-4415 ext 300 or go to http://www.angustel.ca/angdort/adccs.html ============================================================ HOW TO SUBMIT ITEMS FOR TELECOM UPDATE E-MAIL: editors@angustel.ca FAX: 905-686-2655 MAIL: TELECOM UPDATE Angus TeleManagement Group 8 Old Kingston Road Ajax, Ontario Canada L1T 2Z7 =========================================================== HOW TO SUBSCRIBE (OR UNSUBSCRIBE) TELECOM UPDATE is provided in electronic form only. There are two formats available: 1. The fully-formatted edition is posted on the World Wide Web on the first business day of the week. Point your browser to http://www.angustel.ca/update/up.html 2. The e-mail edition is distributed free of charge. To subscribe, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should contain only the two words: subscribe update To stop receiving the e-mail edition, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should say only: unsubscribe update [Your e-mail address] =========================================================== COPYRIGHT AND DISCLAIMER: All contents copyright 1998 Angus TeleManagement Group Inc. All rights reserved. For further information, including permission to reprint or reproduce, please e-mail rosita@angustel.ca or phone 905-686-5050 ext 225. The information and data included has been obtained from sources which we believe to be reliable, but Angus TeleManagement makes no warranties or representations whatsoever regarding accuracy, completeness, or adequacy. Opinions expressed are based on interpretation of available information, and are subject to change. If expert advice on the subject matter is required, the services of a competent professional should be obtained. ------------------------------ From: Wlevant Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 08:59:43 EDT Subject: It's Been a While Since We Checked Out Make Money Fast! I can't remember the last time we checked on things at Make-Money-Fast Central; let's see what's up ... > Before you call, I want you to think about the quality of the live > operators handling your call. I am convinced you will not find > a better team of closers for your own personal sales. You will > clearly understand what I am talking about once you call. Gee, should we call this one Make-Money-Faster ? And now, the magic number : > 1-800-811-2141 > You will be asked for ID #50030 when you call. > (Live operators are available from 8 AM-10 PM CST Monday through Saturday > and will be able to answer any questions you may have.) Do they have DEAD operators at other times ? Maybe someone should call and find out ... > Call one of the 24hr TESTIMONIAL lines at -- this guy must be new; imagine having FOUR toll-free numbers in one spam -- > 888-703-5389, 888-446-6949 or 888-731-3457 (all toll free). Bill [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks for that update. Is it just me, or has the amount of pornographic and/or sex-related spam increased by a huge amount over the past month or two? Last week one day alone I had to zap a couple hundred email offers for porno web sites, pictures and related stuff from my mail. I get that kind of spam on a daily basis now. The other one that shows up at least daily and usually four or five times daily is for that 'Bulls Eye' mass mailing script; buy it and become a spammer yourself with no effort. An issue of {Computer Underground Digest} over the weekend had an interesting and somewhat technical article on ways the net could cooperatively reduce the spam level if not eliminate it entirely, but the proposals made by the author will not be very agreeable to many netters. You might want to check it out. Suffice to say, I am getting a little weary of calling in to this account each day and having to zap 75-100 messages from the inbox of things which are *obvious* spam before I get started reading the *real* mail sent to me. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Bill Goodin Subject: UCLA Short Courses on ATE and Design for Testability Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 18:16:13 -0700 UCLA Extension will present two short courses on the UCLA campus in Los Angeles. On July 20-21, 1998, "Automatic Test Equipment (ATE) Selection, Design, and Programming", and on July 22-24, 1998, "Design for Testability and for Built-In Test". The instructor for both courses is Louis Y. Ungar, MA, President, A.T.E. Solutions, Inc. "Automatic Test Equipment (ATE) Selection, Design, and Programming" provides the tools to help the modern test engineer work efficiently with complex electronics. Automatic Test Equipment (ATE) is a more challenging field today with the advent of higher processing speeds and more compact devices that can be more difficult to access. The task of building ATE has, in many cases, been taken from ATE manufacturers and placed on the shoulders of the test engineer utilizing virtual instruments. At the same time, engineers are now being asked to build ATE using IEEE-488 (GPIB), VXIbus, PC-based and PCI-based instrumentation. Yet this gives the test engineer more control over the resources available for the test. The decision to use In-Circuit or Functional test can be made on a product-by-product basis. Consequently, the test engineer must always create and evaluate test strategies from a cost perspective. This course provides test program development approaches for both fault detection and fault isolation. It is intended primarily for test and testability professionals, and is appropriate for both novice and experienced test engineers. The course fee is $795, which includes all course materials. These materials are for participants only and are not for sale. ___________ "Design for Testability and for Built-In Self Test" covers all aspects of Design for Testability: what it is, why you need it, and what it can and cannot accomplish. The course shows how today's technology makes certain failure modes elusive, and the importance of exposing these modes through more testable designs. The course presents some simple techniques to enhance observability and controllability, and how you can access literally hundreds of internal points with as few as four additional edge connector pins. Specific guidelines for both digital and analog circuit testability are presented, along with structured testability techniques such as internal and boundary-scan. Lectures cover the IEEE 1149.1 (JTAG) standard's operation, use and limitations, as well as the IEEE 1149.4 and .5 standards for mixed signal and system level testability. Other topics include new techniques in testability, including IDDQ testing and I/O Mapping; what built-in [self] test (BIST) is and how it can be specified; structures such as linear feedback shift registers (LFSRs), signature analyzers, and pseudo-random signal generators (with which you can evaluate a number of BIST architectures); BIT Software techniques and the effect false alarms have on BIT; specifying BIT for your products and the possibility of BIT taking over some ATE functions; and finally, evaluating Testability and Built-In Test from an economic perspective, and optimizing their use for products and operations. The course also describes how Built-In Self Test is becoming an acceptable way to test complex circuitry that eludes detection by slower, less sophisticated methods employed with Automatic Test Equipment (ATE). The course is intended for designers involved with testability, as well as reliability, logistics, and test engineers. Managers concerned with testability issues, along with those interested in boundary-scan (JTAG/IEEE-1149.1), should find the course illuminating as well. The course fee is $1195, which includes all course materials. These materials are for participants only and are not for sale. The discounted fee for both courses is $1595. For additional information and complete course descriptions, 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. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #61 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Apr 27 19:11:30 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id TAA21008; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 19:11:30 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 19:11:30 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199804272311.TAA21008@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #60 TELECOM Digest Mon, 27 Apr 98 13:10:00 EDT Volume 18 : Issue 60 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Y2K News Roundup: Andy Grove Warns it Could Get "Ugly" (Monty Solomon) Programmers Flee From Y2K Problem - And We're Spooked Too (Monty Solomon) Federal Action Against `Slamming' Said Too Little (Tad Cook) GTE Admits Releasing Unlisted Phone Numbers (Matthew Black) Help: Local Call Billing and CLEC Exchange (oldbear@arctos.com) Carving up 408 Area Code: 16 Possibilities Scrutinized (Tad Cook) An Inspiring Story From New England (oldbear@arctos.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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 23:36:36 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Y2K News Roundup: Andy Grove Warns it Could Get "Ugly" Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 19:52:31 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh Subject: FC: Y2K news roundup: Andy Grove warns it could get "ugly" X-Url: Politech is at http://www.well.com/~declan/politech/ ******** U.S. Urged to Speed Its Year 2000 Fix Intel's Grove Warns of 'Ugly' Situation By Mark Leibovich Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, April 24, 1998; Page F01 The federal government faces an "ugly" situation if it does not step up efforts to correct the year 2000 programming error in its agencies' computers, the head of the world's largest chipmaker said yesterday. Andrew S. Grove, chief executive of Intel Corp., gave an assessment far more pessimistic than is commonly heard from Silicon Valley executives. Congress should convene weekly hearings with each branch of government, he said, to discuss how they are attacking the problem, which threatens to drive computers haywire when the 1990s end. By the end of this year, he said, each agency should have to have a plan in place to deal with the problem; in 1999, as the critical year approaches, their systems should be thoroughly tested. If this is not done, Grove said, the government has "no chance" of any meaningful compliance. ******** [no url] Gartner claims millennium panic will soon grip users Gartner Group year 2000 expert Andy Kite warned yesterday that millennium bug panic will spread through European businesses and public sector organisations in the next few months. Speaking at the Gartner Predicts event in Paris, he said that despite reassurances from Government organisations and the public sector, these areas have still not begun to tackle the problem properly. "Year 2000 is not a future event - there are computer systems that are failing already. The big event will be the beginning of January 1999 when we will see a great deal more systems failing - public sector in particular. I'm flabbergasted at their lack of action. When they do wake up, the panic will be heard through the whole industry." ******* http://www.auto.com/industry/qbug23.htm Big 3 fight 2000 bug in forced upgrade Suppliers' computers a worry to carmakers April 23, 1998 BY RACHEL KONRAD Detroit Free Press Automotive Writer Thank heavens it was a test. Only a test. When Chrysler Corp. shut down its Sterling Heights Assembly Plant last year and turned all the plant's clocks to Dec. 31, 1999, executives were expecting to find computer glitches associated with the date change from 1999 to 2000. But they weren't expecting quite so many glitches. "We got lots of surprises," said Chrysler Chairman Robert Eaton. "Nobody could get out of the plant. The security system absolutely shut down and wouldn't let anybody in or out. And you obviously couldn't have paid people, because the time-clock systems didn't work." Executives at General Motors Corp. ,Ford Motor Co. and thousands of parts suppliers have similar horror stories. ******** www.fcw.com/pubs/fcw/1998/0420/web-labor-4-21-1998.html APRIL 21, 1998 . . . 14:50 EDT The Labor Department's benefits programs are at risk because resource problems may hinder the department's efforts to fix computers for the Year 2000 problem, the inspector general said today. Testifying before the House appropriations subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies, Charles Masten said Labor's Year 2000 activities "have been limited by resource constraints." According to Masten, Labor has not made significant progress since its February report to the Office of Management and Budget, which identified only 13 of its 61 mission-critical systems as Year 2000-compliant, and he was concerned about the potential impact the inadequate progress may have on the department's ability to provide services beyond 1999. ******* www.independent.co.uk One firm in eight fails to tackle the 2000 bug By Charles Arthur, Science and Technology Editor ONE in eight British businesses has taken no action to tackle the computer "millennium bug", and almost all have no intention of doing so - despite the fact that another one in ten companies is already experiencing problems caused by it. The indifference "beggars belief" according to Don Cruickshank, head of the Government's Action 2000 group, which aims to help firms tackle the problem. Yet it is widespread among small farms and agricultural distributors - where one-third of companies are doing nothing - followed by builders and trucking firms. By comparison, many hospitals are planning to double their staff over the millennium evening and to have spare resources if the failures predicted by some observers - such as air-conditioning and electricity - occur. "That's not like the contingency plan for other major incidents, because you don't know when those are going to arrive," said Mr Cruickshank. ********** http://www.theage.com.au/daily/980418/bus/bus11.html Time runs out for Canberra on millennium bug By ROBERT GOTTLIEBSEN Is it possible that chief executives like Frank Blount, Don Argus, Bob Joss, John McFarlane, James Strong and David Murray have all made a hideous error and unnecessarily burnt up billions of dollars in shareholders' money? Certainly in Canberra they are doing the sums differently. Blount is spending $500 million of Telstra's money fixing the year 2000 computer problem, the banks are spending between $60 million and $250 million, and Qantas is spending $120 million. The Federal Government has made new allocations of $127 million, and departments are spending an additional $470 million from budgeted allocations. Yet the Government seems to have a much bigger year 2000 problem than any of our large companies. No one will go on the record but, privately, some of Australia's leading managing directors who have committed big sums now believe it is too late for Canberra to solve its problem even if it was prepared to spend a billion or two. ****** POLITECH -- the moderated mailing list of politics and technology To subscribe: send a message to majordomo@vorlon.mit.edu with this text: subscribe politech More information is at http://www.well.com/~declan/politech/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 23:09:18 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Programmers Flee From Y2K Problem - And We're Spooked Too Begin forwarded message: Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 07:27:10 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh Subject: FC: Programmers flee from Y2K problem -- and we're spooked too X-Url: Politech is at http://www.well.com/~declan/politech/ ******* http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/opinion/0%2c1042%2c1929%2c00.html time.com The Netly News April 24, 1998 by Declan McCullagh, Lev Grossman and Steve Baldwin The most disturbing part of the Year 2000 thing is that the more you know about it, the more spooked you get. Recently we've been talking to programmers who are predicting -- and preparing for -- severe social problems when computers touch 1-1-00. And it's even giving steely, cold-blooded Team Netly the heebie-jeebies. Rick Cowles, who spent 17 years programming for electric utilities and should know enough to ignore the hype, is in fact quietly preparing for the worst. "I'm looking out for my family, doing an assessment of our needs as a family. Food stocks for a period of time. We already had a portable electric generator," he says. Cowles has decided not to head for the hills, though. He lives in rural New Jersey in a small town he hopes will be safe if a computer crash (or the threat of one) causes a run on the banks. But other people we respect have taken even more drastic steps. Paul Milne is a former commodities broker who moved to a 10-acre farm in the rolling hills of southern Virginia. He expects major cities to implode when transportation networks fail and food shortages arise. "I can live indefinitely -- completely self-sufficiently -- for the next 25 years," he says. (That would be, what, only five years if Team Netly suddenly came for a visit?) "The real danger is the unpreparedness of individuals. If every family had one year of food, you wouldn't have one tenth the problem. Hungry people will do desperate things." [...snip...] POLITECH -- the moderated mailing list of politics and technology To subscribe: send a message to majordomo@vorlon.mit.edu with this text: subscribe politech More information is at http://www.well.com/~declan/politech/ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You know, I don't really feel too sorry for the major corporations and all the problems they are likely to experience if the Y2K 'bug' comes true. I certainly won't cry a bit for the federal government, and I plan to take all my money -- what little there is of it -- out of the bank on December 31, 1999, that is if the lines at the automatic teller machine that day are not too long. Pardon a bit of editorializing here, but the same fools who never manage to insure that their PBXs are compliant with all the new regulations and area code changes, etc certainly cannot be expected to have their computers in order for the new millenium. Oh, they'll hire $100K+ salaried executives who know little or nothing to do these tasks for them but it will be too little, too late. If I sound a little bitter, I am. As far back as 1990 there were items now and then in the papers and on Usenet warning about the problem and the need to begin addressing it, but no one bothered, and some just laughed about it. Now the last laugh will be on them. Of course in 1990 Usenet had no credibility (does it now; did it ever?) where the mainstream press and the large corporations were involved, and since their darlings in the print media were not chanting about it day after day they saw no reason to get excited. After all, what could *you* or *I* -- just rabblerousers, anarchists, hackers and assorted diss- idents -- possibly know about anything that mattered? Where were our credentials? Why hadn't 'the telephone company' or 'the government' or the newspapers told them what to do about (whatever)? Well now they are going to get what they deserve for letting their brains atrophy so badly. With a little bit of luck, everything will get so screwed up they'll never get it all back together again. I did some part time work for a department store in downtown Chicago for about fifteen years; they would ask my opinion on things and then conveniently forget what I had told them. I told them not to get a particular type of PBX, but the smooth talking salesman for that company managed to convince them I would know nothing about it. So they bought it and then from day one it never worked right. Making the slightest change in programming was an all-day affair, with a couple more days of testing. I told them several times to add area code X and exchange Y to the local calling area. 'Oh, we never got anything from the telephone company about that; I am sure they will let us know when we need to do that.' Finally I got a new voicemail number on that exchange and disconnected my old one. I heard nothing for about a month until one day I got a message asking me to call a certain executive there to whom I reported. I asked where he was calling from; the answer -- a pay phone in the lobby. Oh really? Why not from the phone on your desk? Well of course because the brand X switch they had kept intercepting it as an invalid entry. Two days later the phones worked correctly. So if you have ever had a bank, a government agency, a huge corpor- ation or other bureaucracy refuse to serve you correctly or make unjust demands on you or refuse to listen because you failed to show up in a white shirt and tie and produce the credentials they wanted to see -- or should I say refused to sniff and kiss the proper body cavities they wanted, which in most places are better than valid credentials any day -- then now is your chance to sit back and have a great laugh. This is your chance to rub their noses in their own mess which is all they really understand. Yes, I know I am a bitter old man, but I am waiting eagerly for Saturday, January 1, 2000. *Ethical* computer programmers *should* walk away from the mess and leave it up to the Chairman of the Board and the petite young man or lady he pays a hundred thousand dollars per year to so he can chase them around his desk all day to find the solutions. After all, haven't their credentials and brown noses served them quite well in the past? At least my puny little machine here is compliant. If I am still around on 1/1/00 and assuming our phones are still working that day, I promise to put out an issue of this Digest and include the periodic last-article-of-the-issue 'Last Laugh' feature. In the meantime you might want to make your own preparedness plans; I think I shall do the same. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Federal Action Against `Slamming' Said Too Llittle Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 18:29:58 PDT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) By Cassandra Burrell Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) -- The number of victims of illegal "slamming" -- the unauthorized changing of a customer's long-distance company -- has exploded over the past five years, showing that federal regulations prohibiting it are all but meaningless, officials said Thursday. Complaints to the Federal Communications Commission rose from 1,867 in 1993 to more than 20,000 last year. And since most people don't bother to report incidents of slamming, the problem probably is far worse, Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said during a hearing of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. Victims often end up paying higher, sometimes exorbitant, rates for poorer service provided by unethical telephone companies, said a report released Thursday by the General Accounting Office, Congress' investigative arm. "Deliberate slamming is like stealing and should not be tolerated," said Collins, subcommittee chairwoman and sponsor of a bill that would make intentional, repeated slamming a criminal offense. "It's time to quarantine this consumer epidemic," said Sen. Dick Durban, D-Ill., another sponsor. The FCC is scheduled to adopt tougher anti-slamming rules in a few weeks, and the Senate is expected to debate anti-slamming legislation later this spring. For now, the most effective actions consumers can take is having their long-distance companies "freeze" their accounts, said Eljay Bowron, the GAO's assistant comptroller general for special investigations, told the subcommittee. "The FCC has adopted some anti-slamming measures, but effectively does little to protect consumers," he said. "Most states have some anti-slamming measures, but their extent varies widely." Bowron said slamming is less frequent among big telephone companies that have their own equipment and more common among the smaller "switchless resellers," which lease equipment and telephone lines from bigger companies. Telephone customers sometimes are slammed inadvertently through clerical errors. But unscrupulous companies build up customers by misleading consumers, staging deceptive sweepstakes and sometimes going so far as to falsify authorization documents or simply copy telephone numbers out of phone directories, Bowron said. He said Daniel H. Fletcher, whose Fletcher Cos. were fined more than $5 million by the FCC on Tuesday, had billed customers at least $20 million and left industry firms with at least $3.8 million in unpaid bills by 1996 after beginning large-scale slamming the year before. Federal investigators suspect that Fletcher may still be running similar scams, but they don't know where he is, Bowron said. FCC Chairman William Kennard told the panel: "I believe that the reason people slam is because there is a financial incentive to do so, and we need to remove that financial incentive." Kennard said the FCC is sending out letters to companies that provide billing services to telephone companies to ask for their ideas on making it easier for consumers to find the names of slammers on their telephone bills. The FCC also is asking the companies to come up with ways to stop "cramming," or billing customers for services they never have ordered, such as call waiting or Internet access service. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I wonder if the government could pass a new law requiring everyone to become Y2K compliant sometime this year or next? I am sure if it was a serious problem the government would have found a solution and told us what to do by now. PAT] ------------------------------ From: black@csulb.SPAMMY.edu (Matthew Black) Subject: GTE Admits Releasing Unlisted Phone Numbers Date: 27 Apr 1998 14:35:58 GMT Organization: California State University, Long Beach GTE Corp., California's second largest phone company, said it mistakenly printed 50,000 unlisted residential phone numbers and addresses in directories that are leased to telemarkteters. GTE is in the process of informing customers and has reprinted the 19 affected editions which cover communities between Santa Barbara and Huntington Beach CA. If found guilty of gross negligence, GTE faces fines of up to $1,500,000,000 (that 1.5 Billion dollars). GTE blames the problem on a software snafu and has offered to change customers' phone numbers and provide one year unlisted service for free (an $18 value). Given the fraud and privacy issues, I hope the PUC hits GTE with the maximal penalty. [To respond via e-mail, remove obvious component from Reply-To address] matthew black | the opinions expressed herein are mine and network & systems specialist | may not reflect those of my employer. california state university | network services SSA-180E | e-mail: black at csulb dot edu 1250 bellflower boulevard | PGP fingerprint: 98 4E DF BE 49 A8 DF 99 long beach, ca 90840 | 6A 7A 1B F1 3E 50 E5 D2 =============================(c) 1998 by Matthew Black, all rights reserved= ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 00:05:52 -0400 From: The Old Bear Subject: Help: Local Call Billing and CLEC Exchange Pat and friends: I usually contribute clippings and comments to Telecom Digest, but now I am stumped and could use some help with a problem. I am working with an Internet service provider who had a large pool of lines coming into its facility and terminating in several hundred 3COM/USR Netserver lines. The incoming lines are delivered as a "hunt group" by a CLEC and they consist of an aggregation of about a dozen numbers provided by the CLEC in various xxx- exchanges which are presumably local to different parts of the metropolitan region here in Bell Atlantic land. In theory, a call coming in on any given line could have originated from any of the CLEC-provided local numbers. The CLEC represents that its facilities are such that *ALL* calls could come from one local xxx- number without the user experiencing a busy signal. (This is different than having to place a remote Point-of-Presence in each local exchange and having to decide which one should have ten lines and which should have fifty or more.) The point of all of this is to provide customers of the ISP the ability to dial a local number which will be treated by BA as an unmeasured call. Among BA's tariffs is a low cost unmeasured residential rate which provides no charge for calls to the same or abutting exchanges and then "message unit" charges for calls in two less proximate zones. Calls to these zones are not itemized and are only presented on the Bell Atlantic bill as "Zone One calls" and "Zone Two calls" in aggregate. for example: 30 zone one calls, $24.15 Our problem (or should I say the end user's problem) is that he or she dials a number in the CLEC's xxx- exchange which should be a local, unmeasured call. (Bell Atlantic agrees that calls to xxx- from the user's yyy- exchange are unmeasured.) But at the end of the month, the user gets a phone bill from Bell Atlantic for lots of dollars worth of Zone One and/or Zone Two calls. Bell Atlantic then tells the user that the ISP must be "forwarding the calls to a Zone One or Zone Two number and therefore the user must pay for these calls." When pressed, the Bell Atlantic customer rep will eventually admit that callers are not billed for calls forwarded and that these charges are the responsibility of the owner of the called number -- but that the CLEC must be doing something and it is not Bell Atlantic's problem, whatever it is that the CLEC is doing. Escalating the call within Bell Atlantic (I called on behalf of a user), I got someone higher in the ranks who admitted that call forwarding was not the issue, but that the CLEC was "call re-routing" but he was unclear on what that meant. He suggested that any customer experiencing this should convert to totally measured calling so the user would get an itemized bill showing where specifically the call was going according to the Bell Atlantic billing system. (He also very kindly said that Bell Atlantic would credit any charges incurred for any user who wanted to try this for a month as an experiment. But he did not say what the resolution would be if the user's bill showed him calling a Zone One or Zone Two number when he had dialed a local number.) I really don't want to get in the middle of this except that I am trying to reduce the time the ISP's customer service people have to spend explaining to their users that the ISP is not the one causing these charges to appear on the user's phone bill. It would be nice if the ISP could send the user simple instructions on who to call at the CLEC or Bell Atlantic to get this fixed. Alternatively, the ISP is paying good money to the CLEC to provide local numbers for its users, and if the CLEC is doing something odd which is causing Bell Atlantic to generate billing records, the ISP is paying for services for its users which it is not getting. The ISP only hears about this from customers who chose to complain to the ISP, so there is insufficient data to see if there is any pattern. However, with hundreds of lines and thousands of customers, the problem appears to be more than just an occasional fluke. The only theory I can come up with is that under most circumstances the CLEC is providing a local number and inter-CO trunk, but that when this becomes saturated, the CLEC forwards the call to another one of the CLEC's exchanges and does so in a way that the Bell Atlantic billing equipment does not recognize the call as being completed until it arrives at the other (more distant) CLEC exchange. If this is the case, the billing is a CLEC-induced problem and they are not delivering what they claim to be selling the ISP. If any TELECOM Digest readers could shed some light on all this, it would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, The Old Bear ------------------------------ Subject: Carving up 408 Area Code: 16 Possibilities Sscrutinized Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 17:36:48 GMT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Valley cities could be split if certain plans are OK'd By Connie Skipitares Mercury News Staff Writer If you live in Willow Glen or Campbell or Saratoga, you may have to dial a few more digits to call your neighbor. That's if any one of 16 different plans to slice up the 408 area code in Santa Clara County is approved. A host of scenarios for new area codes threatens to split cities, divide the northern part of the county from the southern part, or force customers to dial "1" plus an area code just to call a few blocks or a few miles away. Citing growth in Silicon Valley that is outpacing the pool of existing phone numbers, phone industry leaders and state utility officials this week unveiled several different plans that would carve up the county and create another area code or two. The proposals are being presented to the public this week to help determine a final plan that will take up to six months to develop. A new area code or codes could go into effect as early as November 1999. The last of the public meetings will be held Thursday night in Los Gatos and Morgan Hill. Officials don't expect any rate changes to occur because of the new area codes. Today, California has 20 area codes, 13 of which have been added since 1991 because of explosive growth. Within the next five years officials expect to add nine more. Each area code can handle 7.9 million phone numbers. Area code 408 was created in 1959 when it was split from 415, one of the state's three original codes introduced in 1947. Currently, 408 has 5.7 million numbers. At least one new area code is needed within the next two years because of the county's expanding population and business growth that has created an explosion in phone lines for modems and fax machines and a proliferation of cellular phones and pagers. "We are running out of numbers unless we make some changes," said Eleanor Szeto, an official with the California Public Utilities Commission. Those changes include creating one or two new area codes in Santa Clara County that would supplement the current 408 area code serving most of the county. Already in place, another area code -- 650 -- serves the northern part of the county that includes Palo Alto, Mountain View and Los Altos, as well as parts of San Mateo County. And starting in July, a new 831 area code will serve Santa Cruz, Monterey and San Benito counties, areas currently served by 408. Complaints abound The proposed changes to the rest of 408, although preliminary, already have sparked complaints in certain areas, such as Saratoga, which is slated to be carved up into two code areas. One portion of the city would retain the 408 area code, while the other would take on a new area code. That scenario would result in a major identity crisis for the city and a major uproar among its citizens, says mayor Don Wolfe. "In this technical day and age, there's no need to split the town," Wolfe says. "To do this to a small community is just not proper in my book. We want to remain one entity. I don't think it's asking too much to keep one area code for Saratoga." But telecommunications officials say it's not as easy as it sounds to create new boundaries because changes are dictated by the location of central phone offices that were built years ago before the rampant growth. "Splitting now doesn't follow city lines, and that's something we can't get around," says Chris Duckett-Brown, a senior engineer with Pacific Bell. Wolfe attributes the resistance to the usual complaints associated with new area codes: changing stationery, business cards and advertising, updating fax machines and computers and reprogramming auto dialers, speed dialers, alarms and private phone systems. Owners of cell phones and pagers now programmed with the 408 area code could choose to retain the codes or switch over when all other residential and business customers change to a new area code, says Duckett-Brown. There is usually a six-month grace period after an area code change kicks in for all customers, officials say. Splitting cities Under the various plans proposed Monday, most cities will remain whole in moving to a new area code or staying in the 408 code. Only Saratoga, Campbell, the Willow Glen neighborhood in central San Jose and the "Golden Triangle" business and industrial area of north San Jose would be divided. Most of the plans call for a logical division between the northern and southern parts of Santa Clara County. One plan calls for the creation of two new area code regions in addition to the 408 area code. The new code areas would be carved out of the more populous northern part of the county. Another plan proposes that no new area codes be created based on geography but requires that all phone customers use "1" plus the area code, then the seven-digit number they're dialing. That would increase the available pool of numbers and avoid duplication but would force customers to dial 11 numbers for every call, no matter where in the area or in the country they are trying to telephone. New customers in the county would then be given a new area code as needed. Two more Santa Clara County meetings will be held on Thursday, wrapping up the public portion of the planning process for new area codes. One is at Los Gatos Town Hall, 110 E. Main St., Los Gatos, at 1 p.m. The other is at Morgan Hill City Hall, 17555 Peak Ave., Morgan Hill, at 7 p.m. Anyone interested in submitting written comments may send them to the California Public Utilities Commission, Telecommunications Division, 505 Van Ness Ave., San Francisco, Calif., 94102. Deadline is May 20. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 11:31:02 -0400 From: The Old Bear Subject: An Inspiring Story From New England Here is a nice little story from {YANKEE} magazine's May 1998 issue which just arrived in the mail. Yankee is the regional magazine of New England with an editorial content which is heavy on nostalgia, country living, folk history, etc. I am sure that ATT Wireless was delighted to get this kind of write-up: Spires for Hire --------------- WIRELESS PHONE companies know that most people find their transmission towers as aesthetically pleasing as chain-link fences. Yet they need the towers, and public support, to grow. In New England they've found a seeming solution rising above most every town and landscape. Church steeples with an eye toward heaven now beam transmissions back to earth, thanks to an antenna tucked inside the belfry. The church gets a modest rental fee, and "we get the coverage that we're looking for," says Martin Nee, a spokesman for AT&T Wireless. Yet the decision to lease the steeple is rarely free of controversy or hand-wringing. Some churches encounter zoning obstacles. Others worry about the business ethics of their new partners. Recently a small congregation in Haverhill, Massachusetts, confronted perhaps the weightiest issue. With its belfry soaring 130 feet above the Main Street hill, the First Baptist Church can be seen from nearly every point in town. Less obvious is the struggle to maintain the building. When AT&T came calling in August, church members were unsure how to erase a deficit and fund needed repairs. They were equally unsure of the virtue in taking money -- about $1,100 a month -- to permit a company to conceal a wireless relay antenna in the spire. Since 1765 theirs had been a house of worship only. "Now we were entering into what might seem a commercial endeavor," said church member Ted Bitomski. They talked. They prayed. The board of deacons sought guidance in the scriptures. Finally Pastor Howard Lawrence fashioned an argument palatable to the 1 65-member congregation. "We had been praying for a long time that God in some miraculous way would find a way of meeting our needs," Lawrence explained. "Well, when people walk in your door one day and say they want to put an invisible antenna in your belfry, and they'll pay you money, I think that's pretty miraculous." The church signed a 20-year lease. --ROBERT SMITH Yankee Publishing, Inc. Dublin, New Hampshire http://www.NewEngland.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If the churches need to make some extra money, maybe they could also lease out their prayer books, Bibles and hymnals during the week to the government bureaucrats in charge of getting the Y2K bug fixed. Lord only knows how much divine guidance those guys are going to need over the next year and a half if they are to continue in their mission of saving us from ourselves into the new millenium. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #60 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Apr 29 21:58:07 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id VAA27751; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 21:58:07 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 21:58:07 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199804300158.VAA27751@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #62 TELECOM Digest Wed, 29 Apr 98 20:57:00 EDT Volume 18 : Issue 62 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson NANPA PL#120: 612/651 Minnesota (Mark J. Cuccia) Baby Bells May Get Long-Distance Net OK (Monty Solomon) Would You Trust Worldcom? (Brad Albom) Book Review: "Intranet Security", John Vacca (Rob Slade) University Course in Cabling (Paul A. Rosenberg) Telecomm Resource NW's "Business Coup" Free Pay Phone Calling (D Harkless) Universal Number Service (Harry Salvin) Last Laugh! Civil Defense Siren Gets Crossed Wires (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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 12:39:31 CDT From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: NANPA PL#120: 612/651 Minnesota On Wednesday 29 April 1998, LM-IMS-NANPA loaded Planning Letter #120 on their website. (Available for viewing/downloading/printing in Adobe-Acrobat .pdf foramat) PL#120 regards the Minneapolis/St.Paul area 612 NPA split, with new NPA 651 splitting off for St.Paul and the eastern suburbs. An interesting twist to this split ... there are some central office switches which straddle municipalities. The customers in the eastern municipality will change to the new NPA 651, while the customers in the western municipality will keep the old NPA 612. Therefore, there will be some NXX central office codes which will be duplicated in both NPAs, with an extended permissive dialing period until everything can be "cleaned up" regarding the final numbering/translations/switching/ routing for these particular municipalities in the middle. Permissive Dialing of NPA 651 begins on 12-July-1998. Mandatory Dialing of the new NPA 651 begins (for most situations) on 10-January-1999. The test/verification recording number will be 651-296-2644. It will most likely also be dialable and reached using NPA 612 instead of NPA 651, during permissive dialing. Local calls between NPA 612 and 651 will require a _MANDATORY_ ten-digits, i.e., the area code will be required. A leading 1+ will _NOT_ be _required_ for such local inter-NPA calls. Local calls between one of these NPA's and other adjacent NPAs (320, 507, 715) will still be dialable for the time as just "straight" seven-digits. "Home-NPA" (intra-NPA) local calls will be permissively dialable as "straight" ten-digits. And the state regulatory agency has also approved permissive (at the customer/CPE's dialing whim) 1+ ten-digits for local calls. :) Except for the fact that this is a split and not an overlay, it seems that the dialing procedures are mostly a good forward-thinking step in the right direction, _AND_ take into account the consumer-protection issue that _TOLL_ or extra-charge calls (ten-digits) will require a mandatory 1+ first! :) The NANPA webpage for a list of available for download PL's is: http://www.nanpa.com/planning_letters/planning_letters.html The URL for PL#120 itself: http://www.nanpa.com/pdf/pl-nanp-120.pdf 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, 28 Apr 1998 22:57:37 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Baby Bells May Get Long-Distance Net OK http://www1.sjmercury.com/breaking/headline2/046122.htm Mercury News Staff and Wire Reports WASHINGTON -- Federal Communications Commission Chairman William Kennard said Monday that the commission may let Baby Bells offer long-distance Internet and other data services, potentially opening a back door into the long-distance market for the regional telephone companies. ``If it's done through a separate subsidiary, we could under the right circumstances allow some retail deregulation'' for Bell companies that want to offer high-speed data services, Kennard said. ``The trick here is to make sure we can create a separation between the basic service and the advanced service.'' The 1996 Telecommunications Act restricts the Bells from offering most long-distance services in their own regions until they prove to the FCC that their local phone markets are open to competitors. Despite several attempts in the past year, no Bell has yet met that standard. One of the four Bell companies seeking the FCC's go-ahead is SBC Communications Inc., the parent company of Pacific Bell. SBC quietly applied for the FCC's permission on April 6, and a spokesman for the company declined to say Monday what its plans might be. Kennard said that the FCC will review the Bells' applications in one joint proceeding. Another stipulation of approval would be that the companies not use their control of the local phone network to keep other companies from beating them to market by building data networks, Kennard said. The Telecommunications Act also calls on the FCC to promote advanced telecommunications services by lifting regulatory barriers or other impediments to investment. Citing that provision, four of the five Bells -- first Bell Atlantic, then U.S. West, BellSouth and finally SBC -- asked the FCC to let them transmit data at high speeds throughout their regions regardless of the amount of competition they face. One Washington-based consumer group, Consumers Union, has accused the Bells of trying to evade the requirement that they open their markets to competitors. Because it is possible to carry phone conversations over data networks, a Bell could conceivably use such a network to start offering long-distance phone service. In fact, telephone equipment vendors say that the Bells have already begun testing the equipment used to do carry voices on data networks. Kennard said the Bells could be deregulated to provide these data services as long as there was ``not an essential bottleneck problem'' impeding entry of new companies. He added that the Bells' data networks could be freed from two of the requirements now placed on their phone networks. They wouldn't have to make pieces of their data network available to competitors at a discount, nor would they be required to sell their complete data services to competitors at wholesale prices. Mercury News Staff Writer Jon Healey contributed to this report. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 11:55:08 -0700 From: Brad Albom Reply-To: bradal@ibm.net Organization: Software Engineering Solutions, Inc Subject: Would You Trust Worldcom? Hi- Worldcom has made a proposal to my small company, (5 lines, $200 - $300/mo local phone bill) to switch our local service in Calif's Silicon Valley away from Pac Bell. The savings look like they would be in the 20 to 40% range, or more, based on lower per minute rates. The only problem is that they want us to commit to a year's contract, which would be OK, except that they've got a weasel clause that basically says they can change their rates any time they want. My distrust stems from the fact that I've already got MCI local service (remember, they're buying MCI) on a home phone and within the past two months, MCI essentially doubled my per minute rates, without even notifying me !! I have asked Worldcom to add a clause saying that if they do raise their rates, that I should have the option of switching back out. The people I've spoken to say they don't have the authority to do this. So, I'm wondering if I should trust these guys ? Please post replies, so everyone can benefit from other's experiences. Thanks in advance, -brad a. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Never sign a contract with anyone for any reason which says they can violate the contract at any time but you can never violate or cancel it. That only makes good sense. If they are willing to allow you some period of time to cancel and provide some advance notice before changes take effect (for example like credit cards do; they announce a change and say that continued use of your card after a given date constitutes acceptance of the new terms) then you may wish to consider their offer otherwise. If all they are willing to do is hand you a 'contract' in which you promise to pay whatever they choose to charge each month, then I would say ask their representatives leave your premises immediatly and not return. I dunno, maybe the revolving door could slap them on their butt on the way out as well. Regards the MCI connection, please recall that MCI got its start in this industry through a fraudulent petition filed with the Illinois Commerce Commission back in 1968-69. When Illinois Bell refused to voluntarily allow them to install a microwave transmission link between their office in Joliet, IL and St. Louis, MO, they went past IBT to the Commission claiming the link was intended only for use by themselves to conduct 'company business'. The Commission granted their request on that basis, but within two months Microwave Communications, Inc -- previously a small-town retailer of business radio equipment and a repair shop for same -- was reselling that microwave link to the general public. When Illinois Bell complained about that, MCI claimed that the 'public' was actually an affinity group; i.e. selected customers of theirs. MCI pulled that off by providing doctored up evidence to the Commission and proceeded at that point to begin selling long-distance service between Chicago and St. Louis. That was their very first public offering. Then beginning about 1972, MCI, which by then had expanded their service to include microwave links to about a dozen cities across the USA introduced their newest scheme called 'Execunet'. They went to the largest corporations they could find that had ignoramuses running their telcom departments and convinced them that AT&T was ripping them off royally. The companies would save 'up to fifty percent' of their long distance bill each month by joining the Execunet service. Of course you had to pay a local 'unit charge' (or however your telco billed for local calls) to call the MCI switch -- a charge that appeared for each call whether or not you got an answer on your MCI-generated long distance call-- but MCI somehow forgot to mention that part of it. Sure enough, when the bill from telco came each month, there were lots less in long distance -- i.e. coin-rated -- calls, but the local call portion of the bill, which was in IBT's case expressed just as X number of 'units' at three or four cents per unit with a single bulk total for the whole thing suddenly would be 25 to 40 percent higher than it had been. The telecom managers were able to reconcile the coin-rated long distance calls to their own PBX traffic records and they would see the obvious decrease on that side of the bill. The bill they received from MCI would of course be substantially less that what the same calls would have been via AT&T, but what they neglected to notice was they were now paying Illinois Bell a lot more money each month for 'local calls', especially since their employees might dial the MCI switch five or six times in a row to complete *one* long distance call where the line was busy or not answered the first time, etc. When the occassional telcom manager would complain first to Illinois Bell and then MCI about a phone bill which was the same size as before (the switch to MCI) or sometimes even larger, MCI's response was that 'those local call charges must be your employees making a lot more personal calls.' I wrote about this in {Telephony Magazine} a couple times in the mid-1970's, and I filed an informal complaint with the FCC about the same time which later was followed by formal complaints filed by a couple of large corporations. As a result, MCI was forced to begin including in their advertising the fact that 'increased local call charges incurred dialing into our facilities may offset some percentage of the savings we quote in our advertising.' Some per- centage? How about most of it or at least half of it? But remember, the 1960-70's were a time of much general discontent in the USA where large corporations versus the public was concerned and 'the phone company' was hated by almost everyone it seems. Much of the early advertising by both MCI and Sprint was geared toward the 'pssst ... want to get something over on Ma Bell?' mentality. I'd be most careful with MCI and associated companies regards giving them too much trust or freedom to manipulate my phone bills. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 08:23:33 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "Intranet Security", John Vacca Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKINTRAS.RVW 980206 "Intranet Security", John Vacca, 1997, 1-886801-56-8, U$49.95 %A John Vacca jvacca@hti.net %C 403 VFW Drive, PO Box 417, Rockland, MA 02370 %D 1997 %G 1-886801-56-8 %I Charles River Media %O U$49.95 800-382-8505 617-871-4184 fax 617-871-4376 %O chrivmedia@aol.com www.charlesriver.com %P 506 p. + CD-ROM %T "Intranet Security" While the author seems to be sincerely motivated by a concern for security, this book badly needs more discipline, more material, and more fact checking. Not to mention a closer alignment with the stated topic. Part one is a general guide to data security. Chapter one, although titled "Intranet Security Trends," provides an overview of vulnerabilities, means to address them, and security policies. Security policies are covered in more depth in chapter two, and then really again in chapter three, although there are slight variations in emphasis. Chapter four introduces Internet (TCP/IP) specific topics, but still is dealing at the level of policy. Part one closes with a look at hiring or being hired (it's a bit difficult to tell) for a security position. Part two is said to address intranet security threats, but starts out with a look at security protection tools in chapter six. (More specifically, chapter six presents a kind of extended case study of the work at Portland State University.) Chapter seven discusses security applications again, in part more generally, and in part mentioning specific proprietary programs. Chapter eight does the same thing. Finally, chapter nine does look at a variety of risks associated with Internet use, although it seems to keep lapsing into a discussion of encryption as a security tool. (There is also a rather odd statement about using antiviral software to protect confidential documents.) Identification of computer viruses, in chapter ten, contains generally good advice, but some extremely suspect assertions in the background discussion. Chapter eleven is supposed to talk about antivirus software, but after a non-sensical description of an almost unknown "type" of antiviral software, the rest of the chapter meanders around oddball virus related topics without divulging too much useful information. (This emphasis on viruses is, of course, rather gratifying from my perspective, but doesn't seem to have much to do with the stated topic of intranets. In terms of intranets, the gravest viral danger is probably that of the MS Word macro viruses, which get some space, but don't seem to be a priority.) Disaster avoidance, in part three, would seem to be what computer security is all about. The recovery part seems to be primarily physical, since chapter twelve stresses redundant hardware and hot sites. Part four discusses development, implementation, and management of security. Chapter thirteen reprises some of the information from part one in reference to workstations. Database security is important, but chapter fourteen does not provide enough coverage to really get down to work on it. Chapter fifteen looks briefly, but not in much detail, at security for remote users. Policy is revisited in chapter sixteen. Part five is supposed to look to the future, but chapter seventeen is little more than a collection of computer crime war stories. Chapter eighteen proposes that the Year 2000 problem might raise security issues, but is short on specifics. Internet security related issues are once again discussed briefly in chapter nineteen. Chapter twenty is supposed to be a summary and recommendations, but seems to be simply a rather random assortment of additional security related bits. Although there is some general security related material in this book, almost nothing relates directly or particularly to intranets. The security content is not too bad as far as generic advice is concerned, but isn't anything too significant, either. Overall the book is woefully short in some areas, redundant in others, and badly disorganized. For standard security advice the reader can easily do better. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1998 BKINTRAS.RVW 980206 ------------------------------ From: Paul A. Rosenberg Subject: University Course in Cabling Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 20:35:12 -0500 Organization: Prodigy Services Corp A new correspondence course from Iowa State University and ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR magazine allows you to learn data communications at home, at your own pace, and for a very reasonable price. It covers structured cabling, Category 5 cabling, the new Level 6 and 7 cabling, digital telephony, the Internet, and even the installation of optical fiber. If you need to get trained in data communication, this may be the opportunity you are looking for. Provided by a leading trade magazine and a top University, the certification that comes with this course carries a lot of weight. Here is what the course covers: Lesson 1 The Basics of Data Communications. Intro to the course. An easy-to- understand tutorial in how and why data signals are sent from one place to another. Signal quality versus signal strength. Digital versus analog. Digital signal failure. Basic communication network structures. Lesson 2 Types of Data Networks (Category 5, 6, 7). Why we need networks, and how they are built. The fundamental concerns in network "architecture". Common types of data networks. Ethernet, EIA/TIA 568, Structured Cabling, FDDI. Lesson 3 Designing Data Networks (Category 5, 6, 7). Network components. Understandable explanations of servers, bridges, routers, multiplexers. LAN equipment, WAN equipment. Sample network diagrams, etc. Lesson 4 Data Cables & Hardware (Category 5, 6, 7). Characteristics and applications of Category 5, Category 6, Category 7, and fiber cables. Termination devices, outlets, patch panels, splicing trays, etc. Lesson 5 Installation of Data Cabling (Category 5, 6, 7). Installation mechanics, pulling tensions, twist patterns, layout and working drawings, as-builts, cable marking, cable management. Cable protection, crowded and hazardous environments, separation from other systems, etc. Lesson 6 Testing Data Cabling (Category 5, 6, 7). Understandable explanations of data testing, including, continuity, pair-reversal, NEXT, ACR, skew, and power-sum tests. Test documentation. Certification of drops. Customer or municipal inspection. Lesson 7 Outside Plant Installations. Outdoor cables. Network distance limitations. Inside/outside transition techniques. Surge and lightning protection. Aerial runs. Underground runs. The use of fiber for long runs. Cable splicing and tagging. Lesson 8 Hybrid Copper/Fiber Networks. The use of fiber backbones and copper for the last 100 meters. Campus hybrid networks. Fiber/copper transitions. Sample network structures. Vertical versus horizontal backbones. Problem areas. Lesson 9 Data Transmission over Telephone Lines. Telephone system network structure. Switched versus routed networks. The limitations of old-style phone wires. Modems. Applications of data-over-phone technology. Future developments. The effects of the internet on new telephone installations. Lesson 10 ISDN & T1 Digital Phone Lines. Explanation of what digital phone lines are, how they differ from standard (analog) lines, how the phone companies handle digital lines, etc. Installation and operation of ISDN, T1, ADSL, other digital circuits. Lesson 11 The Internet & Intranets. What the internet is, how it developed, how it works. TCP/IP protocols. Limitations and capabilities. Using the net to turn LANs into WANs - or "intranets". Dealing with ISPs to set up intranets. Internet-to-LAN transitions. Lesson 12 The Datacom Business. How the data communications business differs from electrical construction. Estimating, bidding, RFPs, negotiating, training, certification, oversight, project management, purchasing, obtaining trained workers. Registration For The ISU/EC DATA COMMUNICATION INSTALLATIONS Course: Name ________________________________ Company______________________________ Address______________________________ City ________________State_________ Zip _________________ Phone__________________Fax________________________ The registration fee of $375.00 will be handled as follows: ___ Enclosed is a check payable to Iowa State University ___ VISA ___ MasterCard ___ Discover Exp. Date__________ Card #______________________________________________ Signature ___________________________________________ Mail or fax this completed form and registration fee to: Carole Seifert Iowa State University 102 Scheman Building Ames, Iowa 50011 Fax: (515)294-6223 COMMON QUESTIONS: Is this a college course? Yes it is. The course is a joint venture of Electrical Contractor magazine and Iowa State University (College of Engineering, Dept. of Continuing Education). Electrical Contractor magazine is covering the course in a twelve-part series of articles. How Does The Course Work? This course is conducted completely by correspondence. You will get all of your lessons by US mail, along with the textbook and exercises, about two weeks after you register. (The cost of the textbook is included in the course fee.) After you complete your lessons, send them back to the instructor. He will grade your papers and send you the results. How Long Does It Take? There are twelve lessons in the course, and most students spend between two and six hours on each lesson. However, how quickly you complete the course depends on you. Do I Get Some Type Of Credit? When you complete the course, you will receive a certificate of completion from Iowa State University, along with 6 Continuing Education Units (CEUs). All segments of the course must be completed to gain the CEU credit for the series; partial credit will not be awarded. The credits will be permanently recorded by the Department of Extended and Continuing Education. Each person who earns credit will receive a certificate of completion from Iowa State University. Is There Any Time Limit? Yes, all course work must be completed by April 1, 1999. Are There Prerequisites? There are no prerequisites for this course, although a general understanding of electricity is assumed. Can I get more information? Sure. For registration questions call Carole Seifert at 515/294-6229. For course content questions call Paul Rosenberg at 312/409-2992. ------------------------------ From: dan@cafws3.eng.uci.edu (Dan Harkless) Subject: Telecomm Resource NW's "Business Coup" Free Pay Phone Calling Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 22:09:08 -0600 Organization: Unitech Research, Inc. I'm amazed there's been no discussion of Telecomm Resource NW's "Business Coup" software, which allows free pay phone usage, supposedly legally. It's been receiving a little coverage in the mainstream press, but I've seen no discussion of the technology behind it. Here's what it does, as quoted from http://www.ocregister.com/news/connect/1997/1297/120797/leslie.html: Encounter a pay phone. Decide to make some calls to all two of your friends. Use your calling card to dial your empty house. Let the phone ring exactly twice. Hang up before the answering machine kicks in. Wait for anarchy. The pay phone rings. You pick it up. You punch in a security code. You get a dial tone. Now the phone system thinks you're making calls from your house. You have successfully managed to avoid all calling-card charges and pay-phone connection fees, which could amount to nearly $7 for a 15-minute call. Instead you're paying only residential long-distance rates. All for $19.95 -- $35.95 if you want the T-shirt. Reportedly the software mimics telephone network switching signals, but only non-proprietary ones not owned by the regional network operators, making it technically legal. It seems like this must be a legal loophole that the FCC will soon close, but the company doesn't appear worried about that. Anyone know more about how this works? The company's web site is at www.sendhelp.com, but naturally doesn't discuss the technology involved. Dan Harkless | NOTE: Due to SPAM I have implemented a caller- Unitech Research, Inc. | ID-like policy for this account. Put "re-send" dan@cafws3.eng.uci.edu | in your Subject to bypass; finger me for more. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Actually, this concept has been around for many, many years and is totally legal. Years ago, many large comp- anies used devices known as 'WATS Extenders' for this purpose. You dialed into the company centrex to an extension which was hooked to the device as the incoming line. You entered a password (sometimes, but not always -- more about the United Air Lines 'Unitel' network in a minute) and then got WATS dialtone to make an outgoing call. In some cases where the company had a PBX instead of centrex, it just treated you as an extension user where you could dial '9' or whatever codes were used for the company's various 'tie-lines' or foreign exchange service, etc. Sometime around 1990 we began to see lots of 'callback' services spring up, mostly for use between the USA and international points. Now 'callback' services were of marginal legality for some time, with AT&T complaining that in fact a message was being transmitted ('call me back at this number') for which they were not being paid. Then someone pointed out that AT&T itself was selling so-called 'toll-saver' type answering machines so they were not really in a position to complain, unless they were just just going to be a bully about it. ... so AT&T pretty much quit complaining about call-back services. In these days of unregulated telecom, just about anything seems to pass muster. Granted a local telco could possibly complain they were not being paid for the initial call which triggers the 'call me back' message, but then they are placed in the position of saying 'however it is not illegal to look at your caller ID box and call back the number shown; it is only illegal if software does it ...' and 'three-way conference calling is okay when a person sits in the middle and flashes the hook to connect the parties but it is not legal if a modem or computer does it ...' so I don't think you'll hear too many complaints. Now regards United Air Lines and their Unitel network: UAL has or had a nationwide private telephone network for about twenty years in the 1960-70's. They had centrex service in all major airports and company facilities connected through their corporate offices in Elk Grove, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago. A nice little million dollar per month *for facilties alone* contract for Illinois Bell in 1970's dollars. Calls going 'off net' of course were additional. At the corporate office, one would dial a four digit extension for whatever was desired; a logical sort of centrex setup. But there were also *dozens* of three digit codes in the 1xx series which did marvelous things and went strange and mysterious places. The poor little lowly '9' went nowhere except for *very* local service in the village of Elk Grove itself. They used 'progessive dialing' which meant you would dial a three digit code, listen for new dial tone and dial more digits. A few examples were 181 got you 'the WATS line' (actually a bunch of trunks in a hunt group used for long distance); 171 got you the metro Chicago area trunks; 161 got you the centrex at Ohare Airport (then, 312-686) **and a whole new bunch of three digit codes, 9- level trunks, etc**; and on it went. I think as memory serves, 127 grabbed the tie-line to San Francisco's airport centrex. Dial 127, wait a couple seconds and a couple of clicks and pops in your ear and from the distance would come dial tone in San Francisco. Naturally you had the 9-level at your disposal from there, plus various three-digit codes unique to the centrex at SFCA, some of which were used in reverse to call back to the corporate offices here. Like a tree with branches and twigs, it just went all over everywhere, always with the ability to jump off the net at any place you happened to be to make a local call or 'borrow' the WATS lines at that particular company installation. To detirmine the location of any particular three digit code you would just do 1xx + 0 and wait for the centrex/PBX attendant in that city to answer, then ask her who she was ... one three-digit code led to Seattle's airport, and experimentation with the dial tone at that point produced a few more three-digit codes to try. One of those generated still another dial tone which piqued the curiosity of the person trying all this. Dialing zero at that point led to the discovery it was a tie line from UAL/Seattle to the Boeing Aircraft corporate offices (and to their centrex ... ) wheee ...! it just went on and on. One code from Seattle's centrex connected to the WATS trunks and another connected to a 'Canadian WATS' dial tone. One tie-line code (out of the corporate office) rendered a very funky sounding dial tone which would accept three digits on it. Dialing zero brought the unexpected response, 'Reno Nevada City Hall Switchboard Operator' ... Reno, Nevada city hall? Now how did that get in there? Well you see, their airport is a municipal oper- ation, run out of city hall. The operator said she knew nothing about it; it just lit up on a plug on her switchboard. Yes, she could connect me to the ticket agent at the airport if I wished. And the most interesting part of all? You could dialup into 'Unitel' through a local seven digit number here *with no passcode required*. It was 312-956-something ... and you were presented with centrex dial tone from the UAL corporate offices. Dial away ... have fun! It was totally unprotected. Their idea of security was to occasionally 'change numbers' which to them meant flipping the incoming centrex extension number with the outgoing extension number. Since all the 'unauthorized users' (and that is putting it politely) knew what extension was used for outgoing calls, it was a trvial matter to dial 'the other side' if the 'usual' extension did not answer. Lo and behold, they had swapped them out overnight to 'fool the phreaks.' Then one day the telephone inspector came out for a visit, asking for the completely bogus name under which the telephone service and monthly bill was maintained. An expression of the times was 'if anyone comes to the door asking for that name, he is up to no good ...'; sort of an early version of caller-id; tipping off phreaks that someone at Mother Company had some difficult-to-answer questions. When the requested person could not be produced, the telephone inspector said he would just address all of us present as he was sure the message 'will get to the right people' ... look at this print out I have, he said ... see all these connections from a number on these premises to this number in Elk Grove? My oh my ... and look at the long strings of digits dialed at that point once the other end answered. And then, a disconnect, a redial to the same number followed by a different string of digits; and this goes on for an hour or more at a time late in the night. What do you suppose it means, he asked. He continued, saying, now you note there was no passcode requested, so it would appear legally that no fraud was committed, you asked and you recieved ... or should I say you DEcieved ... anyone is free to ask anyone else for a telephone connection, and pulling dialtone is little more than asking to be connected somewhere. If the 'operator' is too dumb to ask for your authority to use the communications link that's her problem, not yours since you made no claim to any such authority (i.e. password entry). He concluded by saying, none the less, the next time you speak with my suggestion would be to can the shit ... we don't have the smartest people in the world for our customers, but some of them are *large* customers and they tend to get offended very easily. We've made recommendations to them and my recommendation to would be to find something else to play with when its time for bed at night instead of the telephone. Those present assured the telephone inspector that his wisdom and advice were well accepted, and that indeed, the shit would be canned that very day. The inspector replied that was all well and good, but he did not know if could be trusted or not ... so what he would do is, 'that pen register we have had on the line for the past couple weeks will stay in place for a while longer, just to make sure that my will -- not thine -- be done!' ... I don't want to have to come to this house again, he said ... next time I have to come here I will have a few different complaints, and perhaps a police officer with a search warrant. Tell I was here, won't you, and let 'em know I don't want to come back. He was assured Bogus would be told about the visit, and 'to find something else to play with at night instead of the telephone.' PAT] ------------------------------ From: Harry@mynumber.com (Harry Salvin) Subject: Universal Number Service Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 22:09:08 GMT Organization: Virtual Office Communications We have a service that has a roaming toll-free number that will ring up to three phones at the same time and send you a page to your pager if someone calls and is waiting or if they send you a voice mail or a fax. The service is your Home, Office, Cellular, Fax, and pager number all in one. If you could use a service like this or if you would like to be a re-seller. Please visit: http://www.mynumber.com This service cost from only $9.95 per month. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That is all very nice, but it is not a new concept at all. I've used and recommended a similar -- but I think better -- service for several years called 'MyLine' based out of San Luis Obispo, CA. Many Digest readers have contacted My Line and subscribed happily to their service since I started using it. Certainly, check out the service mentioned above, but in the process of shopping for a toll free number (and they still have some genuine 800 numbers left!) which follows you around, takes messages, faxes and has other great features, contact one of these three folks for details about 'My Line': dgilliam@callamer.com (Dana Gilliam) beth_harris@callamerica.com (Beth Harris) estrong@callamerica.com (Ernie Strong) jbucking@callamerica.com (Jeff Buckingham) The last person named above, Jeff Buckingham, is the president of Call America, the company which operates 'My Line'. He has been a most generous sponsor of the Digest at one time or another, and has always been responsive to inquiries from Digest readers. If things are running there as they have in the past, one of his associates can have an 800 number up and running for you within a day or so of your order. And it is very inexpensive also. You can use it not only for incoming 800 calls, but also for outgoing calls. That is, you dial your own 800 number, enter a passcode (sorry no UAL techniques here!) and then 'outdial' to the place you are calling. 25 cents a minute or so ... check it out please, and let them know you read about it in TELECOM Digest. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 21:02:14 -0500 From: Greg Monti Subject: Last Laugh! Civil Defense Siren Gets Crossed Wires In the May, 1998, issue of {Baltimore} magazine, there's a short article entitled, "...and you should hear what happened when you rang the doorbell". A summary: In mid-March a Bell Atlantic technician called a south Baltimore residence and asked whether a civil defense siren went off each time his phone rang. (The siren had been screaming 10 or 15 times a day and was the talk of the neighborhhod, which was watching for incoming missiles.) BA and the customer did a little test: Sure enough, the civil defense siren on the Chesapeake Paperboard Company building a few blocks away sounded each time the customer's phone rang. The siren, installed in 1952, was a relic of the cold war. Once this was found out, the resident's friends called up to see if they could make it wail. They could. For the better part of a day. Until Bell Atlantic uncrossed the wires. Said a BA spokesperson, "This is the first time this ever happened. It was really weird." Actually, I *do* remember this same incident happening in Bayville, Long Island, when I was a child in the mid-1960s. The town has no central office so three big cables (maybe 3,000 pairs at the time) travel a few miles to the next town's CO. Somebody's boat storage barn, which was right under the cables, went up in flames one night, severing all service. When repairs were made, the wrong number got connected to the siren. Kept me up half the night. It was fixed the next day. The siren was normally used for calling volunteer firemen to work, although it probably had a civil defense angle as well. Otherwise it was blasted to exercise it at noon each day. (As Robert Klein used to say in a Russian accent, "Ivan! We attack at noon! They think it's lunch!") The fire department uses pocket pagers now. Greg Monti Dallas, Texas, USA gmonti@mindspring.com http://www.mindspring.com/~gmonti [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Would you believe that one of the three-digit codes off of the Ohare Airport centrex used to be for activating the terminal-wide paging system to make announcements? What this meant was dialing the local number into Elk Grove allowed access to UAL's network. Against that dial tone, dialing a three- digit code connected the caller via tie-line to the centrex at Ohare, and then off that another three-digit code allowed someone 'anywhere in the world' ... to make an announcement to all passengers, etc at Ohare? I don't think either Illinois Bell or United Airlines was aware of that small, but significant loophole. I am told that after a couple bogus annoucements were made in which no local (ie at the airport) culprit could be identified, it finally occured to them to wire the centrex so that particular code could only be used by authorized personnel. Not being sure if the statute of limitations from the 1970's has run out yet, I guess I better shut up, and close this issue of the Digest! PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #62 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Apr 30 15:04:15 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id PAA07306; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 15:04:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 15:04:15 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199804301904.PAA07306@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #63 TELECOM Digest Thu, 30 Apr 98 15:04:00 EDT Volume 18 : Issue 63 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Bellcore Addresses Internet Traffic on Local Loop (Tad Cook) Bell Atlantic/NYNEX Problems (Chris Farrar) Book Review: "UNIX Unleashed, Internet Edition" (Rob Slade) PacBell Block the Blocker (Brian Gordon) Reporter Working on Story (Andy Peters) Need Dialogic Developer (Al Niven) UCLA Short Course on "Digital Signal Processing" (Bill Goodin) Britain's Mobile Telephone Market (Monty Solomon) Request For Test Calls (Robert Allender) Engineering Cartoon Site (duke@hrsupport.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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Bellcore Addresses Internet Traffic on Local Loop Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 23:16:23 PDT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Bellcore Heads Industry Initiative to Address Increasing PSTN Congestion Caused by Explosive Growth in Internet Traffic MORRISTOWN, N.J.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--April 29, 1998-- Dramatic Increase in Internet Traffic Drives the Need to Standardize Strategies for Offloading Data From the Circuit Switched Network Bellcore, in conjunction with leading service providers and equipment suppliers, today announced an industry initiative to develop generic requirements for products and features designed to off-load Internet traffic from the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN). Bellcore invites all carriers, equipment suppliers, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and other industry parties to join them in facilitating the optimum solution to ease Internet induced congestion on the PSTN. In the short term, the PSTN will continue to provide the vast majority of residential users with access to the Internet and other data networks through analog modems. This continued growth of Internet traffic is creating a number of technical problems for the PSTN requiring extensive carrier investment in additional capital and operations costs offset by little or no compensating revenue. The development of generic requirements (GRs) will provide specifications for open, common interfaces by which suppliers can help ensure that their Internet off-load products and features such as switches, access servers and signaling gateways are compatible and meet industry requirements. Jack Zatz, senior director of Bellcore's Network Performance Solutions and the Internet Traffic Engineering Solutions Forum (ITESF) chairperson, said: `A cost-effective Internet traffic offload-solution is a priority for the industry. We must approach this problem together to develop products which adhere to common standards and fulfill all carrier requirements. A piecemeal approach by suppliers will likely result in products of limited use and interoperability problems.` Service providers and equipment suppliers who participate in the requirements will benefit from reduced costs in future network operations and product development, and the ability to influence the technical content of the generic requirements. In addition, participants will have access to requirements information and trends, as they evolve, before publication to the industry in general. Cory A. Grant, general manager for Access Products at Applied Innovation Inc. commented, `This is a significant opportunity for AI to ensure that our product development strategy is properly focused on customer needs. We are a supporter of ITESF and also look forward to participating with Bellcore in the development of the standards set forth in the Generic Requirements. Segmenting data and voice traffic on the PSTN is a crucial need that promises to intensify. This effort by Bellcore promises to provide a comprehensive solution set to address the needs of service providers to offload traffic from the PSTN.` Bellcore invites all suppliers and service providers to join the ITESF: a membership organization where common technical problems and technical solutions to the Internet-induced congestion problems in the PSTN are discussed and explored. The next meeting of the ITESF will take place in Montreal from May 19-21. `Unlocking the network congestion associated with skyrocketing Internet use, by using the intelligence inherent in today's SS7 networks is one of the top priorities of Stratus and its telecommunications customers and partners,` said Rod Randall, vice president of worldwide marketing, Stratus Computer, Inc. `We are in full support of Bellcore's initiative, and intend to contribute actively in the Internet Traffic Engineering Solutions Forum.` In October 1997, Bellcore issued a white paper that proposed and analyzed various architectural solutions to off-load Internet traffic from the PSTN (1). These solutions and others have been discussed at previous meetings of the ITESF. After careful study, Bellcore has concluded that the post-switch SS7 based architecture may become the predominant off-load solution. The post-switch based architecture both exploits existing network and operations capabilities and efficiently addresses the majority of Internet traffic scenarios. Moreover, it is generally recognized that post switch architectures will provide the backbone network to carry the Internet traffic offered via emerging XDSL access technologies. `We believe that SS7-based interworking of PSTN and Internet such as Bellcore describes will provide many benefits for Internet remote access,` said Lyndon Ong, senior product manager for Network Services Architecture at Bay Networks' Architecture Lab. `We continue to support the development of open interfaces and standards. Bellcore's initiative will help greatly to define carrier requirements in this area.` Bellcore expects to publish a Special Report to describe Network Architecture and Operations Plans early this Summer. Generic Requirements are expected to follow later this year. Service providers, equipment suppliers and other industry parties wishing to join Bellcore's industry initiative should contact Amir Atai at Bellcore on telephone number 732/758-5574 or email aatai@notes.cc.bellcore.com. For more information on membership in the ITESF, please refer to Bellcore's Internet webpage at www.bellcore.com/seminars. (1) `Architectural Solutions to Internet Congestion Based on SS7 and Intelligent Network Capabilities` by Amir Atai and James Gordon is available at www.bellcore.com/ or by calling 1 800 521 CORE (US and Canada) or 1 732 699 5800 (all other countries) and requesting document number 00A-1019W. Bellcore, a SAIC company, is a leading provider of communications software, engineering, consulting and training services based on world-class research. Bellcore creates business solutions that make information technology work for telecommunications carriers, businesses and governments worldwide. More information about Bellcore's products and services is available on Bellcore's web site at www.bellcore.com. ------------------------------ From: Chris Farrar Subject: Bell Atlantic/NYNEX Problems Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 12:36:25 GMT Being that I live in Toronto, almost 1.5 hours from Buffalo NY, I can't say that I have experienced first hand the problems that are going on in Buffalo. However, from listening to WMJQ 102.5 (Buffalo NY) it seems that a large part of Buffalo NY is suffering problems (such as no service) with their Bell Atlantic phone service. The choke exchange for WMJQ's contest/studio line, 716-644-9102, has been behaving as if there is only a single line into the place, rather than the normal multi-line behaviour. 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: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 07:50:24 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "UNIX Unleashed, Internet Edition" Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKUNULIE.RVW 980205 "UNIX Unleashed, Internet Edition", Robin K. Burk/David B. Horvath, 1997, 0-672-31205-0, U$59.99/C$84.95/UK#54.95 %A Robin K. Burk robink@wizard.net %A David B. Horvath %C 201 W. 103rd Street, Indianapolis, IN 46290 %D 1997 %G 0-672-31205-0 %I Macmillan Computer Publishing (MCP) %O U$59.99/C$84.95/UK#54.95 800-858-7674 317-581-3743 info@mcp.com %P 1114 p. + CD-ROM %T "UNIX Unleashed, Internet Edition" Following on from "UNIX Unleashed, System Administrator's Edition" (cf. BKUNULSA.RVW): Given that this volume is the net edition, I was a bit surprised that chapter one of part one was "Graphical User Interfaces for End Users." Since the first volume was the sysadmin edition, did that really make this the user edition? The fun edition? However, on consideration, the inclusion of GUI (Graphical User Interface) information is quite logical. Net work, with the increasing rise of the Web, has a growing involvement with multimedia, and networking overall involves a lot of multitasking, which is easier to manage in a graphical environment. Chapter two presents GUI programming information. Part two continues with programming, starting with the vi and emacs text editors in chapter three. Vi gets quite thorough coverage while emacs is really only introduced. (A full treatment of emacs would likely have added significantly to the size of the book.) Chapter four introduces querying and reporting with awk, and five moves into more general programming with Perl. The look at C and C++ in chapter six is really only a prelude. Oddly, it does not concentrate on the operational aspects of program compilation, which might be more generally helpful. Chapter seven, on make, does. Chapter eight starts off part three's text formatting and printing with a look at troff and nroff. Chapter nine extends their usefulness with macros, and ten shows you how to build your own macros. Additional writing tools such as preprocessors, spell, grammatical aids, grep, and the Source Code Control System (SCCS) are covered in chapter eleven. Security garners only three chapters in part four, and therefore the material can't be exhaustive. Chapter twelve, on risks and UNIX security in general, is both good and bad. Burke knows the difference between a hacker and a cracker, but doesn't realize that sophisticated operating systems do not reduce the possibility of viral infection. The Internet worm was a virus by all but the most stringent definitions. Security policies, in chapter thirteen, quickly covers some technical areas as well. The security organizations listed in chapter fourteen can provide a wealth of wealth of resources and help. However, this part of the book could definitely use some expansion. The Internet specifics in part five start with a basic guide to HTML (HyperText Markup Language) in chapter fifteen. The inclusion of MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions) in chapter sixteen is a bit odd since a) you don't need to know about MIME if your mailer handles it OK, and b) there isn't enough detail to do anything about it if your mailer doesn't handle MIME. Chapters seventeen through twenty look at the inclusion of interactive material on Web pages with CGI (Common Gateway Interface) forms and shell scripts, Perl, and C/C++. After all that, chapter twenty one is a detailed, but not terribly good explanation of HTTP (HyperText Transfer Protocol). Chapter twenty two discusses the monitoring of Web server activity. Part five really only looks at the Web, therefore, rather than the Internet as a whole. Part six takes us back to programming (mostly) with source control, and chapters on revision control, RCS (Revision Control System), CVS (Concurrent Versions System), and SCCS. Part seven gives us the FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions lists) for AIX, BSD (Berkeley Software Distribution), HP-UX, Linux, Solaris, SVR4, and IRIX. As with the system administration volume, the content and organization have improved a good deal over the first edition. There is a wealth of useful material here, as well as the occasional problem. While not an easy tutorial, this is a solid reference for the intermediate and advanced user. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1998 BKUNULIE.RVW 980205 ------------------------------ From: briang@netcom.com (Brian Gordon) Subject: PacBell Block the Blocker Organization: Netcom On-Line Services Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 13:47:47 GMT Some time ago, PacBell (CA and NV) made some noise about two new(?) services coming soon: CNID with name and "block the blocker". The first is here, but the second was "withdrawn from the PUC" and won't be available for "at least two months". Any G2 on this? They _will_ sell you a $50 box that does it, but so will Radio Shack and Hello Direct ... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Brian Gordon -->briang@netcom.com<-- brian@uplanet.com AOL: BGordon | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 12:00:34 -0400 From: Andy Peters Subject: Reporter Working on Story Hi there. Andy Peters from the Atlanta Business Chronicle here. I'm writing a story about a verdict against Cyber Promotions Inc. of Philadelphia, a spam company. Do you know of anyone who follows junk email companies, a "spam expert" so to speak? Are you something of an expert in this area yourself? If so, can you comment on the growth of junk email companies and what can be done to stop them? Do you know anything about Cyber Promotions specifically? What can individual users of email, the average Joe and Jane with an account with their local ISP or AOL, do to stop the flood of junk email? Any help you can offer would be greatly appreciated. Andy Peters Atlanta Business Chronicle http://www.amcity.com/atlanta tel 404-249-1045 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Please be sure to mention how the increasing amount of spam over the past couple years has virtually wrecked Usenet. Did you know that in recent weeks spam and the automatic cancels issued for same were taking up as much as sixty percent of the total volume of messages in Usenet? It is not clear to me at this point if that statistic means six out of every ten messages on the net were spam and/or cancellations killing spam, or if it means that sixty percent of the total space allotted on spools holding Usenet stuff was spam. Either way, it is a tragedy. Many of the better newsgroups of the past are now essentially abandoned by the people who were long time partipants. A message I got the other day said that many of the guys who were fighting spam on Usenet using the technical approach of automatically generated cancellations have now quit doing so. When the ratio of spam to legit messages reached the above mentioned sixty percent mark, they decided it was useless to pursue it further. Fortunatly for readers of comp.dcom.telecom, I have pretty much been able to insure that attempted postings direct to the newsgroup get diverted to my mailbox instead, and this same thing is true for other moderated newsgroup/mailing list combinations. Over the past two weeks, I've received about a thousand pieces of spam in the telecom incoming mail box. A very high percentage of that has been pornographic stuff, and while I am *far* from being prudish or narrow-minded, it is getting to be a pretty bad mess. You know how dismal it gets to be after zapping the first hundred or so messages each day advertising 'adult xxx sites', 'make money fast', and the other stuff? And 'adult xxx sites' is *mild* compared to some of the subject lines. PAT] ------------------------------ From: alniven@earthlink.net (Al Niven) Subject: Need Dialogic Developer Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 17:56:42 GMT Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. ... to do minor work on existing source code in exchange for a % of an exploding company. ------------------------------ From: Bill Goodin Subject: UCLA Short Course on "Digital Signal Processing" Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 12:18:48 -0700 On July 20-24, 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. Participants use multimedia PCs in a UCLA Extension computer lab with the DSP design and simulation software, SystemView by Elanix. A complete workbook and more than 200 design examples are provided. 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 radio 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 sign 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. The course fee is $1595, 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: Monty Solomon Date: Thu, 30 Apr 98 01:16:41 -0400 Subject: Britain's Mobile Telephone Market Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM * An explosive growth in Britain's mobile telephone market is beginning to slow -- but around one fifth of the population are likely to be using cellphones by the end of the year, a survey said. Consumer market analysts Mintel International Group Ltd hung a price tag of around 160 million pounds around Britain's cellphone market, which it said represented growth of 135% since 1993. Mobile 'phone penetration in Britain is currently around 14%-15%, with MOTOROLA INC, ERICSSON LM TELE. and NOKIA CORP dominating the market for handsets and accounting for two thirds of sales in 1997. But their share of the market had fallen as more brands were launched, the survey said. (Reuters 01:03 AM ET 04/23/98) For the full text story, see http://www.infobeat.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=2553846698-f0a ------------------------------ From: allender@asiaonline.net (Robert Allender) Subject: Request For tTst Calls Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 19:26:55 -0400 Pat: This time last year, a number of your readers were kind enough to make test calls to a new numbering system which Hong Kong's Office of the Telecommunications Authority was about to impose. Thanks specifically to their reports, RAS was able to convince OFTA that it was inappropriate to proceed with their plan, since many callers, from both developed and developing countries alike, were unable to make calls to the 14-digit number sequence. OFTA considers that now, one year later, the world is ready for 14-digit numbers. May I ask your readers, once again, to let me know if this is true by making a test call to our stock quotes IVRS. The number is (852)9006 0075 825. My thanks, in advance, for everyone's trouble. Robert Allender RAS Marketing tel: +852 2834-4902 Suite 2, 19 Hennessy Road fax: +852 2834-2983 Hong Kong e-mail: allender@asiaonline.net ------------------------------ From: duke@hrsupport.com Subject: Engineering Cartoon Site Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 10:39:29 -0600 Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion One animated engineering cartoon after another can be found on: http://www.TheTechSide.com/ ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #63 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu May 7 11:03:07 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id LAA11097; Thu, 7 May 1998 11:03:07 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 11:03:07 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199805071503.LAA11097@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #65 TELECOM Digest Thu, 7 May 98 11:01:00 EDT Volume 18 : Issue 65 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson 888 Replication Survey (Judith Oppenheimer) Same Old Phone, Brand New Savings (Monty Solomon) Problems With BellSouth and Toll-FREE SAC 877 (Mark J. Cuccia) PacBell Plans to Seek Increase in 411 Charges (Tad Cook) NYS PSC Orders Bell Atlantic to Reduce Access Fees (Danny Burstein) National Area Code Directory (J. Augustyn) Product to Determine Local Calling Areas (Martin Hurst) The Web Page You Have Reached (Jennifer Martino) Last Laugh! Early History of Spam: Make-spiky-clubs-fast!!! (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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Judith Oppenheimer Subject: 888 ReplicationNSurvey Date: Tue, 05 May 1998 15:19:30 -0400 Organization: ICB TOLL FREE NEWS. 15 Day FREE Trial: http://icbtollfree.com Reply-To: joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com 888 REPLICATION SURVEY April 25th was the date mandated by the FCC for your RespOrgs to notify those of you with 888 numbers in set-aside UNAVAILABLE status, of your right of first refusal of those 888 numbers. We'd appreciate hearing from toll free number subscribers with 888 numbers in this category. -- How many RespOrgs handle your toll free numbers? -- Which RespOrgs contacted you by the FCC-mandated deadline? -------- in writing _________? -------- by phone _________? -- Which RespOrgs contacted you after the FCC-mandated deadline? -------- in writing _________? -------- by phone _________? -- Which RespOrgs have not complied with the FCC mandate to contact you regarding your right of first refusal, at all? -- Of the RespOrgs you proactively contacted, which provided you with knowledgable service about your right of first refusal? -- Of the RespOrgs you proactively contacted, which had no idea what you were talking about? Your responses will be held confidential, the information used only collectively. Please email your responses, and any other comments you wish, to mailto:joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com. Judith Oppenheimer, Publisher ICB TOLL FREE NEWS News & Information Source for Service Providers, & Commercial Users, of Toll Free Service 15-day, no-obligation FREE trial: http://icbtollfree.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 10:22:57 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Same Old Phone, Brand New Savings By Wendy Tanaka OF THE EXAMINER STAFF Sunday, May 3, 1998 San Francisco Examiner URL: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/examiner/hotnews/stories/03/phones.dtl Routing long-distance calls through cyberspace is now possible using your existing hand-set Before she relocated to Portland, Ore. from San Francisco a month ago, Tracy Mintz was determined to find an inexpensive way to keep in touch with her best friend in The City. After a bit of research, Mintz settled on a device called Aplio/ Phone, which allows her to make long-distance calls over the Internet for what she estimates will be a fraction of the cost of traditional, wireline service. "I was instantly concerned about my phone bill," said Mintz, who calls her friend, Nancy Waddell, daily. "We have to talk for an hour every day." Indeed, tech-savvy consumers know that calls are virtually free in cyberspace, and gadgets like Aplio/ Phone -- which looks like a small answering machine -- offer an alternative to regular long-distance calling and could be particularly useful to people who call abroad a lot, racking up monthly phone bills of at least $75. "It's made for people who have relatives or friends in another country or state, or who have kids in college," said Olivier Zitoun, president and CEO of Aplio Inc., the San Bruno firm that markets Aplio/Phone. The device hooks up to a telephone much the same way an answering machine does, with cords at either end that plug into the phone and the wall jack. While a PC isn't necessary to transmit calls using the Aplio/ Phone device, both Internet and long-distance accounts are. Here's how Aplio/Phone works. After connecting the device to the phone and punching in your Internet account number using your phone's keypad, dial the long-distance number. After you've been connected, press the "Aplio" button on the device and hand up. At this point, Aplio/Phone is rerouting the call over the Internet. Your phone should ring again within 45 seconds when the connection is made and you can start talking in cyberspace. The time it takes to reroute the call is what is charged on your regular long-distance bill. After that, there are no other charges for the cyber call. It's already paid for through your monthly Internet account. While it may be easy to use and can save customers money on their long-distance bills, Aplio/Phone has its drawbacks. -- First of all, a call placed by Aplio/Phone can only be received by another Aplio/Phone. Therefore, two have to be purchased for the technology to work. In July, Aplio said it plans to launch a new version that can interface with other Internet gateways so customers will only need to buy one device. -- Aplio/Phone isn't cheap. The per unit pricetag is $199. Aplio charges $378 for a pair. -- Aplio/Phone is sensitive to congestion on the Internet. If you call during a high-traffic time, the sound quality can be quite poor. Voice break-ups are common, making it impossible to understand what the other party is saying. But when that happens, a voice message comes on over your Aplio/ Phone that states there's too much congestion on the Internet and suggests callers wait for traffic to subside before continuing to talk. -- There's a short delay between the time the caller talks and the person at the other end actually hears the voice. So when Mintz calls Portland, it may sound like she's calling Poland. "You just learn to talk that way," Mintz said of the lag time in hearing what the person at the other end is saying. "It's not like a regular phone call, but for people who have to call the same people and talk for a long time, it's so worth it." She added that the lag time doesn't bother her nearly as much as the per-minute charges for a traditional long-distance call. Although Mintz hasn't received her first long-distance bill since using Aplio/Phone, she estimated she'll save about $100 a month calling Waddell over the Internet. Consumers aren't the only group that can benefit from call transfer devices like Aplio/Phone. Small businesses that make frequent calls to clients or branch offices in other states or countries also are prime candidates. Cuauhtemoc Perez, president of Naftaconnect in Brisbane, jumped at the chance to buy InfoTalk, a device that works the same way as Aplio/Phone and is similarly priced. His company, which creates Web sites for businesses, conducts several phone meetings a day with executives in its office in Pachuca, near Mexico City. Perez said Naftaconnect's phone bills between Brisbane and Pachuca had been running $250 to $300 a month before using InfoTalk. "Now, it's like $10 a month on those calls," he said. "You only pay for the time it takes for the devices (at either end) to understand the call is going over the Net." Perez also said he had tried other methods of placing Internet calls, such as using special computer software, but found InfoTalk easier to use and more effective. "We've experimented with what's available, and (InfoTalk) is good," he said, but acknowledged that sound quality isn't as good as traditional, long-distance calls. Santa Clara-based InnoMedia Inc., the company that distributes InfoTalk, said the biggest consumer market for Internet telephony products are ethnic, immigrant communities in the United States. "We've found that a lot of people are using it (InfoTalk) to call relatives in Asia and South America," said InnoMedia president Nan-Sheng Lin. Both Aplio and InnoMedia started selling their products last fall. They said they've already sold thousands of units. Despite glowing reports from some consumers and small businesses, Internet telephony experts are skeptical about the market potential for products like Aplio/ Phone and InfoTalk. "I don't think those consumer devices will have any major impact," said Francois de Repentigny, an analyst at Frost & Sullivan, a Mountain View-based market research firm. "It'll be too short of a time period before services from companies start rolling out. You won't have the lead time you had with answering machines before service was actually offered by the phone company." De Repentigny explained that telephony services from ISPs and major hardware makers like Cisco Systems and 3Com are the hot spots in the still-fledgling but growing voice-over-Internet industry. For example, IDT, an ISP in Hackensack, N.J., offers domestic Internet long-distance calls for 5 cents a minute. Frost & Sullivan estimates that long-distance calling traffic over the Net will capture 13 percent of all calls made worldwide by 2002. Last year, only 0.01 percent of total long-distance calls were carried in cyberspace. In addition, Frost & Sullivan estimated that the revenues generated by companies that place calls over the Internet will rise from $47 million in 1997 to more than $3 billion in 2002. "In 1999, we'll definitely see a lot of action," de Repentigny said. "You're starting to see products from the networking guys and also from (telecommunications firms) like Lucent Technologies. As the two converge, you'll see a big battle." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 May 1998 00:04:53 -0500 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Problems with BellSouth and Toll-FREE SAC 877 This does _NOT_ apply to BellSouth "POTS" wireline, unless there might still be some local BellSouth switches which haven't yet loaded 877 into originating translations. AFAIK, all of BellSouth's POTS/wireliene switches in the New Orleans area have the new toll-free SAC 877 properly loaded into translations. Rather the problems associated with reaching toll-free SAC 877 and BellSouth origination mentioned here regard BellSouth Mobility, and BellSouth's COCOT-like payphones (BS Public Communications). The new toll-free SAC 877 started in early April 1998. It has been _KNOWN_ for about a year now that 877 would be needed in the Spring of 1998, and it has been _KNOWN_ in the NANP telephone industry that the assignment order of toll-FREE SACs, after 800, would be 888, then 877, then 866, then 855, then 844, then 833, then 822. Nothing is presently firm regarding what to do when additional toll-free numbers are needed when 822 fills up, but the industry is presently developing some future plans. Ever since BellSouth "COCOT-ized" their payphones in Fall 1996 :(, _EVERY_ new North American NPA needs to be loaded into the "chips" in the smart(?) payphone, for 1+ sent-paid coin-toll calling. Rating is done _IN_THE_CHIPS_ in these phones, rather than in the central-office or in the BellSouth TOPS-ACTS (Operator switch) or AT&T OSPS-ACTS. Unfortunately, BellSouth's "Public Communications" division is _NOT_ always current in loading new NANP area codes into the chips in their phones for 1+ coin-paid station calling. They only recently loaded in Canada's (now mandatory) NPA 867 for Yukon/NWT/(Nunavut). BSPC has NOT loaded in _ANY_ Caribbean NPA codes, not even 809, for 1+ coin sent-paid station calls. Of course, the "coin" rates for the NANP Caribbean is probably "too much" for the "escrow-bucket" to hold, and since these phones have been "COCOT-ized" :(, no telco/AT&T operator can assist in counting/collecting coin deposit paid calls. _BUT_ ... Puerto Rico (now NPA 787) and the US Virgin Islands (still permissive in both NPAs 809 and new-soon-to-be-mandatory NPA 340) are _NOT_ loaded neither, HOWEVER, the rates for PR/USVI are _DOMESTIC_ rather than international. WHY can't BSPC load these NPAs into the rate-chips in their payphones!? _AND_ now that Guam (now +1-671) and the Northern Mariana Islands (now +1-670) have become part of the NANP, their billing to/from the (continental) US is _DOMESTIC_ rather than 'international'. However, BSPC doesn't seem to want to recognize NPAs 670 and 671 for 1+ coin sent-paid station calls!?!? Of course, I _CAN_ place calls to _ANY_ of these locations, as well as non-NANP locations via AT&T, with my AT&T Calling-Card, using 1-800-CALL-ATT access, as well as (101-0288)-0+/01+ access. The BSPC COCOT-like payphones do _NOT_ reject 0+/01+ access to any (valid) NANP area code nor ITU assigned country-code. (Of course, the BS c/o which gives dialtone to that BSPC COCOT also needs to have the code loaded into the switch, as well as the LD carrier needs the code, translation, routing, etc). And I _NEVER_ place coin-sent-paid toll calls anymore ... I think I only placed such a call ONCE in my life, about seventeen years ago, for 3-minutes, from New Orleans to Baton Rouge. But BSPC has _NOT_ loaded toll-FREE SAC 877 into their COCOT chips!!! If I dial 1-877-nxx-xxxx, I get "Error-13" from the phone's internal chips. While the chips won't reject 0-877-nxx-xxxx, the _REAL_ BellSouth central office switch will reject that dialstring as invalid! :( :( :( I did place a call to the toll-free repair number on the BellSouth COCOT to report the problem. However, the reporting center is _NOT_ staffed by BellSouth personnel, but rather a telemarketing company! :( And _THEY_ don't know diddly-squat about the telephone network! :( And when I asked for a ticket number about the problem, they said that they don't give out ticket numbers, but simply pass the info along, which hopefully gets to the proper people with BellSouth! :( I think a call to the FCC might be needed! I wonder how many non-telco COCOTs yet have toll-free 877 properly loaded into their chips! Many COCOTs _STILL_ don't yet handle 1996's toll-free 888 properly! :( The PBX here at Tulane University didn't have toll-free 877 loaded into its translations until Friday. I finally got around to reporting it to PBX-Telecom administration. Within ten minutes after reporting the problem, I was FINALLY able to dial 9-1-877-nxx-xxxx, and have the call properly routed out to the BellSouth "Carrollton" #1AESS office (the public c/o which Tulane's PBX is served from), and then properly database-dipped for routing to the LD carrier which that particular 877-nxx-xxxx is routed through. I wonder how many PBX systems don't yet have 877 loaded in, or if they ever will. Do all NANP-based PBX systems have toll-free 888 yet? :( Now, for BellSouth Mobility ... Here in New Orleans, BS-Mobility is a "Type-2" or "Type-2a" cellular interconnection. That means that there are direct trunks from the BS-Mobility MTSO (Mobile Telephone Switch) with the BellSouth (local wireline) tandem offices and with LD-Carriers toll/tandem/operator switches, rather than the MTSO "hanging-off" of a local central office as most PBX systems do. The BellSouth MTSO _USED_ to be a "type-1" interconnection a few years ago -- i.e., a-la-most PBX's, it "hung" off of a local end-office - the "Shrewsbury" #1AESS or the "Metairie" #5ESS. AT&T Cellular Long Distance is my chosen primary inTER-LATA carrier from my cellular phone. When I place all 1+ inTER-LATA toll _calls_ from my cellular phone, the calls are handed-off to AT&T directly, without having to go through the local wireline BellSouth network. Incidently, the 1+ inTER-LATA AT&T toll calls go rather to the AT&T #5ESS-OSPS (operator switch) in Jackson MS, rather than to the AT&T #4ESS ('regular' 1+ switch) in "Main" in downtown New Orleans. But toll-free 800/888 calls aren't necessarily handled by AT&T. The _CALLED_ 800/888 customer has chosen which LD carrier will handle calls to their toll-free number. And this is determined on the full seven- digits nxx-xxxx after the 800 or 888 SAC-NPA, since 1993/94, and done by a BellSouth (wireline) _database-dip_. Calls to 800/888 numbers from my cellular route out of the MTSO, _to_ a BellSouth local/wireline tandem/database, which then gives the indication of which LD-carrier to hand the call off to. _BUT_ BS-Mobility has _MISPROGRAMMED_ the new toll-free SAC 877 into translations of the MTSO here in New Orleans!!! :( When I call 877-nxx-xxxx from my cellular, I am handed off to _AT&T_, directly, withOUT BS-Mobility routing the call to the BellSouth local (wireline) tandem/database! _IF_ the 877-nxx-xxxx number is handled by AT&T, then there's no problem. The OSPS in Jackson MS will hand the call over to the AT&T #4ESS in Jackson MS which will route the call via the AT&T network. _BUT_ if that 877-nxx-xxxx number is _NOT_ an AT&T handled 877 number, the call is _REJECTED_ by AT&T at their #4ESS in Jackson MS (040-T). I have tested this by dialing Cable-and-Wireless (which also is a US based carrier/reseller) 877 test number, 877-250-0870 from a wireline phone. I route to their 888/877 test verification recording. But when I dial it from my BS-Mobility cellular phone, I get a rejection recording from the AT&T #4ESS switch in Jackson MS (040-T)! :( I called BS-Mobility to report this mistranslation/misrouting. I asked for tech-support. They _REFUSED_ to connect me with tech-support, and told me that they would relay the problem to them, while I was kept on hold. They came back and told me that _AT&T_ was misrouting the call. BUT AT&T wasn't misrouting ... the dialed 877-nxx-xxxx number wasn't AT&T's number to handle! (However, I _DO_ wish that AT&T would hand such calls back to the LEC for database-dipping - that WOULD be a nice customer service for the remnant of the old Bell System to do! I _THINK_ that AT&T _DOES_ hand non-AT&T-handled 800/888/877 calls over to S.N.E.T. when a customer on Fishers Island NY dials a toll-free number - I'll do a report on this unique island in Long Island sound one day - it is just _ONE_ c/o code and switch, but is a single LATA unto itself!). I asked to speak with a supervisor. I was refused by "Suzie" at BS- Mobility, who 'claimed' to be an assistant manager. I asked for a ticket number and was refused. I think I'll call the FCC on them! And this "Suzie" was the same customer service rep I spoke with about a week ago when I found out I couldn't *72+...+SEND Call-Forward from my cellular phone. I called up the main number and pressed _ALL_ touchtone menu buttons for tech-support, but was still routed to this rude "Suzie" who 'claimed' to be an assistant manager in customer service (service?). As for *72 call-forwarding from my cellular, it seems that BS-Mobility has discontinued or shut the feature down, claiming that there was fraud with it. And that shutting it off would "prevent me from being cloaned". But I can still use *71+ from my cellular for forwarding on no-answer. But since my home telephone number forwards to my cellular on busy and no-answer, I sometimes _WANT_ to *72 directly call-forward from my cellular to a wireline number where I might be presently located, so as to save the battery on my cellular phone. Yes, I would be liable for airtime on both *72 and *71 forwarded calls from my cellular but I would most likely do this on weekends or overnights, when I have unlimited airtime for a fixed monthly fee. And, for 'peak' times, I do have a package from BS-Mobility where I can get up to sixty free minutes of incoming airtime! That's why I have my home telephone number forwarded on busy/no-answer to my cellular. But if I am turning off the cellular to save battery (particularly on weekends/overnites), and want to forward the calls to a land-based phone number where I might be located (such as a friend or releative's house), I do NOT want to have 'ringing' from the MTSO 'trying' to locate me _BEFORE_ the MTSO forwards the call to the land-based number! I tried to question this "Suzie" as to how turning off *72 direct forwarding capability would prevent fraud, while keeping *71 forwarding on no-answer didn't have any 'fraud' associated with it! She refused to clarify the situation! And she took _NO_ interest in my preference for *72 over *71, nor any interest in having routing/translations to toll-free 877 being corrected! I wonder how many other cellular companies seem to have such ineptness in customer service or basic switch translations/routings! Again, I _WILL_ inform the FCC about this! Another problem I've had with BS-Mobility regards reaching "Personal" routing to SAC NPA 500 numbers! It seems that BS-Mobility doesn't do the required six-digit translations of the 500-NXX code. SAC 500 is assigned/worked the same way SAC 900 works, the way Canada's SAC 600 is handled, and the way SAC 800 _USED_ to be handled prior to 1993/94. Carriers wishing to provide service with these SACs are assigned specific NXX codes within that SAC. The LEC is _SUPPOSED_ to translate the N00+NXX code in the originating switch to determine which LD carrier to hand the call off to. But when I dial a 500-nxx-xxxx number from my cellular phone, all calls are handed off to AT&T, since it is my chosen primary inTER-LATA toll carrier from my cellular. That's fine if the 500-NXX code is one assigned to AT&T. But if the desired 500-NXX code is one assigned to MCI or someone else (and I do know people with MCI-handled 500 numbers) then I get a rejection recording from AT&T, since the 500-NXX is not one of theirs! :( I had reported this to BS-Mobility _MONTHS_ ago, but to no avail! I wonder if anyone else has had similar problems with their cellular providers! 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: PacBell Plans to Seek Increase in 411 Charges Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 02:10:58 PDT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- Pacific Bell plans to ask the state's utility board to double the price of 411 calls, while reducing by two the number of free directory service calls allowed each month. "The price increase is necessary to cover the cost of doing business -- everything from labor to technology -- which has increased in California since 1984," Pat Adelman, general manager of operator services for Pacific Bell, said Friday. Currently, Pac Bell's 10 million residential customers can make five free 411 calls. After that, customers are charged 25 cents per call. Under the new proposal, to be presented Monday to the Public Utilities Commission, consumers would get three free calls and be charged 50 cents for every call after that. Free 411 calls will be eliminated entirely for the company's business customers, who currently are alloted two uncharged directory assistance calls per month. Customers and consumer advocates questioned the proposed rate increase. "It's outrageous," said Penelope Dwyer, a Marin County resident. "I can see their point in encouraging people to use their (phone books) for local calls, but it's ridiculous to charge more for information when we don't have phone books. As a home business person and telecommuter, the majority of my calls are just outside my area code. I have no other way to get numbers. It will hurt me a great deal." Pacific Bell spokesman John Britton said most residential customers won't suffer from the price increase. Half don't make 411 calls and another quarter won't pay because they make three or fewer directory-assistance calls each month. "The 25 percent of customers who make more than that number should pay for the service instead of spreading the costs over all customers," Britton said. The cost of a local 411 call already exceeds 25 cents in all but eight states. But a 50-cent charge would put Pacific Bell among the 20 most expensive states for such calls. In considering the proposal, the PUC will hear from its own Office of Ratepayer Advocates as well as the public. Elena Schmid, director of that office, said she hasn't formulated a position yet. But she pointed to the decision by Pacific Bell and carriers to raise the price of pay-phone calls from 20 cents to 35 cents last fall. "We get these constant demands to pay more, pay more. But where are the benefits to the public?" she asked. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 May 1998 08:31:49 EDT From: Danny Burstein Subject: NYS PSC Orders Bell Atlantic to Reduce Access Fees (sure we'll see a commensurate reduction in consumer level pricing. wanna buy a bridge?) [I've done some minor editing to clean up apparent formatting errors /db] STATE OF NEW YORK Public Service Commission Maureen O. Helmer, Chairman Three Empire State Plaza, Albany, NY 12223 Further Details: (518) 474-7080 http://www.dps.state.ny.us FOR RELEASE: IMMEDIATELY 98031/94C0095 PSC ORDERS $ 85 MILLION CUT IN BELL ATLANTIC-NEW YORK ACCESS CHARGES LONG DISTANCE COMPANIES AGREE TO PASS ALONG SAVINGS Albany, April 29 The New York State Public Service Commission today ordered Bell Atlantic-New York to cut access charges by approximately $85 million after determining long distance customers were paying too much to originate and complete intrastate calls on Bell Atlantic's network. In making its decision, the Commission made clear it expected long distance carriers to pass the savings along to New York State customers as promised beginning later this spring. Inflated access charges unduly burden toll call customers and constrain growth in the toll market, Chairman Maureen O. Helmer stated. This Commission is committed to encouraging economically efficient pricing in the telecommunications market, and our decisi on today reflects that policy. In its decision, the Commission noted that the local telephone network is essential to other telecommunications companies doing business and should be priced in a manner that more closely reflects true costs. Accurate pricing of access to Bell Atlantics local network is important to competition in the long distance marketplace, where Bell Atlantic has announced it hopes to compete. Reduced access charges also can play a role in the emerging competitive local telephone service arena whenever companies package a number of services together that include long distance service in Bell Atlantics territory. During the course of this proceeding AT&T, MCI and Sprint agreed to reduce intrastate rates commensurate with the level of access charge reductions. The Commission expects that agreement will be honored and asked the companies to file plans that ensure the broadest range of residential and business customers as practicable receive the full benefits of the $85 million access charge reduction. The benefits will be in the form of decreases in customers long distance bills. _____________________________________________________ Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 May 1998 04:30:51 -0400 From: J. Augustyn Reply-To: august001@ameritech.net Subject: National Area Code Directory I am a small business owner going nuts trying to update my customers and their area codes. Is there a natinal directory with updated area codes across the country? Please e-mail me at august001@ameritech.net Thanks [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Does anyone remember how AT&T published those area code guidebooks for years and years? There was the little pocket-sized paperback book which came out annually, mostly for consumer use, and there was the much larger edition, listing thousands of cities all over the USA and Canada. These were intended for PBX operators and very large companies making thousands of long distance calls monthly. Then for a short time they had an international edition with lots of country and city codes listed. In the archives of this Digest (http://telecom-digest.org) we had a script which listed all the area codes; back in the days when the list was somewhat manageable and easy to keep up to date. There is still a fairly up-to-date country/city code listing. Some readers of this Digest who maintain very nice web pages of their own have current area code lists and I imagine on reading this message, they'll be responding to you directly with their URLs, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Martin Hurst Subject: Product to Determine Local Calling Areas Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 11:35:01 -0400 I am looking for data and a software product, that run in a Windows 95 GUI environment, that will allow me to enter in an NPA NXX combination and will display all numbers that are local to that point. Also to be able to do other on-line queries, such as, total number of local NPA NXX points in a given area for business marketing and analysis research for future business opportunities, etc. The NPA NXX data would have to be the most currently updated information available, and also to be able to track (keep a history of) those changes to area code splits, etc. We are not a carrier or a telco business, but a provider of voice-mail, voice-messaging services to both commercial and consumer markets. Do you have such a product or know where I might find several to choose from? Thanks and regards, -Martin Hurst wk: (216) 595-5564 ------------------------------ From: Jennifer Martino Subject: The Web Page You Have Reached Date: Thu, 07 May 1998 02:09:56 -0500 Organization: Ameritech.Net http://www.ameritech.net/ Reply-To: wznegvab@nzrevgrpu.arg I am prolly going to be cancelling my ameritech.net account in a few weeks and switching to a new ISP. Once I switch, though, I am prolly not going to put it back up due to my apathy towards the page. So take whatever it is you may want now while you have the chance. The Web Page You Have Reached (October 26, 1997 - May 1998) http://www.ameritech.net/users/jmartino/index.html Telephony sounds/recordings No annoying ads, banners or pop-ups. ------------------------------ From: Bill Levant Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 18:03:05 EDT Subject: Last Laugh! Early Examples of Spam: Make-spiky-clubs-fast!!! I recently came across the following, which might be of interest to Digest readers. Sorry there's no toll-free number to call . I don't know where this originated, except that the copyright notice appearing at the bottom was on it when I got it. Bill --------- Recent evidence has come to light that suggests that pyramid style chain letters may have pre-dated Dave Rhodes by a considerable margin. Palaentologists recently deciphered the following, painted on a cave wall on the slopes of Kilimanjaro. MAKE SPIKY CLUBS FAST!!! Hello, not-tribe-member. Urk name Urk. Many moons ago, Urk in bad way. Urk kicked out of cave by Thag. Thag bigger than Urk, Thag take Urk spiky club, Urka (Urk wo-man). Urk not able kill deer, must eat leaves, berries. Urk flee from wolves. Today, Urk big chief. Urk have best cave, many wives, many spiky clubs. Urk tell how. WHAT DO: make one spiky club and take to cave places below. Add own cave place to bottom of list, take cave place off top. Put new message on walls many caves. Wait. Many clubs soon come! This not crime! Urk ask shaman, gods say okay. HERE LIST: 1) Urk First cave Olduvai Gorge few) Thag (not that Thag, other Thag) old dead tree by laked shaped like mammoth few) Og big rock with overhang near pig game trail Many) Zog river caves where river meet big water Urk hope not-tribe-member do what Urk say do. That only way it work. (c) Dave Hemming 1998. Circulate how you please, but keep my name on it. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #65 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu May 7 12:13:46 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id MAA15441; Thu, 7 May 1998 12:13:46 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 12:13:46 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199805071613.MAA15441@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #64 TELECOM Digest Thu, 7 May 98 10:28:42 EDT Volume 18 : Issue 64 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Telecom Update (Canada) #131, May 4, 1998 (Angus TeleManagement) Book Review: "LAN Times Guide to Networking Windows 95" (Rob Slade) U.S. Cellular Users: Hey, What's My Number Again? (Monty Solomon) In Search of a Better Phone Exclusion Device (Nelson Bolyard) Indecision About 847 Relief and Number Portability (Adam H. Kerman) Looking For Dialing Instructions (Thomas Hinders) 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 11:35:57 -0400 From: Angus TeleManagement Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #131, May 4, 1998 ************************************************************ * * * TELECOM UPDATE * * Angus TeleManagement's Weekly Telecom Newsbulletin * * http://www.angustel.ca * * Number 131: May 4, 1998 * * * * Publication of Telecom Update is made possible by * * generous financial support from: * * * * Bell Canada ................. http://www.bell.ca/ * * City Dial Network Services .. http://www.citydial.com/ * * Computer Talk Technology .... http://icescape.com/ * * fONOROLA .................... http://www.fonorola.com/ * * Lucent Technologies ......... http://www.lucent.com/ * * * ************************************************************ IN THIS ISSUE: ** Proposals Filed on High-Cost Serving Areas ** MT&T, NewTel Invest in High Tech ** MetroNet Disputes Stentor Position on LNP ** Telecom Shakeup Continues Telus Still Seeking Partner BC Telecom "Not for Sale" ** Cantel Reports Decline in Sales ** Fido Launched in Edmonton ** MetroNet Provides 10,000 Access Lines ** Rural Satellite Health Network Launched in Alberta ** Bell Partners With Netscape for Messaging ** WIC to Create Wireless Broadband Showcase ** Nortel Intros Norstar Data Module ** Ontario Provides Emergency Wireless Phones ** Electronic Commerce Advisory Committee Reports ** Profits Rise at fONOROLA ** Stentor Companies' Financial Results ** Ontario Offers New Round of Telecom Grants ** Wireless Conference to Hear Survey Results ** Can Stentor Survive? ============================================================ PROPOSALS FILED ON HIGH-COST SERVING AREAS: Proposals to the CRTC on ways to keep telephone rates affordable in rural and remote areas (PN 97-42) include: restructure the existing subsidy regime to provide more subsidy in very high-cost areas (Stentor); pay upfront subsidies for capital costs (Telus); and create a new national subsidy fund generated by subscriber line charges or carrier revenue taxes (Saskatchewan, Quebec Tel, Thunder Bay Tel, others). http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/telecom/notice/1997/p9742_0.txt MT&T, NEWTEL INVEST IN HIGH TECH: ** MT&T is investing almost $6 Million in four Nova Scotia- based high-technology firms: TecKnowledge Healthcare Systems, Salter New Media, Brooklyn North Software Works, and InfoInterActive. ** NewTel Enterprises, the Newfoundland telco, has purchased a $5.2-Million stake in a Vancouver-based IT company, Sierra Systems Consultants. METRONET DISPUTES STENTOR POSITION ON LNP: On May 1, MetroNet told the CRTC that local number portability is impossible in Canada until fourth quarter 1998, contrary to Stentor's view (see Telecom Update #130). MetroNet says negotiations with Stentor members for an interim solution using existing services stalled on price, and asks the Commission to rule on pricing. TELECOM SHAKEUP CONTINUES: ** Telus Still Seeking Partner: Telus CEO George Petty says the Alberta telco continues to seek a telecom partner, although no "intensive discussions" are underway. ** BC Telecom "Not for Sale": Brian Canfield, Chairman of BC Telecom, says the sale of GTE's majority stake in the BC telco would be "totally inconsistent" with what he understands to be GTE's North American strategy. CANTEL REPORTS DECLINE IN SALES: Rogers Cantel won 95,700 new cellular and PCS customers in the first quarter, 13% fewer than in the same period last year. The net increase was just 12,200. Revenue rose 11.5%, but losses more than tripled, to $19.7 Million. (See Telecom Update #127, 128, 130) FIDO LAUNCHED IN EDMONTON: Microcell Fido PCS service in Edmonton began May 1; Fido now provides coverage to areas with 14.5 million inhabitants. METRONET PROVIDES 10,000 ACCESS LINES: MetroNet Communications says that by March 31, it was providing local telephone service to 10,540 lines, up 160% since December. Orders were on hand for 2,175 more. First quarter revenues: $4.3 Million. ** Internet provider Globalserve Communications has chosen MetroNet as supplier to 15 Canadian locations. RURAL SATELLITE HEALTH NETWORK LAUNCHED IN ALBERTA: Keeweetinok Lakes Regional Health Authority has launched a $3.5-Million telehealth network, Canada's first based entirely on satellite links. The network serves 25,000 residents across an area of about 20,000 square miles. BELL PARTNERS WITH NETSCAPE FOR MESSAGING: Bell Canada has signed a memorandum of understanding with Netscape to use Netscape infrastructure for the multi-media messaging products of Bell Emergis. WIC TO CREATE WIRELESS BROADBAND SHOWCASE: WIC Connexus is installing a two-cell LMCS showcase network in Toronto, using Newbridge equipment. NORTEL INTROS NORSTAR DATA MODULE: Northern Telecom is introducing a module which provides integrated T-1 voice and data links to Wide Area Networks from Norstar telephone systems. The IDM 200 also supports direct LAN connection through 12 Ethernet ports. ONTARIO PROVIDES EMERGENCY WIRELESS PHONES: The Ontario government, in alliance with Ericsson and Rogers Cantel, will provide up to 300 high-risk victims of domestic violence or sexual assault with wireless phones that connect to 9-1-1 only. The 18-month pilot project will run in the Ottawa region and Barrie. ELECTRONIC COMMERCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORTS: Revenue Canada has released the report of its Advisory Committee on Electronic Commerce. The report advises further study before the introduction of any new taxes on e-commerce. http://www.rc.gc.ca/ecomm PROFITS RISE AT fONOROLA: fONOROLA reports first-quarter profits of $5.04 Million, more than four times greater than last year. Revenue rose 11% to $103 Million. STENTOR COMPANIES' FINANCIAL RESULTS: The following results are for the first quarter (see also Telecom Update #130): ** BC Telecom's net income (without onetime charge) was $85.2 Million, up 30% from last year. Revenues rose 12% to $773.4 Million. The BC telco plans to invest $570 Million this year in network infrastructure. ** Bruncor's net earnings dropped 7% to $10.3 Million due to weaker sales of voice-response and advanced-network products. Revenues rose 1.6% to $130 Million. ** MT&T reported a 22% increase in net income, to $16.2 Million. Revenues rose marginally to $148 million, despite a 17.6% decline in long distance income. ** Profits of Manitoba Telecom Services were $23.5 Million, up 11% from last year. Revenues increased 3.8% to $158 Million. ** NewTel reports net income of $9.4 Million, up 39%; revenues increased 1% to $90.0 Million. ** QuebecTel Group reports net income of $6.9 Million, up 9%. Revenues rose 14% to $77.8 Million. ** Telus recorded net income from continuing operations of $63.7 Million, up 14% (excluding impact of 1997 asset writedown). Revenues rose 7% to $658.5 Million. ONTARIO OFFERS NEW ROUND OF TELECOM GRANTS: Ontario's Telecommunications Access Partnerships is accepting applications for a new round of grants for information highway-related projects. Deadline: June 1. http://www.networks-ontario.com WIRELESS CONFERENCE TO HEAR SURVEY RESULTS: Canadian Wireless 1998, to be held in Toronto May 20-22, will hear the results of the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association's second annual consumer survey of attitudes to wireless communications. http://www.cwta.ca/events.htm CAN STENTOR SURVIVE? Ian Angus analyzes the pressures on Stentor, buffeted by move and countermove of Telus and Bell Canada, in the May issue of Telemanagement, available this week. ** Also in the May issue: "Number Portability in Canada: On Track ... or in Trouble?" by Lis Angus. ** To subscribe to Telemanagement, call 1-800-263-4415 ext 225, or go to http://www.angustel.ca/teleman/tm-sub.html ============================================================ HOW TO SUBMIT ITEMS FOR TELECOM UPDATE E-MAIL: editors@angustel.ca FAX: 905-686-2655 MAIL: TELECOM UPDATE Angus TeleManagement Group 8 Old Kingston Road Ajax, Ontario Canada L1T 2Z7 =========================================================== HOW TO SUBSCRIBE (OR UNSUBSCRIBE) TELECOM UPDATE is provided in electronic form only. There are two formats available: 1. The fully-formatted edition is posted on the World Wide Web on the first business day of the week. Point your browser to http://www.angustel.ca/update/up.html 2. The e-mail edition is distributed free of charge. To subscribe, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should contain only the two words: subscribe update To stop receiving the e-mail edition, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should say only: unsubscribe update [Your e-mail address] =========================================================== COPYRIGHT AND DISCLAIMER: All contents copyright 1998 Angus TeleManagement Group Inc. All rights reserved. For further information, including permission to reprint or reproduce, please e-mail rosita@angustel.ca or phone 905-686-5050 ext 225. The information and data included has been obtained from sources which we believe to be reliable, but Angus TeleManagement makes no warranties or representations whatsoever regarding accuracy, completeness, or adequacy. Opinions expressed are based on interpretation of available information, and are subject to change. If expert advice on the subject matter is required, the services of a competent professional should be obtained. ------------------------------ From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 07:57:24 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "LAN Times Guide to Networking Windows 95", Brad Shimmin Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKLTGNW9.RVW 980301 "LAN Times Guide to Networking Windows 95", Brad Shimmin/Eric Harper, 1995, 0-07-882086-3, U$29.95/C$42.95 %A Brad Shimmin %A Eric Harper %C 300 Water Street, Whitby, Ontario L1N 9B6 %D 1995 %G 0-07-882086-3 %I McGraw-Hill Ryerson/Osborne %O U$29.95/C$42.95 905-430-5000 fax: 905-430-5020 %P 320 p. %T "LAN Times Guide to Networking Windows 95" Yes, this book was written long ago, and doesn't have the benefit of more recent experience. However, I rather suspect that it was written *before* Windows 95 came out, and wasn't informed by much experience at all. Chapter one is a basic sales pitch for Windows 95. The authors obviously believed the Microsoft promotion for some features that still are not part of the operating system. The network basics that are provided in chapter two are really only mentions of terminology, without the backup content that would make them useful. Chapter three is supposed to cover preparation for installation. In reality, it is another sales pitch for Windows 95. Once again, it assumes that installation will proceed automatically and without problem, and that a minimal computer configuration (386 CPU and four megabytes of memory) will suffice for an effective system. The coverage of installation itself, as might be expected, is terse and unhelpful. There is a quick run through of the relevant screens and dialogue boxes in chapter four, but very little information on what to do with them. For example, the protocol bindings dialogue is mentioned, but not the fact that adding multiple bindings can quickly generate problems. Chapter five is rather odd, since it seems to have assumed that you have done the network installation, but also assumes that you have not installed the network software, and runs through some other dialogue boxes in much the same level of non-detail. The file and printer sharing capabilities of Windows 95 can be said to be a limited type of server function, and chapter six presents them as such. Chapter seven is supposed to talk about customizing the network configuration, but really is merely a collection of rather random items you can customize about Windows 95 itself. (Beware the suggestion to edit the Registry: the authors pass over the dangers of the practice fairly quickly.) Some marginally network related applications are briefly mentioned in chapter eight. Chapters nine and ten look at access to NT and NetWare servers. Explanation of domains, for Windows NT, is fairly good, while coverage of NetWare is more extensive. Chapter eleven, dealing with protocol configuration, seems to be out of place, separated as it is from the installation chapters. It also tends to assume that the network is set up and configured already, and so does not cover a number of the initial steps that have to be taken, for example, in setting up DHCP (Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol). Dial-up networking, in chapter twelve, concentrates on connecting in to the office network from home. It then moves on to discuss different Microsoft email systems without having reviewed the more widely desired function of connecting to the Internet. It seems ironically appropriate that the last chapter in the book is thirteen, and that it extols the virtues of Plug and Play. The theory, fo course, is that Plug and Play makes all this ease of networking possible by correctly installing network interface cards and internal modems. Reality, however, tends to rear its ugly head at times inconvenient to marketing flacks. The book does mention that sometimes "legacy" components will not work first time out with Plug and Play. It does not say what to do in this case, nor does it mention that Plug and Play itself doesn't always work. Two appendices provide a very generic discussion of networking protocol theory, and an extremely simplistic troubleshooting guide. I would have serious difficulty in recommending this book to any audience. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1998 BKLTGNW9.RVW 980301 ------------------------------ Reply-To: Monty Solomon From: Monty Solomon Subject: U.S. Cellular Users: Hey, What's My Number Again? Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 22:43:40 -0400 By Jeremy Scott-Joynt, Total Telecom Almost half of cellular phone users in the United States have no idea what their phone number is without looking it up, and many are hesitant about distributing their number, according to a new survey. The survey found 45 percent of users in the United States are incapable of remembering their mobile number, and more than 80 percent of users have given their number out to less than 10 people. The survey, Cellular and PCS (Personal Communications Services) Consumer Trends: Year-End 1997, was conducted by Washington, D.C.-based telecommunications consultancy The Strategis Group. Customers using their phones for personal use have on average only given their number out to four people, the survey says. This is a problem to cellular operators whose call revenue for a particular customer increases according to the number of people the phone number is distributed to. A high percentage of cellular phone users are hesitant about giving out their number, said Kent Olson, consultant with The Strategis Group. "This limits usage and average monthly revenue for carriers as the average monthly bill is positively correlated with the number of people given a users' phone number," he said. According to the survey, 44 percent of cellular phone users would be more likely to give out their number if they did not have to pay for the first minute of incoming calls. Operators who have introduced this system have reportedly seen monthly call revenue climb. In the United States, unlike in Europe, the cellular phone subscriber must pay for all incoming as well as outgoing calls. Users are concerned about the high cost of running a cellular phone under this system and commonly limit the number of people they distribute their number to. In March, the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association asked America's governing telecom body, the Federal Communications Commission, to facilitate a new system known as "calling party pays," where the calling party would pay for a call to a cellular phone. American cellular phone users also showed a low take-up of value-added services, such as voice mail and caller ID, the survey says. Less than a fifth of customers used voice mail, the most common value-added service in Europe, and even fewer used Caller ID, though call waiting was used by 21 percent of respondents. ------------------------------ From: Nelson Bolyard Subject: In Search of a Better Phone Exclusion Device Date: Tue, 05 May 1998 10:42:20 -0700 Organization: Bolyards R Us I'm looking for a "phone exclusion device" to replace my Radio Shack "Teleprotector". Can you suggest one that meets my criteria below? If so, please tell me (and comp.dcom.telecom). The Radio Shack Teleprotector is a little box the size of a typical baseboard telephone jack outlet. It's designed to sit right on top of a regular jack, and be plugged into the jack. Then you plug your phone or other device into the Teleprotector. The Teleprotector prevents the phone connected to it from being able to connect to the phone line while a call is in progress on that line. The phone is "excluded" from an existing calls. Such a device is quite handy for keeping phone from interrupt modems, and also vice-versa. Two of the devices (one for modem, the other for all the other phones, answering machines, etc.) provide fair mutual exclusion from the phone line. I've been using a pair of them for years this way. This fairness of exclusion is very important to me. Saved my marriage at one time. But I've found a few problems with my Teleprotectors. A) caller ID boxes don't work well when connected to one of them. B) substantial hum introduced to the line when they're connected. I suspect this is because the teleprotector only interrupts one side of the line, not both sides, turning the line into an unterminated antenna. C) x2 and V.90 modems lose about 5k bits-per-second when connected through a Teleprotector, as compared to connected directly to the line. So, I'm looking for a replacement device that will do all the positive things a Teleprotector does, without the negative things described above. The only candidate device I've found so far is a Northern Telecom 2960. This little device doesn't have any of the three problems mentioned above, but my experience with it has found a few other problems of its own, incuding a substantial (~10 v p-p) 8000 hz sawtooth wave on the phone side of the device while the line is idle (no devices off-hook), which my GE digital answering machine really dislikes, and occasionally when a phone picks up during a call, it not only interrupts the call, but the phone originally on the call gets excluded. So this is not my preferred solution. Any other devices I should try? If so, please let me know. Thanks. Nelson Bolyard mailto:nelsonb@netwiz.net ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Apr 1998 05:52:16 CDT From: Adam H. Kerman Subject: Indecision About 847 Relief and Number Portability The Illinois Commerce Commission has yet again deferred making the order to relieve Area Code 847, this time till May 18. NPA 847 serves the north and northwest suburbs of Chicago. The usual options are on the table: Split along the Des Plaines River, putting the northern suburbs into an area code to be named later while (at least temporarily) allowing the northwest suburbs to keep 847 till it splits again; or a creeping overlay, spreading like a virus from one area code to the next till all five area codes are overlayed. The creeping overlay would bring 11-digit dialling for all local calls in its wake; in theory, once all five are overlayed, Chicago could resume 10-digit dialling, which we lost in 1985. In my lifetime, Chicago has never used the leading "1" for toll-alerting. [I don't oppose overlays, but we already have 12.5 potential phone numbers for each adult. Do we need to increase that to 15?] The Citizens Utility Board, the state-charted ratepayers' lobby, is pushing hard for a number-pooling solution. They propose that any phone company (over 30 companies hold prefixes!) with fewer than 100 numbers assigned in a prefix would return that prefix for reassignment, retaining only 1,000 potential numbers for assignment. It's not clear if they could keep 1,000 numbers (essentially, the first digit after the prefix) per 100 numbers assigned. It's still wasteful, but an improvement. Number portability has been available in Chicago and Detroit since March 31. 1) It's available within the Detroit LATA and the Illinois portion of the three-state Chicago LATA. A CLEC must give notice that it wishes to serve an exchange, and Ameritech is obligated to make its numbers portable. 2) It's only available to customers who stay within the same exchange, but change phone companies, not to customers who change locations within the metropolitan areas. 3) It's only for ordinary land line services. Porting between wireless and land line and between ISDN and land line are still in the future. Eventually, each Bell region will have a Number Portability Administration Center (NPAC) run by Lockheed-Martin. As I recall, the Chicago NPAC is located at 2 Pru. Each phone company (Local Exchange Carrier) will maintain a Service Control Point, or a series of them in Ameritech's case. The NPAC will keep the SCPs up-to-date. Whenever a call is set up to a prefix with ported numbers, the SCP will be queried to give routing instructions to the ultimate switch, even if the CLEC is only reselling Ameritech services. ------------------------------ From: Thomas_Hinders/CAM/Lotus@lotus.com (Thomas Hinders) Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 19:46:47 -0400 Subject: Looking For Dialing Instructions We have a team of folks who will be spreading out across the world, and we are looking for information on dialing information for our laptops, which use IBM's IGN dialer. For example, we've found that in Brazil we must use the dialing scripts for Japan. Our teams will be in Europe, LATAM, and APAC. I'm sure somewhere there is a Web site that lists this sort of info. Thanks, Tom Hinders Lotus ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #64 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri May 8 11:52:08 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id LAA16023; Fri, 8 May 1998 11:52:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 11:52:08 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199805081552.LAA16023@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #66 TELECOM Digest Fri, 8 May 98 11:52:00 EDT Volume 18 : Issue 66 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Follow-up Re BellSouth Mobility, 877, etc. (Mark J Cuccia) 888 Heads Up (Judith Oppenheimer) Multi Family Building Utility Access (was Access Denied!) (Lisa Hancock) Still More Eastern Massachusetts Area Codes? (oldbear@arctos.com) AT&T and Excite Team Up to Offer Internet-based Communications (M Solomon) International Cellular Toll Charges (Ken Moselen) North America NPA-NXX (mabortln@infoserve.net) UCLA Short Course on "Commercial Satellite Communications" (Bill Goodin) AT&T PCS Long Distance Problems (Colin Tuttle) 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 10:37:17 CDT From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: Follow-up Re BellSouth Mobility, 877, etc. On Monday I called up BSMobility, and went thru all of the touchtone menus specifically for Tech-Support, AGAIN, and again was connected with "customer service". When I told them that I went thru the menus for tech-support, I was told that customer service will 'relay' the info between the customer and tech-support. I explained to her that I had tried that already and get no-where, and to please give me tech-support. I DID speak with a helpful and knowledgeable person with tech-support about the various translation/routing problems with BellSouth Mobility. (877 vs 800/888; 500-NXX still not properly being six-digit translated; *72+...+SEND immediate CF vs. *71+...+SEND CF-no-answer; 10-XXX vs. 101-XXXX including the fact that for the most part, I still can't dial 10(1X)XXX+(1)+seven/ten-digits+SEND; although I can enter 10-XXX+0+SEND for the operator of a carrier which is not my 'primary' inTER-LATA, and 10-XXX+0+seven/ten-digits+SEND at least for inTER-LATA but not inTRA-LATA) He took down all of the info, and said that I was correct in my assessment of the various problems, and that this WILL be referred to the MTSO switch translations/programing people! He was in Baton Rouge, though. It seems that there is no longer a specific tech-support 'department' in New Orleans/Metairie anymore. And he gave me the geographic/POTS 504 (soon-to-be 225) seven-digit Baton Rouge number that routes directly to BellSouth Mobility tech support, and the toll-free 800 number to reach BellSouth Mobility's Baton Rouge tech support. (I did dial the 800- number, and it was answered as "BellSouth Mobility TECH-SUPPORT", rather than "customer service"!) He told me that they usually don't give those numbers out to the general public. I only wish that BellSouth Mobility would go back to routing menu prompts for tech-support actually _TO_ tech-support rather than to customer service, or that if a customer specifically ASKED for tech-support that they would connect the caller with tech support! But HOPEFULLY, this person in tech-support that I spoke with will do everything to get the translations/routings corrected in the MTSO! As for one LD carrier not attempting to connect to another LD carrier's handled 800/888/877 number (i.e., AT&T's OSPS/#4ESS in Jackson MS or AT&T's #4ESS in "Main" in New Orleans giving me rejection recordings on 800/888/877 numbers that aren't "their's") ... this might eventually go away. Back in the later 1980's, AT&T's '00' TSPS _would_ send non-AT&T handled 800-NXX-xxxx calls back to the LEC for six-digit translation and further handing-off to that 800-NXX LD-carrier. But when portability was starting to come about, AT&T's TSPS or OSPS would _NOT_ handle non-AT&T 800-NXX or hand them back to the LEC. AT&T would reject the call. And at the time, South Central Bell's '0' TOPS operators wouldn't handle _ANY_ 800- calls. They do now. (Some LEC operators STILL don't handle 800/888/877 calls: I know that Sprint-Centel in Las Vegas NV won't dial an 800/888/877 request for the customer- they ask the customer which LD operator the caller wants to be connected with! But how can one know which LD carrier handles that particular 800/888/877 number! And non-AT&T LD operators don't even attempt to enter in an 800/888/877- number at the request of a customer!). But, as the LD-carriers become competitive LECs, they are going to be using their toll/tandem switches as local central-office-switches! AT&T already is acting as a CLEC in several ways ... 1. reselling LEC facilities-- 2. using DMS local switches acquired from Teleport-- 3. using their #4ESS toll/tandem switches as class-5 local end-offices. Item-3 ... their #4ESS switches are going to need to send AT&T-CLEC customer-dialed 800/888/877-nxx-xxxx calls over to the incumbent LEC's tandem/database for proper database-dip translations, for further handing off to the proper called-800/888/877 party's requested carrier. Of course if the customer-dialed 800/888/877-nxx-xxxx _IS_ one handled by AT&T, the #4ESS will 'know' this and won't have to have the call handed off to the incumbent LEC for database-dipping/translations. So there might come a time again, when I can call an AT&T OSPS operator on '00' or 800-321-0-ATT or 800-CALL-ATT, and request _ANY_ 800/888/877/866/855/844/833/822+nxx-xxxx, regardless of the called party's requested inbound carrier, and as long as the ANI of my calling line is in the purchased originating service area, the call would go through properly! This would be great when calling from damnable COCOT payphones which block or charge for 888/877/etc. And this would be great when a LEC-operator (as Sprint-Centel in Vegas) refuses to assist/dial a toll-free 800/888/877 number for the customer. And if a toll-free SAC is misrouted by a LEC (including cellular), to a single LD-carrier, it won't matter if the toll-free number isn't handled by that LD-carrier - they would still hand the call over to the incumbent LEC for database dipping/translating! 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: Judith Oppenheimer Subject: 888 Heads Up Date: Thu, 07 May 1998 08:26:18 -0400 Organization: ICB TOLL FREE NEWS. 15 Day FREE Trial: http://icbtollfree.com Reply-To: joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com Saturday, April 25, 1998 was Day 20, the date by which the FCC mandated that RespOrgs must "notify their 800 subscribers of their right of first refusal of the set-aside 888 numbers." However, an informal survey among RespOrg "Primary Contacts" revealed that most have handed off FCC-mandated customer contact for 888 right-of-first-refusal, to their regional sales offices, with the expectation that "your account team will call you." Others feigned ignorance of the FCC's timeline altogether, only admitting its existance after being faxed proof that they'd received it from SMS/800. At which time they said that their offices have no mechanisms for contacting customers (duh... can you say BILLING INSERT?), and that "marketing" would handle it. Another RespOrg complained the SMS/800 "UNAVAILABLE" list was frought with errors which made compliance impossible -- another with a large reseller base claimed it cannot find the end-user subscribers -- while yet another admitted that the "theft" factor which compliance would unvail, is an impediment to RespOrg cooperation overall. Only one RespOrg contacted - TotalTel - appears to be handling their instructions appropriately, advising ICB that they'd sent out a certified mailing to all of their affected subscribers on April 17th. Given these findings, we advise those affected to take a proactive approach. Despite the FCC instructions for RespOrgs to contact you, you'd better contact them, ideally by accountable means (certified mail, etc.) Judith Oppenheimer, Publisher ICB TOLL FREE NEWS The Daily News Service of the Toll Free Industry 15-day, no-obligation FREE trial: http://icbtollfree.com ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: Multi Family Building Utility Access (was Access Denied!) Date: 08 May 1998 03:46:01 GMT Organization: Net Access BBS The idea that apartment building owners can force residents to subscribe to a dedicated telephone and cable service is very troubling, and is a great opportunity to quietly price gouge residents. People usually don't find out about this sort of thing until after they've moved in and are settled, by then it's too late to do anything about it. Consumer protection agencies should warn renters and condo owners to watch for this stuff. At my condo, we have the opposite problem: we're stuck providing some utility services we'd rather have the regular companies provide. This is a result of the setup when our condos were converted from apartments. Our master antenna TV was particularly costly. It dates from 1969, needed then before cable TV was widespread. The local cable company was allowed to come in and offer service, and many residents do subscribe. But the condo was obliged to continue maintaining the master TV antenna, at increasing cost, for people who didn't want to pay for cable, since it was defined in the condo documents. When we were apartments, electricity was included with rent, when it converted to condo, electric meters were installed in each unit. But the electric company still sees us as a single account. It sells electricity to the condo association, which in turn bills each homeowner for consumption. Reading the meters, maintaining the distribution cables and transformers, and calculating bills is a major expense. Costs are somewhat offset since we get a cheaper bulk rate from the electric company. (We save about 4-5 cents per Kwh.) We'd love to have the electric company take over the system, but they will only do so if the whole property is rewired, remetered, and new transformers installed to their specs. Extremely expensive and not practical to do so. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 02:39:59 -0400 From: The Old Bear Subject: Still More Eastern Massachusetts Area Codes? {The Boston Globe} Tuesday, April 21, 1998 Page 1 (Article removed from archives as a result of a fuss by the Boston Globe over the copyright.) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 03:42:39 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: AT&T and Excite Team Up to Offer Internet-based Communications AT&T and Excite Team Up to Offer Internet-based Communications Services and "Excite Online Powered by AT&T WorldNet Service" REDWOOD CITY, Calif. & NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 6, 1998-- Companies To Accelerate Growth of Online Communications And Offer Easy Dial-up Web Access AT&T (NYSE: T) and Excite, Inc. (NASDAQ: XCIT) today announced a three-year, multifaceted agreement including Internet-based multimedia communications services and a new online service called "Excite Online Powered by AT&T WorldNet(r) Service." The advanced Internet based services will expand consumers' ability to communicate in cyberspace. Excite OnLine will offer consumers fast, easy and reliable dial-up access to Excite's personalized front-end to the Internet. As part of the agreement, Excite and AT&T will offer Internet- based, multimedia communications services such as click-to-dial directories, anonymous voice chat, and conference calling controlled from the Web. For example, an Excite user visiting a chat room will be able to turn that keyboard-based session into a verbal chat with another participant without disclosing his or her phone number, thereby preserving the anonymity inherent in online chat. These services are based on new technologies from AT&T Labs. Excite Online powered by AT&T WorldNet Service, which will be competitively priced, will be one of the easiest and fastest ways for consumers to get online. The service will launch in June with nationwide dial-up access and Excite's personalized online services. The service will also offer consumers the help they need to effectively use the Internet. Consumers will be able to take advantage of AT&T's world-class customer-service capabilities, which will be integrated into the Excite online experience. AT&T and Excite will jointly market the service to consumers. "AT&T and Excite are combining the information and communications capabilities of the Internet in a way that greatly enhances the value of both to customers," said Dan Schulman, president of AT&T WorldNet Service. "Advanced communications services like click-to-dial directories and voice-enabled anonymous chat are examples of the power of this combination. This is the next in a series of steps AT&T is taking to bring consumers the benefits of the communications revolution made possible by the Internet." "We want to make it as easy as possible for people to not only get things done when they are on the Web, but to get online as easily as possible," said George Bell, president and CEO of Excite, Inc. "Offering an Internet connection directly to consumers is the next step in giving them everything they need online, inexpensively from home without a busy signal. The powerful combination of AT&T's Internet access service and penetration of the consumer marketplace, combined with Excite's leading Internet service, provide the opportunity to build the largest online service for accessing the Internet." In the near future, AT&T will also offer Excite users a selection of AT&T services through a co-branded "Personal Communications Center" on the Excite site (www.excite.com and www.webcrawler.com). The center will appear as a link on selected areas of Excite, including the home page and personalized pages, and will serve as the user's point-and-click gateway to AT&T's communications services. Initially, the Personal Communications Center will provide users with online access to four AT&T services: -- AT&T One Rate(SM) Online long distance service, which enables consumers to order AT&T long distance service online, with monthly charges billed to a major credit card. AT&T One Rate online features a nine-cents-per-minute long distance rate for Excite-registered users on their direct-dialed, state-to-state calls made from home. -- AT&T Wireless Services, which is the largest wireless service provider in the United States. Its Digital PCS (Personal Communications Service) lets callers send short messages over the Internet to other Digital PCS subscribers. -- AT&T Prepaid Calling Cards, which offer consumers a convenient way to call from any Touch-Tone phone. -- AT&T WorldNet Service, the largest pure Internet service provider in the United States and the provider of Internet access for Excite Online in the United States. Founded in 1994, Excite is a global media company offering consumers a free online service with a simple front end to the Internet and extensive personalization capabilities, and advertises the best one-to-one marketing services available online. The Excite Network consists of two of the largest brands on the Web, Excite (www.excite.com) and WebCrawler (www.webcrawler.com), and its subsidiaries: Classifieds2000, MatchLogic, Inc., Excite Japan Co., Ltd., and Excite UK, Ltd. Personalized versions of Excite are available in France, Germany, the UK, and Japan. Localized versions are available in The Netherlands, Sweden, and Australia. Based in Redwood City, Calif., Excite, Inc. (NASDAQ: XCIT) has strategic relationships with America Online, Inc., Intuit, Inc., Netscape Communications Corp., Prodigy Internet, and Tribune Company. AT&T is the world's premier voice and data communications company, serving more than 90 million customers, including consumers, businesses and government. With annual revenues of more than $51 billion and some 126,000 employees, AT&T provides services to more than 280 countries and territories around the world. AT&T runs the world's largest, most powerful long-distance network and the largest digital wireless network in North America. The company is a leading supplier of data and Internet services for businesses and the nation's largest direct Internet service provider to consumers. AT&T WorldNet is a registered service mark of AT&T. AT&T One Rate is a service mark of AT&T ========================= [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: A related item about AT&T came to my attention yesterday. AT&T has begun charging its residential customers a 95 cent per month surcharge. They began the surcharge in April and continue to phase it in for the 45 million residences which use AT&T long distance service. They say this surcharge is intended to 'recover the cost of completing calls to local telephone networks.' It is amazing to me how these surcharges from the various companies differ so widely in amount. Sometime the long distance carriers should be required to provide a more precise accounting of this. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Ken Moselen Subject: International Cellular Toll Charges Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 10:59:54 +1200 Pat, I've noticed some interesting anomalies in USA Cellular charges: Why is often several times more expensive for a roamer to make a call FROM the USA to country x than it usually is for a roamer to make a call from country x TO the USA? I thought the USA was the land of cheap international calls? eg: Roamer charges from USA: to New Zealand to South Africa American Personal Comms: $USD 2.05/min $USD 5.35 Omnipoint: $USD 1.22/min $USD 2.22 PacBell: $USD 2.15/min N/A and South African roamer rates are: to USA to New Zealand MTN: $USD 1.06/min $USD 0.97/min Vodocom: $USD 0.80/min $USD 0.71/min and roamer charges from New Zealand: to USA to South Africa Bellsouth: $USD 1.32/min $USD 1.75/min Ideas anyone, apart form the US cellular carriers are gouging us? TIA Ken Moselen CAD Administrator, City Design PO Box 237, Christchurch, New Zealand Ken.Moselen@city-design.co.nz Tel:+64-3-3711708 Fax:+64-3-3711783 Gsm:+64-21-337963 ------------------------------ From: mabortln Subject: North America NPA-NXX Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 02:06:50 -0700 Organization: mabortln Anybody know where someone can get a North American NPA_NXX list on the Web. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: A few of the regular readers here keep very extensive records of area codes and exchanges; in some cases even maps are available I think. I am sure you'll be hearing from them with pointers to their web pages, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Bill Goodin Subject: UCLA Short Course on "Commercial Satellite Communications" Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 04:44:32 -0700 On July 27-31, 1998, UCLA Extension will present the short course, "Commercial Satellite Communications: Systems and Applications" on the UCLA campus in Los Angeles. The instructors are Bruce R. Elbert, Hughes Space & Communications, David A. Baylor, DirecTV, and David Bell, NCP Computers. Each participant receives the course textbook, "The Satellite Communication Applications Handbook", B. Elbert (Artech House, 1997), and extensive course notes. This course provides a state-of-the-art review of satellite communications technologies from a system perspective. Intended for practicing engineers in the satellite communications industry as well as major private and governmental users of satellite and terrestrial telecommunications services, it covers all aspects of the design, operation and use of satellite networks, with a heavy emphasis on commercial applications. The latter include television transmission and broadcasting (distribution and direct-to-home), voice and data networks using Very Small Aperture Terminals (VSATs), mobile satellite services, and advanced broadband capabilities of satellites under development. Each of the five days is broken down into a major segment to provide background in the engineering fundamentals, a detailed review of the current applications and implementations, and evolution of the technology and use of satellite systems in the coming millennium. Course topics include: Evolution of Satellite Technology and Applications Satellite Links and Access Methods The Range of Television Applications Interactive Voice and Networks Telephone Services by Satellite Mobile Satellite Communications--GEO and Non-GEO Broadband and Multimedia Systems How to Stay Abreast and Valued in the Satcom Industry The course fee is $1595, which includes the course text and extensive course materials. These materials are for participants only, and are not for sale. For additional 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. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 07:58:05 -0500 From: Colin Tuttle Subject: AT&T PCS Long Distance Problems I have an AT&T PCS phone, and have selected MCI as my carrier. When I use the 700-555-4141 number I am told that I have selected MCI as my carrier. My Wirless AT&T bill also shows MCI as my carrier. However every time I make a long distance call it is carried through AT&T Wireless at a rate significantly higher than my MCI rate. AT&T Wirless is billing me .15 to .45 a minute vs MCI's .09 minute 24 hours a day. When I call Customer Care they come up with all sorts of excuses as to why it happened, such as "MCI wasn't available in the area" ... that was on a call that originated in Chicago. I was also told that my carrier choice was only good on calls that originated in my home area, however again AT&T Wirless carried the long distance portion of the calls in my home area. When I asked how I could make sure my call was carried by MCI, I was told by Customer Care that the only way was to use my telephone credit card. I was told that the 1-0222 access code did not work on PCS Digital phones, and that basically unless I used my telephone credit card I was stuck using the overpriced AT&T Wireless. Now, is this correct? Does selecting a carrier (other than AT&T) on a AT&T PCS phone mean nothing? Is equal access not available on AT&T PCS Digital phones? Is there any way I can prevent this slamming to AT&T when I use my PCS phone? Any help would be appreciated, as I am very tired of being overcharged and slammed to a non prefered long distance carrier. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #66 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon May 11 18:58:03 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id SAA18017; Mon, 11 May 1998 18:58:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 18:58:03 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199805112258.SAA18017@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #67 TELECOM Digest Mon, 11 May 98 18:58:00 EDT Volume 18 : Issue 67 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Ameritech and Southwestern Bell Merger (TELECOM Digest Editor) Texas Commission Consider Area-Code Split for Austin Area (Tad Cook) Line Degradations on Digital Call; Trunk Misconfig? (spam-bait address) Book Review: "SONET: A Guide to Synchronous Optical Networks" (Rob Slade) Virginia to MCI: Stop Charging "FCC Fee" on Intra-State Calls (D. Burstein) Not-Quite Internet Telephony (Martin Garthwaite) 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 16:18:35 EDT From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: Ameritech and Southwestern Bell Merger It seems to be all over except for the paperwork; the merger is a done deal Monday afternoon as I write this note. It still is not OFFICIAL, and this item should not be taken as anything final, but it sure looks that way. This merger seems to have snuck up on people rather quickly; I do not recall many serious discussion of it at all. The consequences of the merger remain to be seen, but one thing is certain: it will create a **huge** telecommunications company; one of the largest if not the largest other than AT&T. We do know that since divestiture, Southwestern Bell has publicly and repeatedly stated their desire to see the remains of the old 'Bell System' back together again in one piece. It seems they are coming closer and closer to that goal. We'll have at least one unusual thing here when it goes through: both cell companies will be owned by the same parent company. Cellular One of Chicago is part of Southwestern Bell, while Ameritech Cellular is part of the parent company by the same name. If I had had a crystal ball back about 1980 and been able to foretell the **massive** changes in this industry, the internet, and telecom in general over the next two decades, I would not need to run a boiler- plate message asking for donations on the front of each issue of this Digest; I would be an extremely wealthy man. In 1980 imagine thinking, 'AT&T a relatively small company compared to what it had been, the seven or eight Bells in those days combined as big giant corporations (even though they were quite huge back then) in direct competiton with their former parent, so many long distance carriers no one could name them all from memory ... I'll watch for your email on this latest turn of events to begin arriving in my box and print as much of it as possible. PAT ------------------------------ Subject: Texas Commission Consider Area-Code Split for Austin Area Date: Sat, 9 May 1998 18:38:55 PDT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) By Nicole Foy, San Antonio Express-News Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News AUSTIN, Texas--May 6--Corpus Christi and the state's capital won't share the 512 area code much longer under a plan considered Wednesday by the state Public Utility Commission. PUC commissioners had been expected to approve a split in the 512 area code, as well as a change for Houston and Dallas area codes that would bring 10-digit dialing to those cities. Instead, the board voted to accept public comment on the recommendations before proceeding with action on 512, PUC spokeswoman Leslie Kjellstrand said. "I don't think they've heard a lot of dissension (from the public), but they felt like they wanted to hear from those who might be affected by this," she said. Commissioners accepted an industry report setting forth the expected changes in several of the state's area codes. More numbers are necessary, in part, because of the exploding demand for more phone lines for things such as fax machines, pagers, wireless telephones and personal computers. The local phone provider industry also has created a need for more numbers. Phone companies currently get 10,000 phone numbers at a time, even if they need fewer numbers to do business. That means phone companies have stockpiles of available phone numbers -- a fact that leads critics to claim the system of allocating numbers is wasteful. The PUC likely will vote on the report's recommendations in June, following public comment on the changes, Kjellstrand said. Under the plan, the Austin area would retain the 512 code, and a new number would be assigned to the Corpus Christi and Coastal Bend regions. That number has not been chosen and is not expected to take effect before September. Austin should keep the original area code because it contains more phone lines than does Corpus Christi, and it has a higher concentration of state agencies, the industry committee concluded. The PUC plans to mandate 10- digit dialing in the Dallas and Houston areas to free more phone numbers. That would require both areas to receive a third area code in 1999. Those area codes have not yet been chosen. Boundaries between the existing two area codes in Dallas and Houston would be dissolved under the plan. That would mean even local calls within the same area code would require 10-digit dialing. The sweeping changes are coming sooner than state and industry officials expected, Kjellstrand said. When Dallas and Houston area codes were divided in 1996, officials mistakenly believed the new system would hold until after 2000. Public comment on the changes will be accepted in writing to the PUC at 7800 Shoal Creek Blvd, Austin, Texas, 78757; by phone at (512) 458-0100; by fax at (512) 936-7328; and via e-mail at customerpuc.state.tx.us ------------------------------ From: Eric Ewanco (spam-bait address) Subject: Line Degradations on Digital Call; Trunk Misconfig? Date: 10 May 1998 01:06:07 -0400 Organization: 3Com [this post represents strictly my own opinions] I read with interest a story posted a short time ago about the person who had problems with calls only during the weekend; it turned out that a trunk had been misconfigured for the wrong line encoding (the terms escape me right now), and it just happened that the only time the same person would seize the misconfigured trunk was when call volume was way down over the weekend. I'm experiencing a problem which might be similar, and I'm soliciting advice on how to report this to BA. I have an ISDN line and a TA with a built-in digital modem. This TA natively handles analog modem calls without an A/D conversion. I won't get into why I connect to the net using analog modem protocols (part of it has to do with the fact I can get 56000 bps with x2 symmetrical), but here is my problem. 99% of the time, as expected, I connect at the highest speed possible without any glitches. But occasionally, usually on weekends, while the modems are negotiating, at a particular point when the volume seems to be the loudest, I'll hear a sharp crackling sound, like you'd hear if you were fiddling with the input cables on an audio system. A loose connection sound. Except, number one, there is no analog portion of the path (not at my end, at least; I *think* the ISPs are digitally connected, but in the specific cases I've seen, I can't say for certain), and number two, the crackling sound consistently occurs at exactly the same point in the negotiation. After this sound, the modems get discombobulated, and attempt to retrain. Usually the sound will repeat itself at exactly the same point on the next retrain, until the modems either give up or back off far enough. Not infrequently when this happens, I cannot connect at all. When this problem happens, it happens on at least two different ISPs on three different numbers, and exactly the same symptoms occur. The problem will persist maybe for a matter of hours. Then as mysteriously as it came, it goes away, and during the week I have no more problems. When I try a 64k ISDN data channel, I experience no discernable problems, but then again, I don't know how I'd be able to tell. (It may just be that the problem is on a robbed bit truck which a 64k data call will never traverse.) I did try to place a voice call, but I didn't realize after I tested it that I called another number within the same CO, so the fact that I could not hear the problem on that voice call is probably irrelevant. I should try to find a voice number in another CO I suppose. But the problem only seems to happen on loud signals. I contend that this must be a network misconfiguration, since clearly there can be no noise on a digital call, and since the problem occurs on several different phone numbers. Any insight, or suggestions for what to tell repair, or how to approach the problem? Thanks! Eric Ewanco eje @ world.std.com http://www.wp.com/Eric_Ewanco Framingham, MA; USA ------------------------------ From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 14:22:34 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "SONET: A Guide to Synchronous Optical Networks" Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKSONET.RVW 980308 "SONET: A Guide to Synchronous Optical Networks", Walter J. Goralski, 1997, 0-07-024563-0, U$60.00 %A Walter J. Goralski %C 300 Water Street, Whitby, Ontario L1N 9B6 %D 1997 %G 0-07-024563-0 %I McGraw-Hill Ryerson/Osborne %O U$60.00 905-430-5000 800-565-5758 louisea@McGrawHill.ca %P 483 p. %T "SONET: A Guide to Synchronous Optical Networks" Goralski states at the beginning that he wrote this book because he could find nothing that really covered the field for SONET (Synchronous Optical NETwork). In assuming the task of creating an introduction for all those who might need to work with SONET he has succeeded. Part one is an introduction to fiber optics and SONET. Chapter one is basic background to the need for SONET, citing increasing computing capabilities and communications requirements, but not really stating the necessity for the new technology. The advantages of fiber itself is made manifestly obvious in chapter two. Cost, weight, security, repair, bandwidth, and distance all factor into the equation. (The disadvantages of fiber, such as its antipathy towards water and sunlight, are also mentioned.) Chapter three demonstrates the advantages that digital transmission holds over analogue. (This chapter also explains the importance of the "T-carrier" system and designations, which appear in earlier chapters but may be a bit bemusing for the uninitiated.) Part two begins to examine SONET itself, providing background and technical details. The American history and evolution of SONET, and its compatibility with the international Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) are clearly explained in chapter four. SONET architecture and protocols, in chapter five, is presented lucidly and in detail. This chapter is mostly accessible to the intelligent lay reader, but the significance of the material is probably going to be more apparent to the specialist in communications technology. (On the other hand, nothing that I have ever read is clearer on the subject.) In communications, even more than in computing, timing is everything. Again, newcomers will not understand as much of the significance of the synchronization problems and solutions in chapter six as the technical reader, but they will be able to see the difficulty and the resolution. Part three moves from the protocols and standards into the real, practical, hardware world. Chapter seven provides a high level overview and a rough structure of SONET networks. The seven major network component types are described in chapter eight. (Optical Network Units, or ONUs, are neither widely used nor really a part of SONET, and so are mentioned only briefly.) Chapter nine gets very real and looks at the major SONET equipment vendors, their product lines, product uses, and even some sample installation configurations. The specific advantages of SONET that were not explicitly stated in chapter one are explained in detail in part four. As Goralski points out, at the beginning of chapter ten, many recent communications technologies have promised "improvements" that turned out to be vague and indirect at best. He goes to some detail to demonstrate that SONET has practical and direct benefits for both carriers and customers. Chapter eleven looks at the tightly coupled operations, administration, maintenance, and provisioning features built into SONET. In terms of reliability, one of the advantages of SONET is the ring structure, the fault tolerance of which is amply described in chapter twelve. SONET is not yet fully available, and so part five discusses aspects of implementation. Chapter thirteen looks at the laying of both networked and "dark" fiber around the United States. Many new applications (such as the distribution of cinema quality movies by wire) become possible with SONET, but only if carriers provide the service. Chapter fourteen looks at both applications and service provision. The future of SONET is considered in chapter fifteen, concentrating on WDM (Wavelength Division Multiplexing). This section is not extensively detailed, failing, for example, to examine the issue of the limited transparency windows on existing glass and plastic fibers even when new transmission equipment becomes available. Chapter sixteen ends the book with a comparison of the differences (fairly minor) between SDH and SONET. One extremely annoying aspect in this otherwise excellent book is the very high rate of typographical errors. None should really be fatal to understanding: it is fairly simple to figure out what was meant by "these" in a sentence that really only makes sense if you replace it with "there." Some of the mistakes are rather more bemusing, such as figure 12.4 entitled "A unidirectional ring" and 12.5 entitled "A bidirectional SONET ring," both of which actually show a bidirectional ring. Another less important quibble is the occasional use of terms without much explanation. There are some small gaps like the fact that an acronym such as IXC (interexchange carrier) is not included in either the glossary of acronyms or the index. However, overall this text is the best I have yet come across on the topic. Network designers get technical details. Lay readers get lucid explanations. Managers get implications. Those responsible for implementation get vendor contacts. (And whoever did the copy editing gets a C-.) copyright Robert M. Slade, 1998 BKSONET.RVW 980308 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 11:02:54 EDT From: Danny Burstein Subject: Virginia to MCI: Stop Charging "FCC Fee" on Intra-State Calls (In this case I don't know whether to 'really' 'blame' MCI or not. Lots of Federal tax^h^h^h fees somehow do get applied to local items. And yes, this is a federal tax. A very confusing one ...) Ken Schrad Director Angela P. Bowser Assistant Director Commonwealth of Virginia SCC State Corporation Commission Division of Information Resources P.O. Box 1197 Richmond, Virginia 23218 (804) 371-9141 TDD/Voice (804) 371-9206 FAX: (804) 371-9211 Internet: www.state.va.us/scc [INLINE] Contact: Ken Schrad (804) 371-9141 News Release FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE May 8, 1998 SCC ORDERS MCI TO STOP APPLYING FEDERAL SURCHARGES ON IN-STATE VIRGINIA CALLS RICHMOND -- The State Corporation Commission (SCC) says MCI of Virginia must stop applying a federal surcharge on intrastate long-distance calls made within Virginia. MCI's business customers have been paying the surcharge since January, and the company planned to apply it to intrastate calls of residential customers in July. Federal rules require the company to collect the fees in rates for interstate services only. The SCC directed MCI to refund, with interest, all money collected from business customers since January. That is when MCI began sending long-distance bills to its business customers that included a separate itemized charge identified as the "Federal Universal Service Fee." Small businesses pay a five percent surcharge. Large business customers pay 4.4 percent. MCI also must refund approximately $250,000 collected from Virginia business customers via a "National Access Fee." From January through March, this fee was based on a percentage of a business customers' long-distance bills. The fee, to recover part of MCI's cost to access the local phone network, ranged from 13 to 30 percent depending on the amount of the monthly bill. In April, this access fee was converted to a per-line charge of $2.75 for single-line business customers and $5.50 for multi-line business customers. Federal rules permit this per-line charge. At no time prior to imposing these charges did MCI file an intrastate tariff or notify the SCC or its Virginia business customers that it intended to apply these fees to intrastate calls. The Federal Universal Service Fee results from action by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), pursuant to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which expanded the federal universal service fund. The fund helps pay for telephone service to schools, libraries, rural health-care providers, low-income consumers, and regions where the cost of providing service is high. All long-distance companies providing interstate service are responsible for contributing to the fund and may, under FCC rules, pass the costs to customers only through rate increases or additional fees on their interstate services. The appearance of the new fees on telephone bills generated numerous calls to the SCC from confused customers. In answering the questions of MCI customers, it became apparent that the federal surcharges were being applied incorrectly to intrastate as well as interstate calls. ### Case Number PUC980024 SCC orders are available via the Internet (www.state.va.us/scc). _________________________________________________________________ Home | The Commission | Commissioners | Contact Us | Divisions | Recent News _________________________________________________________________ [INLINE] For Additional information, contact kschrad.scc@state.va.us Last Updated: May 8, 1998 State Corporation Commission webmaster.scc@state.va.us ==================== [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Things like that happen as a result of the literally thousands of taxes and 'fees' telco is required to collect on behalf of a myriad of government agencies on every level, both local, state and federal. Being a tax-accounting droid in the employ of the phone company is not a fun job and you even get shunned by the other droids in such -- by comparison, relatively 'simple' -- tasks as AT&T's old 'Separations and Settlements' department, or the more modern back-office accounting functions which go on today. Telco back-office accounting functions have always been highly techni- cal with tons of paper in the form of thousands of scraps of paper which the droids pass around among themselves each day as they squabble among themselves over who should be getting which stack of it and why didn't the droid who had the scraps of paper they are now working on get it correct before passing it along to them; never mind that the scraps I am working on now will get four or five steps further along in the process and by this time tomorrow the droids working in the hive down the hall or upstairs will have their eyes glaze over while they try to decipher my work and seriously consider reporting me to my supervisor just as other droids have done to them. The advent of computerization in the back offices twenty to twenty-five years ago did not eliminate the paper; computers never eliminate paper, they actually create more of it in the hives, and the computer is more demanding that all the papers look the same eventually. Ah, for the days when telco had thousands of humans doing the work of a single hard-disk storage device: in every hive, a dozen or more ladies with grocery store shopping carts who walked continuously up and down the aisles between desks in the hives, rifling through stacks and stacks of paper files on everyone's desk, dumping those they wanted in their cart as they walked along and leaving a few dozen behind that the droid had ordered 'from the file room' the day before. At least they could read the scribbles that the computer cannot understand. Now for the tax-accounting droids, take the above scenario and double or triple the amount of grief. 125 different municipal entities in northern Illinois alone demand some fraction of a penny on each payphone call made from their jurisdiction. The state wants some money for each call, and the feds will take some on every interstate call. The rates to be collected are different at coin phones than from business phones and residential phones. And since coin phones are unable to collect the penny required for taxes, we'll devise a formula where we take the payphone revenue and split up the taxes due among the other phone subscribers. But then the Judge came along and ruled against telco on that and required one penny per call be given back to each customer if we can find out who they were. At least the droids who work on inter-company accounts between the various telcos and long distance carriers only have thirty or forty different entities to be considered; the tax-droids work with much smaller amounts of money divided in many more ways, with rules that seem to be made up by the government as they go along day after day. Speaking of taxes, fees and multiple jurisidictions: McDonald's -- the hamburger people -- have several hundred locations in northern Illinois, and about 125 different taxing bodies to deal with on sales taxes. They pre-program their cash registers to the amount of sales tax required in the municipality where the register will *most likely be located*. But if a register is out of order at one McDonald's, they'll get a spare cash register from another location. Trouble is, the tax rate *in that community* may be different than the rate in the community where the register is in service. Try explaining that to a McDonald's clerk who wants 'what the register says you owe' when its two cents too much, etc ... I guess we are long past the era where kids in school could be expected to do simple calculations based on their location in their heads. I don't know if I would blame MCI for the dispute in Virginia either. Chances are very good the whole thing was very poorly documented by the FCC to start with, which is why we are seeing so many variations between carriers now, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Martin Garthwaite Subject: Not-Quite Internet telephony Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 14:57:04 -0700 What with all the hoopla surrounding Internet telephony, and all the disappointment when everyone realized that you still need backhaul with low latency (which imposes a per-minute pricing structure and limits the number of connected points in the network), I've been wondering why someone (like an ISP) doesn't come along and offer not-quite Internet telephony. How about a fast-as-you-can exchange of voice-mail messages between two parties? It would be something like walkie-talkie service. The "calling" parties could even dial into ISPs and use their regular telephones. The traffic would be carried over the Internet and delivered to an ISP local to the called party for termination back on the PSTN. The software would consist of email programs with a modified user interface. The delay would be expected and the low-grade nature of the service would serve to limit abuse. For certain kinds of calls, consumers will always demand a low-latency connection. But for many applications-placing orders, teenagers with big phone bills, letting the boss know where you are-it would be a cheap alternative. Just image how useful a voice-pager would be if it could "call" the PSTN through a local ISP and then take a reply voice-mail? The compression made possible by store and forward would also make such a device a much more frugal user of expensive RF for those all-important wireless implementations. Try to image the teenager who would not want such a device and try to image a parent who would not want a flat-rate alternative for their child's communication needs. The biggest problem that I can see with it is the user interface. DTMF would be possible, but voice-reco would make a more complex command set easier to use (more complexity stemming from the different options regarding playback and storage of messages, multiple parties, and things like entering email addresses as recipients). User independent voice-recognition is now a cheap and inexpensive thing (dictation and secure user-dependent systems are the more complex and expensive things). Why is the focus always on the standard real-time voice connection? Why don't we have a service that is intermediate between POTS and email? Seems like it would also be a good way for ISPs to migrate to real-time voice once the controlled latency IP networks are better established. Seems like a service that will always have a certain cost advantage over low-latency real-time connections. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #67 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed May 13 22:04:19 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA13963; Wed, 13 May 1998 22:04:19 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 22:04:19 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199805140204.WAA13963@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #68 TELECOM Digest Wed, 13 May 98 22:04:00 EDT Volume 18 : Issue 68 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Northern Illinois to Get 847/708 Overlay (TELECOM Digest Editor) Pacific Bell Acts to Stop Cramming (Tad Cook) 911 Call Processing Problem (Elena de Maisnilwarin) UCLA Short Course on "Internet Telephony" (Bill Goodin) Re: Ameritech and Southwestern Bell Merger (John R. Levine) Re: Ameritech and Southwestern Bell Merger (David W. Tamkin) Re: Ameritech and Southwestern Bell Merger (Steven R. Kleinedler) Re: Ameritech and Southwestern Bell Merger (Steven H. Lichter) Re: Ameritech and Southwestern Bell Merger (Phil Ritter) 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: Northern Illinois to Get 847/708 Overlay Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 18:00:00 CDT It is now official: Instead of further splitting the 847 area code which serves the north/northwest suburbs of Chicago as had been discussed, a new area code, to be announced in a few days, will be used as an overlay. First, 847 will be overlayed as needed, then 'when the time comes', 708 which serves suburbs to the south and immediate west of Chicago will use the same overlay code. It is expected that by sometime in 2000 or 2001, the overlay code will have worked its way into Chicago's existing 312/773 areas as well. There is as of yet no announced starting date for the new overlay code other than 'probably around the end of this year' for those of us in 847. Once it goes into effect, eleven digit dialing will be required on all calls throughout the Chicago area. 708 will probably be involved by the third quarter of 1999. You would think instead of forcing everyone to dial eleven digits on each call it would be possible to dial seven digits if the call was in your own area code. The excuse I heard was that there would be problems with conflicting prefixes however what is wrong with programming the switches to understand that if the leading digit is not a one, then what follows should be taken in the context of the area code the caller is in. That's the report from the big city today. PAT ------------------------------ Subject: Pacific Bell Acts to Stop Cramming Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 19:07:33 PDT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) By George Avalos, Contra Costa Times, Walnut Creek, Calif. Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News May 6--Pacific Bell officials on Tuesday took a hard line against the mushrooming telephone scams that collect unauthorized fees. About 850 people a month -- more than 3,000 so far this year -- complain to Pacific Bell that they have been duped into accepting local phone services they didn't specifically request. The unsolicited marketing, also known as "cramming," can result in hundreds of dollars a year in extra charges. The current rate is nearly five times as much as the number of complaints Pacific Bell received in the second half of 1997. People often get tricked into receiving unauthorized services when they fill out a form that promotes a sweepstakes or a contest to win goodies such as a new car. What they often don't see is the fine print. The cards sometimes have an obscure warning that by signing and sending in the document they are also agreeing to pay for some sort of telecommunications product. The fees, for example, usually are about $2 a month. But some can range as high as $40 a month. "A lot of people don't know they are being crammed," said Sandy McGreevy, a Pac Bell regulatory manager. "People should read the fine print before they sign up for anything." The services customers might unwillingly sign up for include pre-paid calling cards, personal 800 numbers, debit cards, Internet service or calling card fees that are billed monthly. Pac Bell has decided to revise its billing and collection contracts to eliminate billing for products most susceptible to fraud, including calling card fees, prepaid calling cards and debit cards. It also has changed procedures to streamline refunds. The phone company also has requested corrective action by vendors that have a high rate of cramming complaints. "We have placed eight companies on notice," McGreevy said. Sometimes, customers get billed without even signing anything. Unscrupulous companies scour marketing lists for names of consumers and simply start billing them for telecommunications services. Once the telecommunications vendor has a person's name, the company usually notifies Pacific Bell that a consumer has signed up for the service. Pac Bell then adds the charges to a customer's bill, later forwarding the proceeds to the vendor. Consumers might encounter gateways to unauthorized billing in a variety of venues, according to Monica McCrary, a counsel for the consumer division of the California Public Utilities Commission. People might find the forms at county fairs, festivals, street fairs, restaurants, Laundromats, grocery stores and video stores. ------------------------------ From: Elaine McMillan Subject: 911 Call Processing Problems Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 23:02:12 GMT Organization: Canada Internet Direct, Inc. We are experiencing difficulties with 911 calls, and post the following information in the hope that someone has a solution: Our setup: Two Nortel Option 11Cs, at sites approximately 50km apart (Vanterm and Deltaport). The two PBXs are served by Meridian Mail located at Vanterm, and are linked together by a BC Tel Megaroute. All calls to Deltaport come in through Vanterm and are passed through to Deltaport. At this time, most of Deltaport's outgoing calls also go out through Vanterm (to take advantage of Vanterm's larger free calling area). In addition, the Megaroute carries 2 x BRI sessions to link our computers together. Deltaport also has three outgoing only business trunks to carry our emergency calls, including 911 and security system. These trunks were installed because if we passed our emergency calls out through Vanterm, 911 would see an incorrect address and would transfer to the wrong police/fire/ambulance despatchers. Our problem: In the past several months, we have had a number of 911 calls placed at Deltaport. When the call is received at 911, the caller hangs up. 911 cannot call back to the number they are passed (our outgoing trunks) so they always dispatch someone. To date, there has NEVER been a real emergency related to these calls. The local police are concerned, as are we. We have discussed different solutions with BC Tel, 911 and with the Delta police: 1. Change the emergency calls to two way trunks, and have them terminate on someone's phone. Pro: would allow for call back. Con: Deltaport is a 7x24 operation and there is no phone manned 7x24. A call back may not reach anyone. 2. BC Tel suggested we have 911 or Delta police put a callback number in their records; both 911 and Delta advise it is not possible to add comments to the information which comes up on their screens. 3. Install a CDR system. Pro: calls definitely traceable. Con: someone needs access to the CDR printout, and with a 7x24 operation, there may not be someone on site with access to the PBX room in the Admin building (and we don't want to allow total access there anyway). What I would REALLY like is a system (third party?) that would pass out the local number instead of the main number (ie 251-9281 instead of 251-9200) to the telephone network. Any ideas would be very much appreciated. Elaine McMillan PC & Network Coordinator Information Systems Department TSI Terminal Systems Inc. Vancouver, B.C., Canada ------------------------------ From: Bill Goodin Subject: UCLA Short Course on "Internet Telephony" Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 07:35:35 -0700 On August 3-5, 1998, UCLA Extension will present the short course, "Internet Telephony", on the UCLA campus in Los Angeles. The instructors are Partho Misra, PhD, Principal Member of the Technical Staff, AT&T Labs-Research; and Mani Srivastava, PhD, Assistant Professor, Electrical Engineering Department, UCLA. Internet telephony has emerged as an exciting new technology over the last few years. The packet-switched network infrastructure used by the Internet may offer distinct economic advantages over the circuit switched PSTN. Several small companies already offer cheap long-distance and international voice telephone service using the public Internet, and even AT&T has announced a new IP telephony service. In the not too distant future, large service providers such as AT&T and MCI may support their telephony services solely over a packet switched network. Cellular service providers and equipment manufacturers, looking beyond the third generation systems, are also considering moving to packet switched networks. Novel service concepts such as web-enabled call centers and unified messaging are also motivated by Internet telephony. However, significant technical hurdles remain for scaling and call quality. This course covers key technical aspects of Internet packet telephony including architectural models, compression algorithms, transport protocols, quality of service issues, Internet multicast, middleware services, packet telephony standards, and Internet telephony products and services. Emerging issues such as mobile and wireless Internet telephony, and video packet telephony are also presented. The comprehensive treatment of this multidisciplinary topic is coupled with background material covering the necessary fundamentals of networking, multimedia, and digital signal processing. The course includes a hands-on demonstration of Internet telephony in a laboratory to illustrate the user experience with packet telephony over the Internet. The course is intended for practicing engineers who are interested in the fundamentals as well as managers interested in recent developments in Internet telephony. System architects and developers, computing and communication service providers, equipment manufacturers, and researchers should also find the course useful. The course fee is $1195, 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. ------------------------------ Date: 12 May 1998 19:17:31 -0000 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Ameritech and Southwestern Bell Merger Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y. > it will create a **huge** telecommunications company; one of the > largest if not the largest other than AT&T. ... 1997 revenue: AT&T 51.3 billion SBC 24.8 Ameritech 15.9 SNET 2.0 SBC+AIT+SNET 40.7 Bell Atlantic 30.1 billion > We'll have at least one unusual thing here when it goes through: both > cell companies will be owned by the same parent company. Cellular One > of Chicago is part of Southwestern Bell, while Ameritech Cellular is > part of the parent company by the same name. I presume they'll have to divest one of them. When Bell Atlantic and NYNEX merged, they sold one of their Rhode Island and western Mass. systems to SNET for that reason. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl, Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 14:33:47 CDT Subject: Re: Ameritech and Southwestern Bell Merger From: 2094393@mcimail.com (David W. Tamkin) Organization: TIPFKAG [World-Weird Access, Chicago, Illinois 60606-3001] Our editor wrote in in comp.dcom.telecom: > We'll have at least one unusual thing here when it goes through: both > cell companies will be owned by the same parent company. Cellular One > of Chicago is part of Southwestern Bell, while Ameritech Cellular is > part of the parent company by the same name. The reverse situation exists in St. Louis, where SBC owns one cellular carrier and Ameritech owns the competitor. According to the Chicago _Tribune_'s May 12 article about the effects of the merger, SBC (who will use the Ameritech name in Ameritech's five states) will need to sell off the two non-wireline cellular pro- viders: Cellular One in Chicago and Ameritech Cellular in St. Louis. The above address is valid, but it is for my lowest-priority mailbox. If you want your response to reach me sooner, send it to dattier[at]wwa[dot]com. ------------------------------ From: srkleine@midway.uchicago.edu (Steven R Kleinedler) Subject: Re: Ameritech and Southwestern Bell Merger Organization: The University of Chicago Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 13:04:42 GMT Pat: Regarding the merger at the Chicago area code crunch ... Is it possible that some of the prefixes were being held by SBC, and now that its merging with Ameritech, that there are a number of exchanges that can actually get used now? Will this alleviate some of the crunch, however temporary? Just curious. --Steve Kleinedler-- [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I don't think it will make any difference in that aspect. All the various entities will probably administratively continue to do their own thing, and manage their own operations. Even if there is some merging of operations, it would come too late to make a difference. PAT] ------------------------------ From: ue554@vtn1.victoria.tc.ca (Steven H. Lichter) Subject: Re: Ameritech and Southwestern Bell Merger Date: 13 May 98 04:07:58 GMT TELECOM Digest Editor (ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu) wrote: > It seems to be all over except for the paperwork; the merger is a done > deal Monday afternoon as I write this note. It still is not OFFICIAL, and > this item should not be taken as anything final, but it sure looks > that way. I would watch for major changes, like lack of customer service and we don't care. As much as I disliked PacBell before they were eatenup, their new masters are worse, plus they are taking the company apart. The above are my ideas and have nothing to do with whoever my employer is. SysOp Apple Elite II and OggNet Hub (909)359-5338 2400/14.4 24 hours, Home of GBBS/LLUCE Support for the Apple II. Reply to stevenlATpeDOTnet. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I sort of agree. Ameritech was always very progressive in the past, while Southwestern Bell seemed much more conservative and domineering. We may well be on the way back to the days of the 'Bell System' as we knew it in the 1960-70's era. A common joke these days with all the bank mergers going on is that at some point in the future we will wake up some morning to find there is only one bank left in the USA. Some people have even drawn up a schedule for such an event using the dates of previous bank mergers, the number of banks which remain in existence each year, etc; and if things then continue at that rate, the day for (in all seriousness) Bank One or One Bank or whatever it would be called would occur on day X sometime in the 21st century. Anyone care to put together such a time line for the approximate date on which we can again with accuracy refer to a single entity known as 'the telephone company'? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Phil.Ritter@zool.AirTouch.COM (Phil Ritter) Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 08:40:30 -0700 Subject: Re: Ameritech and Southwestern Bell Merger > We'll have at least one unusual thing here when it goes through: both > cell companies will be owned by the same parent company. Cellular One > of Chicago is part of Southwestern Bell, while Ameritech Cellular is > part of the parent company by the same name. Well, not exactly. One of the items that has to be completed before the merger can finalize is the divestiture of conflicting FCC licenses. They cannot own both Cellular properties and will have to sell or spin-off one of them in each market where they overlap. We (AirTouch) had to do this in San Diego before we could purchase US-West's cellular properties, so we traded it with GTE Wireless for some other wireless properties. It will be interesting to watch what SBC does with their wireless properties. With the purchase of Pacific, and now with Ameritech, they will have a rag-tag collection of cellular and PCS properties using different digital formats that does not appear to fit together really well. Since Chicago's A-side (SBC part owned) is an IS-136 TDMA market and the B-side (Ameritech owned) is an IS-95 CDMA system, the system that they choose to keep may be very telling about their wireless plans. Phil Ritter [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In the year 1878 -- the year that the first telephone exchange in the world opened, in New Haven, CT as I recall, with Miss Emma Nutt presiding at the switchboard -- exchanges were also started in Chicago and St. Louis. The Chicago Telephone Company began a 'central' with about fifteen subscribers, mostly merchants in the downtown area. Business was good enough that they soon opened an exchange on Wabash Avenue. 'Central' and 'Wabash' continue to this day having undergone several changes in nomenclature over the years from Central to CENtral to CE-6 to 236 to 312-236. Wabash became WABash which became WA-2 which finally became 312-922. In St. Louis, the Central Missouri Telephone Exchange started with a dozen customers about the same time. Chicago Telephone Company was taken over by AT&T in 1921 in one of AT&T's periodic power plays of that era and its name was changed to Illinois Bell. All of the aquisitions of AT&T in those years became (something) Bell. As the Central Missouri Telephone Exchange began to show some real potential early in this century, AT&T moved in swiftly there also and bought out the still tiny firm eventually renaming it Southestern Bell as it expanded through Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas. Also early in this century, USITA (the United States Independent Telephone Association) was formed by the thousands of small indepen- dent telcos in existence at that time to help them in their ongoing battle with AT&T; to serve them with network connectivity and other things which AT&T would not provide unless the company was willing to be purchased by the all-powerful Bell. Both Chicago Telephone Company and Central Missouri Telephone Exchange remained staunchly independent for a number of years in their early existence. One has to wonder what the telecom industry would look like today if the two companies had taken the assistance offered to them by USITA in the early days and refused to sell out to 'the Bell' as it was distastefully known by the mom and pop telephone exchanges which were all over the USA. I have vague childhood memories -- being about seven or eight years old -- of going with my parents to visit some elderly relatives who lived in Coffeyville, Kansas and standing in front of or inside a 'traditional looking' (all telephone buildings looked the same in those days) Southwestern Bell building in the downtown area of Coffeyville. Business Office on the first floor, the switchboard and operators on the second floor. I think I was allowed to walk up the stairs to the second floor and peek through a door to watch a row of operators at work. I wonder if a hundred years from now anyone will remember that MCI began its existence as a tiny storefront in Joliet, Illinois where business radio equipment was sold and serviced? It has been an interesting 120 years, to be sure. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #68 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon May 18 19:50:08 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id TAA13719; Mon, 18 May 1998 19:50:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 19:50:08 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199805182350.TAA13719@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #69 TELECOM Digest Mon, 18 May 98 19:50:00 EDT Volume 18 : Issue 69 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson PL-NANP-121: GTE-Florida's NPA Split of 813/727 (Mark J. Cuccia) Services Bundling (Victor Rini) Telco Rotary Question (Mark Boudoin) T-1 Data Compression / Inverse Multiplexing Hardware? (Thomas D. Simes) Re: International Cellular Toll Charges (John R. Levine) 90# ... Is There Truth to This? (John Mayson) Employment Opportunity: Techs in Florida (Emory Clements) Caller Pays to Call a Cellular Phone (Eric Morson) Re: Bell South BS (was: Problems With 877...) (Bill Levant) CLECS (Allan Gerard) Book Review: Windows NT SNMP (Robert Slade) Last Laugh! Do They Train Operators? (Clifton Sharp) 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 10:13:04 -0500 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: PL-NANP-121: GTE-Florida's NPA Split of 813/727 PL-NANP-121 is now available on NANPA's website... http://www.nanpa.com/planning_letters/planning_letters.html FREE !:) for the downloading/viewing/printing, in Adobe-Acrobat .pdf format. Actual URL for the PL is http://www.nanpa.com/pdf/pl-nanp-121.pdf This was _originally_ going to be an Overlay which was going to take effect in October 1998. But back in April, Florida regulatory changed this into a SPLIT, with the St.Petersburg area (and northward) to split off to NPA 727. Permissive Dialing to take effect on 1-July-1998. Mandatory Dialing takes effect on 1-February-1999. The test number _was_ going to be 727-250-9999, when the new 727 NPA was going to be an overlay on NPA 813. However, the 250 prefix is remaining in NPA 813-- Hyde-Park / Tampa-South Therefore, the new test number, under this split, is going to be 727-868-9990. The 868 prefix is moving from NPA 813 to NPA 727-- Hudson/Northwestern Incidently, the _older_ test number, 727-250-9999, is presently dialable via some carriers, routing to the GTE-Florida NPA 727 verification recording! It does _NOT_ 'supe'! :) I have _not_ been able to get to a verification recording on the 'new/correct' 727-868-9990 test number via any carriers. 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: Victor Rini Subject: Services Bundling Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 11:21:36 -0700 Organization: All USENET -- http://www.Supernews.com I'm interested in hearing people's experiences with the various services bundles being marketed by the large telcos like AT&T, Worldcom, MCI, Sprint, etc. How good are the services and the advantages (price or otherwise) you are getting from one-stop shopping? The company I work for is definitely mid-market (around 50 million in sales). We use a number of different vendors and are getting a good deal price-wise but not service-wise. My thoughts are the large companies are talking the talk but they are pretty far off from pulling off a good product. I'd like to know your thoughts. Thanks, Victor Rini Systems Administrator Pace International, L.P. ------------------------------ From: Mark Boudoin Subject: Telco Rotary Question! Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 12:23:34 -0500 Organization: Sprint Paranet When using rotary service from telco (ie. one number for multiple lines) how is rotary service broken out at the user location? Does it come in on a csu/dsu or is it broken out on a terminal block? Thanks. Mark Boudoin ------------------------------ From: Thomas D. Simes Subject: T-1 Data Compression / Inverse Multiplexing Hardware? Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 13:43:00 GMT Organization: InternetAlaska Hi all, We are starting to investigate the state of data compression and inverse multiplexing hardware for optimizing our very spendy T-1 WAN circuits. I have been looking at specs for the Symplex gear and the WARP products from Compression Communications Corp. Does anyone have experiences to share regarding these or similar products? Links to other manufacturers would also be appreciated! TIA! Thomas D. Simes Chief Technology Instigator simestd@alaska.net Internet Alaska You are what you do when it counts. ------------------------------ Date: 18 May 1998 02:39:05 -0000 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: International Cellular Toll Charges Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y. > Ideas anyone, apart from the US cellular carriers are gouging us? No further ideas needed. Most US cellular customers never make international calls other than perhaps to Canada, and the ones who do rarely do so while roaming. In many cases, you can't make any international calls at all from your cell phone without specifically asking for international calling to be enabled. My cell co turned it on for me but warned me that I still wouldn't be able to make international calls in many roaming areas. We have a horrible cellular fraud problem due to the ease with which AMPS phones can be cloned, and one of the most popular uses of a cloned phone is for immigrants to call home. This disinclines cell companies to provide international service, and to build in a hefty profit margin when they do. Anyone who really cares about international calling gets a calling card accessed via an 800 number. You get entirely reasonable rates that way. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl, Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail ------------------------------ From: John Mayson Subject: 90#... Is There Truth to This? Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 13:28:35 -0400 Organization: http://www.mindspring.com/~jmayson/ Reply-To: jmayson@mindspring.com I received a telephone call from an individual identifying himself as an AT&T Service Technician that was running a test on our telephone lines. He stated that to complete the test we should touch nine (9), zero (0), pound sign (#) and hang up. Luckily, we were suspicious and refused. Upon contacting the telephone company we were informed that by pushing 90# you end up giving the individual that called you access to your telephone line and allows them to place a long distance telephone call, with the charge appearing on your telephone call. We were further informed that this scam has been originating from many of the local jails/prisons. I have verified with UCB Telecomm that this actually happens. Please beware. This sounds like an Urban Legend - IT IS NOT!!! I called GTE Security this morning and verified that this is definitely possible and DO NOT press 90# for ANYONE. It will give them access to your phone line to make long distances calls ANYWHERE!!!! The GTE Security department told me to go ahead and share this information with EVERYONE I KNOW!!! Could you PLEASE pass this on. If you have mailing lists and/or newsletters from organizations you are connected with, I encourage you to include this information. John Mayson [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I get this same item in email once or twice a week; I just happened to pick the one from John Mayson to be included in this issue. In almost every case, the writer insists it happened to him, that he was suspicious and did not comply with the request, and that furthermore, the telephone company along with GTE Security advised that pressing 90# was a Bad Thing to do. Based on all the suspicious people who refused to follow this request, all I can say is it must be a very persistent bunch of prisoners. Is it true or false? Well, no doubt there is some phone system somewhere which responds in the way indicated, but I don't know which one it would be. It certainly is not a common characteristic; and I suspect it has to involve a voicemail system which allows transfer out of the system and/or a PBX/Centrex system which allows calls to be transferred or forwarded to some off-premises location. Naturally, prisoners would have a complete list of the phone numbers at companies whose phone system works that way, and naturally a prisoner is willing to pay for a call to you in order to try and trick you into letting him have a call off your end for free rather than just paying for the call he wants to make in the first place. That latter point is the one which causes the problem for me. *How* did the 'prisoner' get through on the phone to John Mayson to start with? If a collect call, wouldn't that be a tipoff of trouble in itself? Telco employees do not place collect calls. If the call was paid, then why would the 'prisoner' pay for a call to you in order to *try* (apparently unsuccessfully, if my mail is any indication; the people who write me were always suspicious and refused to comply) to get you to give him a free call? It does not make a lot of sense does it? Oh, but you say the prison is right here in town (down the street, next door, wherever) so it is only a local call to us in exchange for a long distance call sent out from our phone system. Well ... still ... how many local calls (or whatever kind) must the 'prisoner' make in order to find one dingbat of a receptionist/switchboard operator who would fall for that routine? If your company is large enough to have the type of phone system to allow such a call transfer, then it likely has one single point of contact between it and telco: one person whose duties include handling repairs, installations, etc. A telco person is not going to be talking to you to start with. A variation on this is the 'telco repairman' who calls up a private residence saying they wish to 'test call forwarding ... would you please hang up for a couple seconds, then dial *72 plus and hang up again. "After you hear your phone ring just one time, it will be okay to dial *73 ..."' Some people actually fall for that one also. I am not saying these things cannot happen; it just seems to me very difficult to believe that anyone would fall for it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Emory Clements Subject: Employment Opportunity: Techs in Florida Date: 18 May 1998 13:45:28 GMT Organization: ensource Ensource is currently looking for experienced Intecom, Rolm and Nortel PBX techs. We offer exellent salary and benefits. Come work for a Industry leader. Call, fax or email resumes to my attention. Emory Clements eclements@ensource.net www.ensource.net Ensource Inc. 7970 Bayberry Rd. suite 5 Jacksonville Fl. 32256 904-448-6901 904-448-2002 Fax ------------------------------ From: Eric B. Morson Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 14:19:17 EDT Subject: Caller Pays to Call a Cellular Phone I have always disliked this plan for two primary reasons: 1) Anyone who makes an outgoing call knows if there will be a toll charge based on the NPA-NXX. If local NXXs assigned to cellular numbers become chargeable calls, how will the avreage person know what he or she is paying for? 2) Many people, myself included, have a cellular NXX that is a local call from home/office. By having call forwarding on your home/office line, you can transfer calls to your mobile phone number free of charge. Only the incoming airtime, if any (unlimited night and weekend pland work VERY well this way). I would lose all advantage of free forarding if I had to pay for every call forwarded to me. It would coset the same as giving out my cellular number. As a matter of principle, as a cellular user, I know I am using a service that costs at both ends. I do NOT expect anyone who calls me on my cellular number to have to pay for MY choice to be mobile. I accept that responsibility, and would resent it if it were imposed upon me. Keeping the billing all at the cellular subscriber's end, features like forwarding from home to cellular allows the subscriber to take incoming calls only when it suits the need, and WOTHOUT having to give the number to a single person. Now THAT's control of bills, and fairness to the calling party. Eric B. Morson Stamford, CT (203) 348-3258 EasyE1@aol.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: On the other hand though, Eric, there is rarely a week goes by that my cellphone does not ring with a telemarketer who, calling at random via a predictive dialer wishes to sell me something, or a wrong number. Cellular users get to pay for those types of calls also. I think a far better solution would be to require cellular companies to participate with landline telcos in a settlements procedure much like the telcos use with each other and with long distance carriers. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Wlevant Date: Mon, 18May 1998 10:41:26 EDT Subject: Re: Bell South BS (was: Problems with 877...) Mark Cuccia wrote : > Within ten minutes after reporting the problem [to Tulane's PBX folks], I > was FINALLY able to dial 9-1-877-nxx-xxxx, and have the call properly routed > out... I'm impressed. Ten minutes? Are they extraordinarily competent, or are they just used to hearing from you (and having you be right)? :-) > I wonder how many other cellular companies seem to have such ineptness > in customer service or basic switch translations/routings...I think > I'll call the FCC on them! Hope the FCC doesn't have an 877 number :-) Uh, who's your "A-side" carrier? Are they worth considering ? How about "true" PCS (1.9 (?) gHz) carriers? I got rid of my analog cell phone ($16.00/month, $.36/peak, $.16 off, $.12 extra for each outgoing call) from Comcast Metrophone ("A-side" Philadelphia) and got a Sprint PCS phone ($75.00/month, includes 1,500 "anytime" minutes -- that's 25 hours !! -- each month, with first incoming minute free, caller ID, $.15/minute LD 24/7, a VERY large local calling area, and reasonable, fixed roaming charges [$.50/minute INCLUDING toll, anywhere]). Furthermore, since calls to most of southern NJ are "local" on the PCS phone, it's actually cheaper than wireline. I haven't been able to use more than about 500 minutes in a given month, no matter how hard I try, but that's an effective rate just of $.15/minute (still less than day rates to NJ), so who cares? Admittedly, the coverage is still a bit spotty out here in the 'burbs, but it's getting better and better every day, the coverage in downtown Philadelphia is very good, and the phone now works about 75% of the time while on I-95 between Philadelphia and Baltimore, including in Baltimore City proper. Bill ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 08:59:50 -0400 From: Allan Gerard Reply-To: algerard@innocent.com Subject: CLECS Can you point me in the right direction to find out how many CLECS there are in the US? .... Elsewhere? Thanks, Allan Gerard algerard@innocent.com ------------------------------ From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 10:35:06 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "Windows NT SNMP", James D. Murray Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKNTSNMP.RVW 980314 "Windows NT SNMP", James D. Murray, 1998, 1-56592-338-3, U$34.95/C$49.95 %A James D. Murray %C 103 Morris Street, Suite A, Sebastopol, CA 95472 %D 1998 %G 1-56592-338-3 %I O'Reilly & Associates, Inc. %O U$34.95/C$49.95 800-998-9938 fax: 707-829-0104 nuts@ora.com %P 464 p. + CD-ROM %T "Windows NT SNMP" As the author points out, SNMP (Simple Network Management Protocol) is not a program or even a language, it is a protocol. This is disturbingly assumed, though not explicitly stated, in some of the earlier works I have reviewed on the subject. It is easy to understand the frustration of readers who may plough through entire volumes and come out still wondering how on earth they are supposed to use this SNMP "thing." This book, by narrowing the focus slightly, is more able to concentrate on that aspect of use. It is, however, directed at programmers of network management tools rather than directly at network managers. Part one, on SNMP basics, gives the fundamentals, albeit in a somewhat reduced form. Chapter one covers some history behind SNMP, as well as activities it might, and might not, be used for. Network basics, including a brief look at components, TCP/IP, the OSI (Open Systems Interconnection) reference model, and framing, is given in chapter two. Network management is defined in chapter three, along with the SNMP division of management areas. Chapter four's layout of the internals of SNMP is fairly brief, but still manages to cover as many pages as the first three combined. Part two gets detailed. The Windows NT (and 95) SNMP services are outlined in chapter five, including installation and Registry information. Chapters six through nine cover necessary programming information for the extension and utility APIs (Application Programming Interfaces), extension agents, traps, and the management API. Chapter ten pulls the various components together for network management applications, and adds finer points such as etiquette for such programs. Appendices include an excellent and extensive bibliography and other resources, a listing of relevant Microsoft Knowledge Base articles, and related RFCs (Request For Comments). copyright Robert M. Slade, 1998 BKNTSNMP.RVW 980314 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 14:43:42 -0500 From: Clifton T. Sharp Jr. Reply-To: agent150@spambusters.dyn.ml.org Organization: as little as possible Subject: Last Laugh! Do They Train Operators? Actual recent experience reported to me by a trustworthy friend: "AT&T Information, what city and state, please?" "I'm sorry, I don't show a toll-free number for that, would you like the toll number?" "Okay." "The number is 1-888..." | Cliff Sharp | If tin whistles are made of tin, WA9PDM | I don't even wanna THINK about dog biscuits! [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Actually, yeah the operators do get some training, but I am not sure how much. In the old days -- well, the *real* old days -- of the 1930-50 era, operators received six to eight weeks of training in a classroom before they were ever allowed near an actual working switchboard with live subscribers. Business Office representatives also has a month or so of training and repair people had a month or so both in a classroom and in the field. All training was conducted at company expense of course. It was very important that any employee who had contact with the public be com- pletely trained in all procedures before ever being allowed to take calls. Every circumstance that might arise had to be properly dealt with; at least everything they could think of. Now and then unusual circumstances would occur however which were not routinely planned for in advance. About 25 years ago -- I'll guess in the early- to mid-1970's, but I do not remember the date -- I placed a call one day to Directory Assistance somewhere and the following occurred: Me: dialing -555-1212 ... back in the days when it was free, mind you! :) Operator: Directory for , may I help you? Me: I passed my request. Operator: Just a moment please, I'll look for it. A few seconds pass, and I hear pieces of paper being flipped through. (This was prior to the computerization of directory records; a dozen or so operators sat at tables with lots of phone books on each table. They were experts at grabbing the right book for each call and opening the book almost immediatly to within a few pages of where the entry would be located.) Then I heard what sounded like a book had fallen off the table and on the floor. Perhaps one or two seconds later I hear a voice in the background saying, 'call the medical department and have them get an ambulance'. I hear a couple people talking in the background but cannot understand what they are saying; their conversation seems muffled. Perhaps twenty to thirty seconds more pass and then a *different* operator came on the line in the same location and she said ... "I am sorry for the delay, would you please start your request from the beginning? ... I did so, and received the number I wanted very promptly. Out of curiosity, I asked her what had 'caused the confusion' with the operator who originally answered me. Her response was, "Well sir, I am not a doctor and cannot speak with authority, but it appears she suffered a heart attack as she was assisting you; she slumped over at the table where she was sitting and knocked a book on the floor. She is either unconcious or dead at this time; the medical department people have just now walked in the door to assist." That bummed me out for the rest of the day. The next day, still finding it a little difficult to believe, I called the same 555-1212 and asked to speak with the GCO (group chief operator). I told her I had been on the line the day before, and the time of day I was on and asked if there had been some 'incident'. Once she knew I had to have been the subscriber on the line based on what I said and the time of day I mentioned, she said that yes, the operator who originally responded to my call had indeed incurred a heart attack and had died in the middle of my call. Thinking that perhaps they owed *me* an apology of some kind, she said she was sorry if my call had been delayed as a result. I told her absolutely no apology was required and to please extend my sympathy to the others. Seriously ... Not such a funny last laugh after all was it. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #69 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon May 18 23:42:18 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id XAA24647; Mon, 18 May 1998 23:42:18 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 23:42:18 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199805190342.XAA24647@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #70 TELECOM Digest Mon, 18 May 98 23:42:00 EDT Volume 18 : Issue 70 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson New 888 Replication Instructions (Judith Oppenheimer) AT&T Partner Remote Maintenance (Etop Udoh) GTE Stifles Local Wireline Competition (Robert L. McMillin) Study Links Mobile Phone Use to Headaches (Monty Solomon) Press Release: "Spam Slam" (Hillary Gorman) 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 15:54:46 -0400 From: Judith Oppenheimer Reply-To: joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com Organization: ICB TOLL FREE NEWS. 15 Day FREE Trial: http://icbtollfree.com Subject: New 888 Replication Instructions On Friday, May 15, the FCC extended the 888 replication timeframe to September, 1998. It also directed DSMI "to ensure: (1) that all subscriber requests to retain their set-aside numbers are promptly assigned and activated as 'working'; (2) that no subscriber requests get rejected for being submitted late; and (3) that all set-aside numbers for which subscribers did not respond in writing are placed in 'unavailable' status rather than 'spare' status, while the Commission audits them to ensure that subscribers received adequate notice from the RespOrgs." ----------------------------------------- May 15, 1998 Mr. Michael Wade President, Database Service Management, Inc. 6 Corporate Place Room PYA - 1F286 Piscataway, NJ 08854-4157 Re: Processing of set-aside 888 numbers for subscribers holding corresponding 800 numbers Dear Mr. Wade: The Bureau's letter to you dated April 2, 1998, established a 90-day schedule to transfer to RespOrg control or to release into 'spare' status 888 vanity numbers that were set aside for subscribers holding corresponding 800 numbers. Your letter dated April 10, 1998, indicates that the 90-day schedule does not allow sufficient time for DSMI to process and verify RespOrg reports of subscriber requests for these numbers. The Bureau in this letter now extends the time for subscribers to request numbers that were set aside for them, for RespOrgs to report subscriber requests to DSMI, and for DSMI to process and verify RespOrg reports as they come in. It also directs DSMI to take several other actions, which are intended to ensure: (1) that all subscriber requests to retain their set-aside numbers are promptly assigned and activated as 'working'; (2) that no subscriber requests get rejected for being submitted late; and (3) that all set-aside numbers for which subscribers did not respond in writing are placed in 'unavailable' status rather than 'spare' status, while the Commission audits them to ensure that subscribers received adequate notice from the RespOrgs. Under the current 90-day schedule, RespOrgs were required in the first 20 days, which ended April 25, 1998, to notify their subscribers that they may choose to reserve their set-aside numbers. In the next 30 days, subscribers must submit written requests to the RespOrgs tin order to retain their numbers, and they are permitted to submit written requests to release the numbers as 'spare'. In the following 30 days, RespOrgs must report the subscribers' requests to DSMI, which documentation of each subscriber's request or certification that the subscriber did not respond. In the last 10 days, DSMI must complete the processing of requests. The Bureau is concerned that erroneously releasing a number into 'spare' status contrary to a subscriber's intent would not be a correctable error is the number then becomes 'reserved', 'assigned', or activated as 'working' for the account of another subscriber. (Erroneously assigning and activating a subscriber's set-aside number as 'working' would presumably be correctable, by placing it in the proper status and ensuring that the subscriber is not charged for it.) It is therefore imperative to verify, for each number that a RespOrg certifies the subscriber did not respond, that the subscriber received adequate notice of right of first refusal from the RespOrg before releasing the number into 'spare' status. Other potential problems, in addition to inadequate notice, could also necessitate additional time for processing or for correction and re-processing. Among these may be, for example, failure by subscribers to mail their requests to RespOrgs or to mail them by May 24, 1998, or mishandling of written subscriber requests by RespOrgs or theta agents, or failure or inability of RespOrgs or their agents to report subscriber requests correctly to DSMI. Compounding or contributing to these possibilities, other events might transpire during or after the 90-day period - for example, a subscriber might change RespOrgs, an 800 number might be disconnected for suspended, or an 888 number that is returned to RespOrg control for activation as 'working' might instead be placed in 'reserved' status (and 45 days later automatically moved to 'spare' status if the subscriber fails to submit a further request to activate.) In light of these concerns, the Bureau modifies the process for handling the 888 numbers that were set-aside for subscriber holding corresponding 800 numbers, as follows. 1. Written subscriber requests received from RespOrgs by August 21, 1998 - Processed by DSMI by September 10, 1998 - Activated by September 30, 1998. The Bureau directs DSMI to instruct the RespOrgs that additional time is allotted, until August 21, 1998, for RespOrgs to complete notifying subscribers of their right of first refusal, for subscribers to respond to the RespOrgs' notification in writing, and for RespOrgs to report all results to DSMI (with documentation of written subscriber requests and certification of all other results.) The Bureau also directs DSMI to instruct the RespOrgs that they may set target dates for subscriber responses, consistent with this time schedule. The Bureau further directs DSMI that, for all 888 number requests that are reported to DSMI and received from RespOrgs by August 21, 1998, and that are documented by written subscriber requests (rather than by RespOrg certification of other results), DSMI will have an additional 20 days for processing those written subscriber requests, until September 10, 1998. In that time, DSMI must complete all processing, place into 'spare' status all numbers to be released, place into 'assigned' status all numbers that subscribers wish to retain, transfer to the RespOrgs control of numbers that are to be activated as 'working,' and instruct the RespOrgs to complete activation of those numbers as 'working' within 20 days thereafter, no later than September 30, 1998. 2. Late-filed written requests - Acceptance - Requests to reserve. The Bureau directs DSMI to instruct the RespOrgs that they may not reject written requests from subscribers received after August 21, 1998, and that they must submit to DSMI, on an ongoing basis, all written requests with accompanying documentation as they come in from subscribers no later than 30 days after receiving them. The Bureau instructs DSMI to process all such requests within 20 days of receiving them, and upon completion of processing, place into 'spare' status all numbers requested to be released, place into 'assigned' status all numbers that subscribers wish to retain, transfer to the RespOrgs control of numbers that are to be activated as 'working,' and instruct the RespOrgs to complete activation of those numbers as 'working' within 20 days thereafter. The Bureau permits DSMI to request more than 20 days to process late-filed requests, if DSMI's request is due to a reduction in DSMI's work force needed to comply with this letter. 3. No response numbers - Unavailable status - Commission audit. The Bureau directs DSMI to retain in 'unavailable' status those set-aside 888 number for which the subscribers did not respond, and not to release those numbers into the general pool as 'spare' unless and until the Commission informs DSMI otherwise. The Bureau also directs DSMI to instruct the RespOrgs that, for DSMI to verify documentation, each certification of no subscriber response that a RespOrg submits to DSMI must include subscriber contact information, containing at least the name, address, and phone number of the subscriber and the date and means by which the RespOrg notified the subscriber of the right of first refusal. The Bureau further directs DSMI to inform the RespOrgs that, after September 10, 1998, the Commission will audit those numbers and the documentation with which the RespOrgs certify that subscribers did not respond in writing, to ensure that the subscribers received adequate notice from the RespOrgs of their right of first refusal. Following completion of the process directed in this letter, the time for subscribers to exercise their rights of first refusal will come to an end when the Bureau directs DSMI to release the remaining 'unavailable' set-aside 888 numbers into 'spare' status. Sincerely, Geraldine A Matise Chief, Network Services Division ===================== Judith Oppenheimer, Publisher ICB TOLL FREE NEWS News & Information Source for Service Providers, & Commercial Users, of Toll Free Service 15-day, no-obligation FREE trial: http://icbtollfree.com ------------------------------ From: Etop Udoh Subject: AT&T Partner Remote Maintenance Date: 15 May 1998 20:11:18 GMT Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access (415) 705-6060 [Login: guest] I am looking for information on doing remote maintainence and/or programming on an AT&T Partner Phone System ... Dialing in on a Modem the way you would do on a "Legend" system and accessing the programming port/extension. I was told that a modem would be needed on both ends, but that's the least of my worries; I'm just concerned with the specifics of how it is all done. The type of modem needed? The programming extension/port number? Other miscellaneous things that can be done while in this set up? Thanks... | Etop Udoh | Southern Polytechnic State University [89-##] | | P.O. Box 4234 | HTTP://WWW.crl.com/~eudoh/e.htm | | Marietta, Ga 30061-4234 | <<< Eudoh@crl.com] >>> <<< Eudoh@sct.edu >>> | | "....D E N Y E V E R Y T H I N G - T R U S T N O O N E...." | ------------------------------ From: Robert L. McMillin Subject: GTE Stifles Local Wireline Competition Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 19:57:42 -0700 Organization: Syseca, Inc. Hopefully, my story will give others pause to think. Some time ago, I got quotes from several CLECs, and after some consideration, chose MCI. They had an excellent price, and unlike some of the other companies, I didn't get the feeling I was dealing with two guys and a pager when it comes to service. (For now, we ignore the problems of Directory Assistance -- until that becomes a profit center, it won't get done well, and in any case, GTE's has been getting worse.) Fine ... so we placed our order in December for an early May turn-on, in time for a wholesale move of the company's facilities (which subsequently was cancelled). Well ... after subsequently moving the installation forward one month to April, GTE connected the T1 early, surprisingly enough -- but they subsequently refused to forward our existing numbers to the new ones. Why? Because MCI didn't have the right *city* on the address of the order! Now, this is a legitimately confusing issue. The mailing address the post office shows is Marina del Rey, but since we're in Los Angeles proper, we're actually in Venice. To make matters worse, GTE has in times past shown us to be in Venice, Marina del Rey, Santa Monica, or Playa del Rey. (The area is a real mess -- jurisdictions bounce all over the place, and the street map looks like someone took a sledge hammer to a sheet of plate glass.) So, the question becomes, which answer should I (and MCI) have chosen? We got the ZIP code right, and that's enough for FedEx! GTE's response -- that they can't complete an order because of a wrong city name -- smacks of willful stupidity verging on obstruction. When I called our sales rep and warned her that we would cheerfully take our business elsewhere on a permanent basis (i.e., I'll never call GTE for *anything*) if this didn't get handled quickly, she shot back that she didn't appreciate being threatened. But this was the second major snafu this year from them -- GTE also slammed our LD service. Did she expect us to be happy? The fact that competition in switched telephony requires the cooperation of all the players seems to be lost on GTE and probably other old-line LECs -- competition is a two-way street, after all, and leaving a customer with a bad taste in his mouth on the way out the door isn't going to endear your company to anyone. GTE was always the worst of the LECs here in California. While it's hard to say whether this kind of behavior amounts to willfully quashing competition or just more of the same from a massively incompetent bureaucracy, GTE can't count on the CPUC keeping these problems at bay forever. MCI's T1 price for local service was about a third of what GTE wanted to charge us, with better per-minute and first-minute rates. Even our GTE sales rep admitted that they're losing businesses by the score to CLECs, and mainly due to pricing. 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. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 09:58:49 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Study Links Mobile Phone Use to Headaches STOCKHOLM (Reuters) - Swedish researchers said Friday they had found an apparent link between using mobile telephones and fatigue, headaches, and tingling and heat sensations on the ear and skin. In the only comprehensive study to date on the health effects of mobile phone use, a survey of about 11,000 Swedes and Norwegians showed the symptoms increased the more frequently people used their telephones. However, people who use mobile phones often may also have a stressful lifestyle, which could be a contributing factor. This could not be tested by the study. "People have more complaints when they are using the mobile phone more but we don't know at the moment what's causing them," Kjell Hansson Mild, of Sweden's National Institute for Working Life in Umea, northern Sweden, told Reuters. The group surveyed was a random selection of people who had mobile telephone subscriptions through their employers. "Further studies are required to verify our finding and to explore the role of the various physical factors," the institute said in a statement. "Demonstrable statistical associations between both calling time and number of calls per day and the occurrence of warmth sensation as well as headache and fatigue were found both among (analogue) NMT users and (digital) GSM users in both countries." Finding out if the symptoms could be blamed on the telephones would require finding people for a control group who have equally stressful lives but do not use mobiles, Mild said. Among the Norwegian participants who used a GSM mobile phone 15 to 60 minutes per day, the chance of a complaint of fatigue was 1.6 times higher than for those who used the phone less than two minutes per day. It was 4.1 times higher for those who used the phone more than 60 minutes per day. Those who use the phone 15 to 60 minutes daily were 2.7 times more likely to report a headache and 6.3 times more likely to have one if they talked more than 60 minutes per day. Other physical factors may be behind the complaints. "People are usually standing in a corner trying to press the telephone against their ear to hear the person speak," Mild said, adding that holding a phone to the ear probably disrupted blood circulation in one part of the head. "If you are using a phone and having these symptoms you might want to consider your mobile phone use and using your ordinary phone for longer calls or hands-free equipment for mobiles, thus taking the phone away from your head." The Swedish Mobile Telecommunications Association (MTB) said the results of the survey would be positive for the industry as it showed no clear link. "If you have a headache you can't blame it on your phone. Some small group had more headaches, but they could not tell if this was caused by stress or some other physical condition," Arvid Brandberg, head of MTB, told Reuters. Mobile telephones, like other electrical appliances, do emit heat but this did not make people feel bad, he added. ------------------------------ From: Hillary Gorman Subject: Press Release: "Spam Slam" Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 00:30:25 -0400 Organization: Very little Update ... hillary gorman...........Official Token Female..........hillary@netaxs.com "So that's 2 T-1s and a newsfeed....would you like clues with that?" hillary@hillary.net: for debugging your net or deworming your pet Net Access...The NSP for ISPs....The NOC that rocks around the clock. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 21:42:08 -0400 From: Rachel Luxemburg To: inet-grrls mailing list Subject: PRESS RELEASE: "Spam Slam" People, this is a serious issue. Please take the time to check out this legislation, and let your voice be heard if you think it's a Bad Idea. -----Original Message----- From: ISP/C Members Mailing List Sent: Thursday, May 14, 1998 9:39 PM Subject: PRESS RELEASE: "Spam Slam" "SPAM SLAM": INTERNET USERS "SLAMMED" BY SNEAKY ANTI-SLAMMING BILL For Immediate Release Contact: ISP/C Executive Director and Board Chair Deborah Howard (310) 827-8413 WASHINGTON, D.C., May 15th, 1998 -- On March 12th, Senators Frank Murkowski (Republican, Alaska) and Robert Torricelli (Democrat, New Jersey) included a surprise junk email ("spam") provision in S. 1618, the Telephone Anti-Slamming Act. While the ISP/C agrees that switching long distance carriers without permission ("slamming") is an unethical business practice needing to be addressed, this bill's added provisions regarding spam are unfair to Internet users. The Internet Service Providers' Consortium (ISP/C) opposes this "spam slam". Senator Murkowski has insisted time and again that he is pushing anti-spam legislation to help his constituents in Alaska, many of whom pay per minute Internet charges because of their rural location and distance from services.E "This bill is hardly a way to reduce his constituents2 burden because it enable all junk mailers 'one free bite' at virtually no cost to themselves, but potentially huge costs to those who bear the brunt of receiving junk mail," states Rachel Luxemburg, owner of ISP/C charter member, Link America Communications in New York. The ISP community has previously gone on record that any plan or regulation regarding junk mail must address the cost-shifting issue. "The Murkowski/Torricelli language completely ignores the cost ISPs bear in handling thousands or millions of advertising email messages unwanted by email users. As a measure to lower Internet costs for consumers, the Murkowski/Torricelli measure falls totally flat," states George Nemeyer, ISP/C=92s Ohio Area Representative and its leading anti-spam expert. "Neither providers nor end users should be expected to subsidize a marketer's advertising costs by having to pay the price of 'postage-due' advertising email," comments Tim Brown, Founder of the ISP/C and Senior Network Engineer, StarNet, Inc., Atlanta, Georgia. The official ISP/C statement on spam is available at: http://www.ispc.org/policy/papers/spam.shtml Furthermore, "junk email reduces the utility of Internet facilities such as email and news, and lessens the attraction of using the Internet," opines Mark Mallett, President of MV Communications, an ISP based in New Hampshire.E He says that "those who view Internet users as prey for their schemes despoil and demean this new medium, stealing far more value than the mere cost of transporting their unwanted messages." The ISP/C has worked with lawmakers to address the issues underlying spam. To date, only Representative Smith's Netizens Protection Act of 1997, H.R. 1748, places the burden of the delivery cost of e-mail advertising where i= t belongs: on the advertiser, by ensuring that consumers will only get advertising which they actually want and agree to receive. The language of the "spam slam" provisions, a section by section outline, introductory statement, and Senator Murkowski's press release are available at: http://www.senate.gov/~murkowski/commercialemail ABOUT THE ISP/C Formed in June of 1996, the ISP/C is an international, not-for-profit trade association composed of individuals and organizations that functions to implement cooperative services to assist ISPs. On behalf of its members, the ISP/C provides a unified voice on legislative issues, vendor relationships and other business issues impacting the operation of an ISP. ISP/C provides a range of services, including hardware, software and support discounts, to ISPs. The group also offers a forum for the maintenance of an open global market for ISPs. Plans include the implementation of lobbying efforts, an online information system, software and equipment discounts, and online and in-person roundtable conferences. For more information about the ISP/C, browse their home page at http://www.ispc.org with a European mirror site at http://www.euro.ispc.org or contact ISP/C Executive Director Deborah Howard through email at deb.howard@ispc.org or by phone at (310) 827-8413. ************************************************************* To unsubscribe, send e-mail to inet-grrls-request@users.link-net.com with the word 'unsubscribe' in the body of the message. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #70 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue May 19 23:11:27 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id XAA23896; Tue, 19 May 1998 23:11:27 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 23:11:27 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199805200311.XAA23896@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #71 TELECOM Digest Tue, 19 May 98 23:10:00 EDT Volume 18 : Issue 71 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Further on BellSouth Mobility, Toll-Free 877, COCOTs (Mark J Cuccia) FCC: Consider the Source! (Judith Oppenheimer) Telecom Update (Canada) #133, May 19, 1998 (Angus TeleManagement) 90# Phone "Scam" Mini FAQ - Read Before Posting About 90# (Billy Newsom) 90# - Even AT&T is Warning About it (Scam or Meme?) (wulf@cerf.net) 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 13:04:22 CDT From: Mark J Cuccia Reply-To: Mark J Cuccia Subject: Further on BellSouth Mobility, Toll-Free 877, COCOTs I tested dialing some 877-nxx-xxxx numbers on Tuesday from my BellSouth Mobility cellular phone: 877-250-0501 _properly_ routed to an AT&T 877 test recording! 877-250-0750 _properly_ routed to a C&W-LD 877 test recording! However, over the weekend, the BellSouth Mobility New Orleans MTSO (NOL) was actually _BLOCKING_ 877-nxx-xxxx. Maybe they had to completely rebuild the translations, so that routing to toll-free SAC 877 could be handled just like routing to SACs 800 and 888 -- i.e. routing the call out to the local wireline LEC (BellSouth Telecommunications in this case) tandem for database-dipping to determine the actual IXC handling that toll-free nxx-xxxx number. I'd been told that the BellSouth Mobility Lafayette LA MTSO and Baton Rouge LA MTSO's also were mis-translating / mis-routing SAC 877 two weeks ago. Last week, I had a chance to roam through the BellSouth Mobility Baton Rouge service area, and SAC 877 was already properly translating/routing. But they finally got SAC 877 properly routing to the local wireline LEC tandem and database. I hope that when the next NANP toll-free SACs (866, 855, 844, 833, 822, and then who knows) are announced for activation that the Wireless entities will _know_ to translate and route them in the proper way, _in advance_. I do understand that there are some billing and business negotiation issues regarding 500-NXX translation and routing from cellular, as well as customer dialing of "CAC" codes 10[1X]XXX+. But I would hope that the wireless entities, as well as the wireline CLECs could situate themselves with other connecting carriers in the same way that the traditional wireline LECs have done so! And BellSouth Mobility has recently had some problems in routing any 'after-hours' calls to customer service, which is advertized as being 24-hours/7-days. And I've had some problems even reaching the _automated_ customer-service menus, to check my bill-balance or last payment posted. However, after talking with the helpful contact I know in Tech-Support in Baton Rouge, I think that these problems have been corrected. As for 877 and COCOT payphones ... There _are_ some COCOTs in the New Orleans area which _do_ have SAC 877 properly loaded into their 'chips'. Global TelCoin recognizes 877 as a valid NANP code, and as _FREE_. This particular vendor has the contract with the New Orleans City government, for payphones in city-owned government buildings, parks, street corners, etc. But since there are not many BellSouth payphones around in the New Orleans area anymore, I haven't had much of a chance to see if _they_ have put toll-FREE 877 into the phones' internal rate/translation chips yet. And BellSouth's Payphone department _still_ needs to load in _other_ US/Domestic-rated new NANP area codes into their COCOT-ized payphones, such as 671 Guam, 670 Marianas, 787 Puerto Rico, 340 US Virgin Islands, etc. for 1+ coin-paid calling. They (and other COCOT-owners) _also_ need to be _more_ up-to-date in loading _other_ new US/Canada NPAs into the 'chips' as such codes approach or go into permissive dialing for 1+ coin-paid, or even _local_ dialing (i.e. Overlay NPA's), and reprogram the chips for 10-digit local dialing in such overlay areas or other permissive 10-D local metro areas! But there are _still_ many COCOTs that don't even know that 888 exists and also is free. But then again, some COCOTs try to charge or block toll-free 800! :( I wonder if the Senate/Congressional inquiry into payphone-owners who gouge the general public is going to ever be able to correct the can of worms that was opened up when COCOTs first came on the scene in the mid 1980's! Frank, Deano and Sammy FOREVER! (Elvis, TOO!) 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, 19 May 1998 10:23:20 -0400 From: Judith Oppenheimer Reply-To: joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com Organization: ICB TOLL FREE NEWS. 15 Day FREE Trial: http://icbtollfree.com Subject: FCC: Consider the Source! New York, NY May 15, 1998 (ICB TOLL FREE NEWS) In Petitions for Reconsideration of the Fourth Report and Order filed with the FCC on April 29 and May 4, various organizations have asked the FCC to do a few right things -- but mostly, glaringly wrong things -- for all the wrong reasons. The Direct Marketing Association (DMA) and the American Car Rental Association (ACRA), filing jointly, asked the FCC to clarify the Order so that "when an incumbent subscriber of a vanity or branded number establishes that another party is hoarding, warehousing, or attempting to broker a complementary toll free number, the subject number must be assigned to the complaining incumbent subscriber." We're not sure what's more astounding, the stupidity, or the brazeness, of this patently self-serving suggestion. The "Toll Free Users Coalition" claims that "the purported inefficiencies associated with the implementation and administration of a right of first refusal [in 877] are either exaggerated or nonexistent." This, while the FCC has just (finally!) issued new instructions to accommodate RespOrgs' and DSMI's complaints about problems administrating right of first refusal in 888. Indeed, RespOrg-MCI was among the first in line beating down the FCC's door, bemoaning the difficulty of administrating 888 first refusal. But subscriber-MCI, seeking a shortcut to its own 877 first refusal rights, asks in its petition, for special treatment of its toll free vanity numbers as "toll free access numbers." And in the same old tired, worn out whine, all three petitions scapegoat "brokers" for all their perceived ills. But MCI's anti-broker stance is the most galling. Complaining specifically about its efforts to replicate 1 800 COLLECT in 877, MCI misleadingly cries, "the Commission should not enable unscrupulous entities to obtain [these] numbers ..." Yet the company that obtained 877 COLLECT has repeatedly rebuffed efforts by MCI to buy the 877 number. In fact, the company intends not to compete with MCI at all, nor sell it the number, but rather to market collection services. Yet no doubt MCI would have the FCC believe that this company's business plans are no more than a devious scheme to stymie poor MCI. As with subscriber-MCI, the DMA, ACRA and "Toll Free Users Coalition" all represent large marketers who only have their prized 800 vanity number collections, because they purchased them in the secondary marketplace, from existing users, to begin with. Common sense would dictate they'd be first in line to support an open marketplace. But its obviously easier to seek permission to steal. We know that fair, equitable (and workable!) solutions to toll free issues have been placed on the table by no less credible entities than the Small Business Administration - entities with no (not so) hidden agendas. In reviewing the various positions in these matters, the FCC Commissioners would be well advised to consider agendas -- and consider the source. Judith Oppenheimer, Publisher ICB TOLL FREE NEWS News & Information Source for Service Providers, & Commercial Users, of Toll Free Service 15-day, no-obligation FREE trial: http://icbtollfree.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 12:25:23 -0400 From: Angus TeleManagement Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #133, May 19, 1998 ************************************************************ * * * TELECOM UPDATE * * Angus TeleManagement's Weekly Telecom Newsbulletin * * http://www.angustel.ca * * Number 133: May 19, 1998 * * * * Publication of Telecom Update is made possible by * * generous financial support from: * * * * Bell Canada ................. http://www.bell.ca/ * * City Dial Network Services .. http://www.citydial.com/ * * Computer Talk Technology .... http://icescape.com/ * * fONOROLA .................... http://www.fonorola.com/ * * Lucent Technologies ......... http://www.lucent.com/ * * * ************************************************************ IN THIS ISSUE: ** Local Business Rates Cut Across Canada ** CRTC Won't Delay Switched Hubbing ** Call-Net Targets $2B in Sales by 2000 ** Four Companies View fONOROLA Data ** BC Tel Considers National, International Growth ** Teleglobe Traffic and Profit Soar ** BCE to Sell UK Telecom Shares ** Optel Registers as CLEC ** Big Week in Wireless New Clearnet Business Services Bell Mobility Announces AirFree Fido Expands in SW Ontario Antenna Build/Lease-Back Program Nortel to Expand Calgary Wireless Plant Microcell Quarterly Results Clearnet Quarterly Results Nortel, Microcell Team for Wireless Data MT&T Mobility Plans Wireless Data Net ** ACC Adds Toll-Free Fridays ** Ericsson Buys PSINet Division ** Shaw Ordered to Stop Wave Ads ** CRTC Probes Competition Start-Up Costs ** MetroNet Plans Service in Edmonton ** 25 Telecom Strategy Reports ============================================================ LOCAL BUSINESS RATES CUT ACROSS CANADA: The CRTC has approved reductions in eight telcos' local business rates, effective May 19 (see Telecom Update #127). The Commission approved proposals by BC Tel, Telus, MT&T, and Island Tel without change, but rejected aspects of the applications by Bell Canada, MTS, NBTel, and NewTel which it said would violate the Price Cap rules. MTS has asked for a stay of implementation in Manitoba, so it can file a different set of price changes. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/telecom/order/1998/o98463_0.txt (BC Tel) http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/telecom/order/1998/o98464_0.txt (Bell) http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/telecom/order/1998/o98465_0.txt (Island Tel) http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/telecom/order/1998/o98466_0.txt (MT&T) http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/telecom/order/1998/o98467_0.txt (MTS) http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/telecom/order/1998/o98468_0.txt (NB Tel) http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/telecom/order/1998/o98469_0.txt (New Tel) http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/telecom/order/1998/o98470_0.txt (Telus) CRTC WON'T DELAY SWITCHED HUBBING: The CRTC has rejected Teleglobe's application for a stay in implementation of the recent "Switched Hubbing" ruling. (See Telecom Update #113, #119, #124) The Cabinet has not yet ruled on Teleglobe's appeal of the same decision. CALL-NET TARGETS $2B IN SALES BY 2000: At the Call-Net annual meeting May 13, CEO Juri Koor said the company's goal is to have annual sales of $2 Billion by the end of 2000. The goal does not include revenue from takeover target Fonorola. ** In the past year, Call-Net subsidiary Sprint Canada's revenue grew 29% and network traffic grew 45% FOUR COMPANIES VIEW FONOROLA DATA: The Financial Post reports that four potential buyers have signed confidentiality agreements with fONOROLA, allowing them to view the carrier's books. ** Call-Net's $1.6 Billion takeover bid for fONOROLA expires at midnight on May 19. BC TEL CONSIDERS NATIONAL, INTERNATIONAL GROWTH: Ian Mansfield, BC Telecom's new Senior Vice-President of Strategic Business Development, will be responsible for "identifying and pursuing growth opportunities for us both nationally and internationally." TELEGLOBE TRAFFIC AND PROFIT SOAR: Teleglobe's first-quarter profit was $39.4 Million, up almost 50% over last year. Total traffic grew 36%, to 804 million minutes. BCE TO SELL UK TELECOM SHARES: BCE says it will sell its 14% share in Cable & Wireless Communications. The expected $2 Billion in proceeds will finance growth in Canada. OPTEL REGISTERS AS CLEC: Toronto-based Optel Communications has registered with the CRTC as a Competitive Local Exchange Carrier. BIG WEEK IN WIRELESS: Canada's wireless industry gathers this week at the Canadian Wireless 1998 conference and trade show in Toronto. (See http://www.cwta.ca/events.htm for details.) That may be why there have been so many wireless announcements in the past week. ** Clearnet has announced two PCS packages for business customers: Work ($60/month, 300 minutes) and Work-a-Lot ($120/month, 600 minutes). Both include free weekends and free voice mail. ** Companies with toll-free numbers can subscribe to Bell Mobility's "AirFree" service, allowing cellular callers to dial the number at no charge. ** Microcell's Fido PCS service is now available in Guelph, Kitchener-Waterloo, Cambridge, and Brantford. ** Oakville, Ontario-based LeBlanc Group is offering Canada's first Build to Suit and Lease Back programs for wireless sites and towers. ** Nortel is adding a research laboratory to its wireless plant in Calgary. ** Microcell's first quarter revenue was $18.0 Million, compared to $1.7 Million last year. ** Clearnet's first quarter revenue was $40.2 Million, compared to $13.7 Million last year. ** Nortel and Microcell plan to create a new joint venture to offer "value-added data services" to wireless companies around the world. ** MT&T Mobility is spending $4.25 Million to build a Cellular Digital Packet Data network. Service will begin in Cape Breton in July, and in Halifax in August. First customer is the RCMP. ACC ADDS TOLL-FREE FRIDAYS: Business customers who have signed up for ACC TelEnterprises' "Free Fridays" program can now add "Toll-Free Fridays," and receive free inbound calling on Fridays for the rest of 1998. ERICSSON BUYS PSINET DIVISION: Ericsson Communications has acquired the PSINet Professional Services Group (formerly part of Istar). Ericsson says the group, with offices in Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Toronto, and Ottawa, will spearhead its entry into the Internet services industry. SHAW ORDERED TO STOP WAVE ADS: Responding to a complaint by Calgary Internet provider CadVision, the CRTC has ordered Shaw Communications to stop using free ad slots on cable specialty channels to promote its Wave Internet service. (See Telecom Update #102) CRTC PROBES COMPETITION START-UP COSTS: CRTC Public Notice 98-10 seeks comment on how the telcos should be reimbursed for costs related to the introduction of local competition. To participate, notify the CRTC by June 1. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/telecom/notice/1998/p9810_0.txt METRONET PLANS SERVICE IN EDMONTON: MetroNet Communications says it will offer local telephone services in Edmonton as soon as possible after the CRTC-approved date of July 1 for beginning local competition there. (See Telecom Update #132) 25 TELECOM STRATEGY REPORTS: Until June 30, new subscribers to Telemanagement will receive a free copy of "Telecom Strategies Today: 25 Reports for Canadian Decision Makers," a collection of recent Telemanagement articles. ** For more information about this Bonus offer, visit http://www.angustel.ca/teleman/tm-sub.html or call 1-800- 263-4415, ext 500. ============================================================ HOW TO SUBMIT ITEMS FOR TELECOM UPDATE E-MAIL: editors@angustel.ca FAX: 905-686-2655 MAIL: TELECOM UPDATE Angus TeleManagement Group 8 Old Kingston Road Ajax, Ontario Canada L1T 2Z7 =========================================================== HOW TO SUBSCRIBE (OR UNSUBSCRIBE) TELECOM UPDATE is provided in electronic form only. There are two formats available: 1. The fully-formatted edition is posted on the World Wide Web on the first business day of the week. Point your browser to http://www.angustel.ca/update/up.html 2. The e-mail edition is distributed free of charge. To subscribe, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should contain only the two words: subscribe update To stop receiving the e-mail edition, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should say only: unsubscribe update [Your e-mail address] =========================================================== COPYRIGHT AND DISCLAIMER: All contents copyright 1998 Angus TeleManagement Group Inc. All rights reserved. For further information, including permission to reprint or reproduce, please e-mail rosita@angustel.ca or phone 905-686-5050 ext 225. The information and data included has been obtained from sources which we believe to be reliable, but Angus TeleManagement makes no warranties or representations whatsoever regarding accuracy, completeness, or adequacy. Opinions expressed are based on interpretation of available information, and are subject to change. If expert advice on the subject matter is required, the services of a competent professional should be obtained. ------------------------------ From: Billy Newsom Subject: 90# Phone "Scam" Mini FAQ - Read Before Posting About 90# Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 12:33:07 -0500 Organization: http://www.motherboards.org/ First off, the "90# scam" you heard about, as written, simply poses no danger. It's bogus. It's an urban legend. There is no phone system in the world that, by pressing 90#, will give a person on the other end a long distance operator. Almost end of story. There are only three questions answered in this mini FAQ. 1. "Does the 90# scam apply to me?" 2. "How do I know if my PBX is safe?" 3. "How do I know if something is an urban legend?" There are hundreds of different phone systems, PBX's, and key systems in the world. And rarely do they share the same functions. 1a. However, practically all residential and basic business lines are identical. So before speaking about the more difficult business systems, I will answer the oft-asked question, "Does the 90# scam apply to me," first for people with normal phone service (POTS). Absolutely not. Ignore this warning. 1b. Now, "Does the 90# scam apply to me," for people with a PBX, Centrex, or key system? Maybe. If you are a large enough company to have an honest-to-God telecommunications specialist (i.e. more than a switchboard operator), then your company has probably been made safe from the most common of telecom scams. Most modern PBX's will have the ability to restrict an accidental transfer of an outside line to another outside line. This ability must be enabled in software, but it should be enabled by default. Next, if you belong to a small company, and no one there knows jack about telecom, then you are a prime target for this type of telecom fraud. Here's how the scam REALLY works. A person calls the switchboard operator, makes some excuse, and has her place him on hold (by pressing "hold" or "transfer"), then she dials "90" (or "900"), and finally she presses "transfer." At least this would be the most common of scams on the most common of PBX systems. Now even a first-day switchboard operator should know that this procedure transfers the caller to a long distance operator. The scam is to invent some stupid excuse that makes the switchboard operator think that this transfer is okay in this instance. An alternate scheme that works on some PBX's is that while a caller is on the phone, an operator can get the dial tone of a second line. At this point, dialing 90# and hanging up (pressing "release") will indeed give the caller the long distance operator. The "#" key is rarely (never?) the same as a transfer. In most cases, the "#" key merely speeds up a dialing sequence. e.g. If I wanted to dial "911" the quickest way possible, I would dial "9" for an outside line, then "911#." The "#" tells many PBX's not to wait for any more digits so there's not a 5 to 10 second delay. (On my PBX, dialing "911" or "9911" will both give someone the emergency operator, but this was an example.) Therefore, you can see why a person might want to use the # key whenever dialing the operator, e.g. 90# or 900#. On a phone company business system with extra features (Southwestern Bell calls it "Plexar," Ameritech and Pac Bell call it "Centrex," and GTE calls it "CentraNet" for example), the scam will go something like this. A person calls and has the switchboard operator hit the switch hook, dial 90, 90#, 900, or 900#, and then do a double switch hook. This feature is rarely enabled, but it should work for some business lines. This feature is part of three-way calling and transfer, but it is not a feature that comes with most business packages. When your company signs up for this feature, you will almost certainly be warned that it makes scams of this nature a serious possibility. Anyway, there are a lot of ways to scam people. "90#" is not a scam, it is AN URBAN LEGEND that started when someone removed the important parts of an actual scam. I have seen people conclude that since the warning comes from a phone company representative or the police that this scam is REAL. It is not. Stop saying that it is; you are part of the scam if you do. If you don't know by now, I'll tell you what never to do. Never give someone an outside line unless you know who they are -- by sight and by voice. Don't wait for some idiot to say "90#" and you go "ah, hah! Good thing I read that warning." That time will never come. Should I even mention the way most companies lose money every day? It's by your cow orkers who intimately know the phone system and place long distance calls to their husband/wife/friend while on their lunch break. If you're going to pass-on a telephone scam warning, pass on a warning of what to do and what not to do. Never trust someone you don't know. Always train your employees. Hire a full-time telecom manager. Hire a telecom manager for a week to figure out where your company is vulnerable. Make your local phone company's business account manager pay you a visit and give you a tour of your phone system. Make him hand out the REAL scam warnings. Sign up to get the scam newsletters, and post them on the wall next to your Coke machine. Don't leave managers' offices accessible. And finally, don't give someone an outside line. I mean, duh! But the next time someone calls you at work, press 90#. I dare you. The person on the other line will say, "Hey, I'm still here, what the hell are you doing?" 2. "How do I know if my PBX is safe?" Well, gee, test it! First, see if the switchboard can pick up the phone and dial 900#. If you hear "do-do-do AT&T" and/or some other common carrier, then she has the ability to call the international operator. Try 90# for the long distance operator. Now see if a trunk-to-trunk transfer is possible. Go to an empty office and call the switchboard as if you're not in the office (like 9, 444-1000). Tell her to transfer you to an outside line, like 9,1411 or 9,0. Try it with her getting a dial tone (second line) while you're listening. Then try it with you on hold and her hitting "transfer" for you. If you get connected, then you're vulnerable. If your system is vulnerable, you have three things you can do: a. Tell the boss. b. Tell your boneheaded telecom dude that he's an idiot, and he needs to restrict trunk-to-trunk transfers. c. Tell the switchboard operator not to be stupid by transferring people like she just did for you. 3. "How do I know if something is an urban legend?" This one is easy. If it says, "pass this message along to everyone you know, and by the way, this is not an urban legend," then it is definitely an urban legend. Same old, same old links about this urban legend: http://urbanlegends.miningco.com/library/weekly/aa021898.htm http://www.att.com/features/0398/90pound.html The places you should go for actual answers: http://hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/ NEWS:comp.dcom.telecom NEWS:comp.dcom.telecom.tech The places where you can learn how to really scam people: NEWS:alt.2600 NEWS:alt.2600.phreakz NEWS:alt.phreaking ************************* * 90# Mini-FAQ Rev. 1.0 * * 5/16/98 * ************************* Billy "press 90 if you've heard this before, but..." Newsom [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But ... continue reading. In the next message we are told that even AT&T is warning its customers. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 12:22:58 -0700 From: Wulf Subject: 90# - Even AT&T is Warning About it (Scam or Meme?) Pat: I was skeptical of the 90# scam, too. Having received it over several mailing lists over the past couple of months, I assumed it was just another meme. However, I just received yet another copy of the 90# warning with an AT&T html reference as verification of its authenticity (!). http://www.att.com/features/0398/90pound.html Notice that they don't say which PBXs are vulnerable -- or even if it is a real threat ... Best Regards, Wulf [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I got more mail after running the original item here yesterday from people who said it had happened in their company, etc. One person who requested 'not for publication' said that at the university where he is employed, the PBX extension in the school's bookstore got hit seven or eight times in one night alone, with calls to Europe as a result. Isn't the real answer here to make sure everyone understands that when your phone rings, *you* take control of the call; not the goofus calling on the other end. If you don't like or feel uncomfortable about the requests they are making, then make a few recommendations of your own ... using whatever terminology or phrases you think they will best understand ... try not to be too rude, crude, or lewd about it. PAT[ ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #71 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed May 20 09:20:05 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA12814; Wed, 20 May 1998 09:20:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 09:20:05 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199805201320.JAA12814@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #72 TELECOM Digest Wed, 20 May 98 09:20:00 EDT Volume 18 : Issue 72 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Nationwide Paging Goes Out (Ron Schnell) Another Big Bird Fails: PanAmSat Press Release (James Bellaire) Pager/Satellite Outage (Monty Solomon) Re: 911 Call Processing Problems (Eric Hildum) Bill to Legalize Spam!! Ack! (Babu Mengelepouti) Re: 90#... Is There Truth to This? (David Willingham) Re: 90#... Is There Truth to This? (Edward T. Hopper) A Very Dark Day For Microsoft (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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 00:02:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Ron Schnell Subject: Nationwide Paging Goes Out As you may not know, the Hughes 605 satellite Galaxy-4 became inoperable at 1810 EDT Tuesday. I was watching it when it went dead! Anyway, telecom readers should know that around 90% of nationwide paging is out-of-service because of this failure. Unfortunately, people with these pagers probably don't even know about it because pagers don't actively look for signals, of course. Anyway, I thought it would be a good idea to get the message out to Digest readers. #Ron ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 05:30:09 -0500 From: James Bellaire Subject: Another Big Bird Fails: PanAmSat Press Release STATEMENT BY ROBERT BEDNAREK SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER 20 MAY 1998, 12:15 A.M. EASTERN TIME Regarding the Galaxy IV domestic U.S. communications satellite. "At approximately 6:00 p.m. Eastern time on May 19, the Galaxy IV satellite experienced an anomaly within its on-board spacecraft control processor (SCP), the primary system responsible for pointing the spacecraft relative to earth. The automatic switch to a backup unit failed as well. As a result of the SCP anomalies, the satellite began to rotate, thereby losing its fixed orientation. While PanAmSat is able to receive telemetry from and send commands to the satellite, full operation of the satellite's attitude control system has not been achieved at this time. PanAmSat has deactivated the communications payload at this time to conserve power. The satellite is in a stable, safe mode, and engineers at Hughes Space and Communications Co., which built the spacecraft, are examining all pertinent data to determine the causes of and potential solutions to the anomalies. "PanAmSat has advised its Galaxy IV customers that the satellite will remain out of service until Wednesday morning at the earliest. We are helping customers with short-term restoration plans for their satellite transmission requirements. In addition, given the size and flexibility of PanAmSat's global satellite network, we are examining long-term options in the event that we cannot reactivate the satellite, including the use of available capacity on other PanAmSat spacecraft with domestic U.S. coverage. "PanAmSat is deploying all possible resources within our company and the satellite communications industry to ensure continuous, high-quality transmissions for their video and telecommunications services." --end quote-- Telstar 401 failed January 1997 - now we lost another big bird. At least this time they still have contact with the satellite, Telstar 401 went dark and they lost control completely. On a humorous note, one of the networks at our radio station was on that satellite. They tried to send a failure notice over the network to let us know that it had gone down. (Eventually they faxed us a printout of the message ... Duhhh.) The news is reporting 90% of pagers out due to this one bird. James Bellaire ------------------------------ Subject: Pager/Satellite Outage Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 08:44:26 -0400 From: Monty Solomon http://cnn.com/TECH/space/9805/20/satellite.outage/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 15:09:00 +0900 From: Eric Hildum Organization: NCR Japan Subject: Re: 911 Call Processing Problems It is possible to configure the trunks on the Meridian to outpulse the ANI information (i.e. send the calling parties number); however, you will need to have an MF sender service pack in the system. Also, the configuration is really, really tricky - I set it up once about ten years ago when I was testing the Meridian 1 trunking during development - a year later when trying to duplicate a problem, I could not get (remember) the correct configuration. You will of course need the network side setup to receive the additional digits properly. Good luck - you will need it. On the other hand, you could simply capture the CDR data into a text file on a PC, and review it after the next call - but you will likely find that the call is made from a randomly chosen telephone. Elaine McMillan wrote: > We are experiencing difficulties with 911 calls, and post the following > information in the hope that someone has a solution: > Our setup: > > Two Nortel Option 11Cs, at sites approximately 50km apart > (Vanterm and Deltaport). The two PBXs are served by Meridian Mail > located at Vanterm, and are linked together by a BC Tel Megaroute. > All calls to Deltaport come in through Vanterm and are passed through > to Deltaport. At this time, most of Deltaport's outgoing calls also > go out through Vanterm (to take advantage of Vanterm's larger free > calling area). In addition, the Megaroute carries 2 x BRI sessions to > link our computers together. > > Deltaport also has three outgoing only business trunks to carry our > emergency calls, including 911 and security system. These trunks were > installed because if we passed our emergency calls out through Vanterm, > 911 would see an incorrect address and would transfer to the wrong > police/fire/ambulance despatchers. > > Our problem: > > In the past several months, we have had a number of 911 calls > placed at Deltaport. When the call is received at 911, the caller > hangs up. 911 cannot call back to the number they are passed (our > outgoing trunks) so they always dispatch someone. To date, there has > NEVER been a real emergency related to these calls. The local police > are concerned, as are we. We have discussed different solutions with > BC Tel, 911 and with the Delta police: > > 1. Change the emergency calls to two way trunks, and have them > terminate on someone's phone. Pro: would allow for call back. Con: > Deltaport is a 7x24 operation and there is no phone manned 7x24. A > call back may not reach anyone. > > 2. BC Tel suggested we have 911 or Delta police put a callback number > in their records; both 911 and Delta advise it is not possible to add > comments to the information which comes up on their screens. > > 3. Install a CDR system. Pro: calls definitely traceable. Con: > someone needs access to the CDR printout, and with a 7x24 operation, > there may not be someone on site with access to the PBX room in the > Admin building (and we don't want to allow total access there anyway). > > What I would REALLY like is a system (third party?) that would pass out > the local number instead of the main number (ie 251-9281 instead of > 251-9200) to the telephone network. > > Any ideas would be very much appreciated. > > Elaine McMillan > PC & Network Coordinator > Information Systems Department > TSI Terminal Systems Inc. > Vancouver, B.C., Canada Eric Hildum Eric.Hildum@Japan.NCR.COM ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 20:47:08 -0700 From: Babu Mengelepouti Reply-To: dialtone@vcn.bc.ca Organization: US Secret Service Subject: Bill to Legalize Sspam!! Ack! Forwarded Message -- From: mea culpa To: DC-Stuff Subject: Draft announcement (fwd) Reply-To: mea culpa X-Copyright: This message is Copyright all rights reserved unless expressly limited ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 18:37:40 -0400 Last week Senator Murkowski attached an amendment to an anti-telephone-slamming bill (S1618) which effectively legalises spamming, legitimizes misleading subject lines in spam and doesn't require spammers to remove you from their mailing lists. Senator Tauzin then entered an identical bill into the house as HR3888. Here's what some spammers have to say about it: "The antis did not believe me when I told them the new laws were the best thing to happen for us. Now I can say " I told you so" "Goodbye antis......You Lose !! " "And the first thing Im going to do is send Opportunities LEGALLY to every ANTI I can. And I will say this is a one time only mailing and give them a removal option. Then I will change to another account and another and continue. Its gonna be legal to do that. I'm gonna have a blast. And the minute they try to get one of my accounts pulled I will sue them for trying to stop me from legally mailing. " "You can certainly pop from account to account sending UCE to people who have asked to be removed (from a prior account, technically)...." "Thank you Senators Murkowski and Torricelli, This clearly is a victory against the Anti's. We will now have the Freedom of speech that is our right. They have given us the green light to send to whom ever and when ever we want. Business interests will always be first and foremost. We have proven that the anti's are truely powerless and just full of words. Action and money are what talks. Two Senators with vision have shown what True POWER is. " Senator Murkowski claimed whilst entering the amendment that it was substantially the same as his original proposal (S771). In fact, the amendment is much closer to Tauzins original proposal (HR2368) - the bill that the Electronic Privacy Information Center described as "worse than the status quo, it incorporates the worst features of the Internet, such as spam and invasion of privacy, and basically legalizes them." It does not require spammers to label each spam with the word 'Advertisement', as some have claimed. It does not require a legitimate return address in the headers of spam. It does not forbid misleading or forged subject lines. It does provide a legal basis to prevent ISPs closing spammers accounts. If an ISP cannot shutdown the email account a spammer uses to receive orders it will become much more profitable to spam. If these bills become law then spamming will become much worse. Already nearly $2 of every home internet users bill is due to spam and this bill will make it worse. Both these bills are being rushed through the legislative process, and stand a very good chance of making it into law. Contact your representatives office on Monday, and make sure they understand your views on these bills. You can find contact information for your representatives at http://www.voxpop.org/zipper/ ------------------------------ Date: 19 May 1998 03:14:48 GMT From: we202c3f@aol.com (WE202C3F) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: 90#... Is There Truth to This? John-- According to the ATT website, their warning only applies to businesses with pbx's; of course the same warning should apply to centrex, but it would seem to be the sequence Flash [for transfer] then 9 00 # which would transfer the caller to a long distance operator. Incidentally the prisons I work in have the coinless phones that do not allow any calls local or otherwise to be other than collect; and at least one of my customers fell for the Flash 9 00 # scam on her 2631 Call Director connected to centrex., and received a sizeable bill for a call to France. WE202C3F@aol.com (david willingham) ------------------------------ From: Edward T. Hopper Subject: Re: 90#... Is There Truth to This? Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 05:55:30 GMT Organization: @Home Network John Mayson wrote: > I received a telephone call from an individual identifying himself as > an AT&T Service Technician that was running a test on our telephone > lines. He stated that to complete the test we should touch nine (9), > zero (0), pound sign (#) and hang up. Luckily, we were suspicious and > refused. [blah... blah... blah deleted] > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I get this same item in email once or > twice a week; I just happened to pick the one from John Mayson to be > included in this issue. In almost every case, the writer insists it > happened to him, that he was suspicious and did not comply with the > request, and that furthermore, the telephone company along with GTE > Security advised that pressing 90# was a Bad Thing to do. Based on > all the suspicious people who refused to follow this request, all > I can say is it must be a very persistent bunch of prisoners. > Is it true or false? Well, no doubt there is some phone system > somewhere which responds in the way indicated, but I don't know which > one it would be. It certainly is not a common characteristic; and I [more stuff deleted] A couple of quick points on this Pat. One, it is persistent as hell, sort of like the "Good Times" virus, but with at least some truth to it. I actually got this same message in internal AT&T corporate email from our organizations MIS group. (Why the hell are we calling *GTE* security, I asked myself. Then I figured out it was another moderately gullible individual who followed the command "Email this to everyone you can!" hysteria in the message.) At any rate, I seem to recall that the *console* on a WECO Dimension PBX (late 70's to early 80's Bell System product) would work like this. In fact, all you had to do was press "start", then "9" at the console and then "release" and the user had a line. Additionally, as I recall, (and it almost hurts to think back that far) there was also a "trunk to trunk" transfer option that was rarely enabled that did allow users to connect completed calls. In that situation, the "90#" would, indeed, work. However, the default option settings for TTTT were to leave it turned off. I do recall explicitly turning it on for one customer who wanted it. I guess these geeks who are trying to do this (if there really are any), may be hoping to hit systems with similar features that are turned on. Ed Hopper ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 00:04:50 EDT From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft So, the United States Department of Injustice, along with political hacks in about a dozen or so states all ganged up on Microsoft at one time on Monday, demanding 'fairness'. Let me see if I understand what it is that Netscape wants: they did have about 90-95 percent of the browser market (but in their case we do not refer to that as a monopoly), and now in the past couple years they only have about 60 percent of the market, with Microsoft having about 35 percent. There is nothing wrong if Netscape has 90 percent of the market, but Microsoft is being greedy now that they have 35 percent of it, thanks to a marketing strategy that people must love; after all Microsoft Windows has about 80 percent of the market in operating systems thanks to their usually spectacular work. Since according to Netscape and their friends in the Department of Injustice most Americans are too dumb to know how to install a browser or otherwise manipulate their software and operating systems to run as they want them to, we all have to be saved from ourselves and shown the error in our thinking if we prefer Internet Explorer 4.0 over Netscape. Netscape feels their browser should be included as part of the package Microsoft sells because that will be the only way that people will be able to use it. Bill Gates in a press conference on Monday explained it quite well: Coca-Cola must be required to include three cans of Pepsi in every six pack they sell. Coca-Cola should be required to leave out a couple of the ingredients in their beverage so that it does not taste quite as good and Pepsi will be able to sell more of their beverage instead. So now, those of us who were looking forward eagerly to obtaining Windows 98 probably won't be able to get it in any timely fashion since Netscape, via their cronies in the Injustice Department, will do everything they can to prevent its release until it either has been totally re-written to be less than useless or they get their browser included as well. Oh, and Netscape and Janet Reno would also like you to know that you are probably much too dumb to figure out how to use the little programs called 'sysedit' and 'regedit' to change things around so that the computer boots up in the way you want it to run. Yeah, and when I walk down to the 7/Eleven about two o'clock in the morning to get my nourishment for the day, I probably won't be able to find the cooler with Pepsi products in it either, so better put them automatically in with Coke and force me to take a few of each. It will only be for my own good, you know. This whole battle is beginning to stink to high heaven. The stench is overpowering. I wish Bill Gates the very best of luck and hope that he at least comes out of this with the shirt on his back, but knowing the unlimited resources the public serpents have at their disposal and how they will fight and fight and fight no matter how unfounded their cause, its likely they will not quit until they have bankrupted Microsoft and completely rendered Windows 98 useless. Gates and Microsoft are really getting a raw deal, but what else is the federal government good for these days except harassing and trying to control its citizens.Robbery and muggings are crimes in this country, except when Janet Reno does it, and then it is supposed to be okay. PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #72 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu May 21 23:28:16 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id XAA22774; Thu, 21 May 1998 23:28:16 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 23:28:16 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199805220328.XAA22774@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #74 TELECOM Digest Thu, 21 May 98 23:28:00 EDT Volume 18 : Issue 74 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft (Bennett Todd) Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft (R V Head) Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft (Guy Martin) Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft (Greg Herlein) Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft (Craig Milo Rogers) Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft (jmz@southwind.net) Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft (Michael A. Covington) Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft (Yippy Barkalot) Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft (David Jensen) Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft (bigbad@abcdefg.texas.net) Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft (Linc Madison) Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft (James Bellaire) Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft (Steven Carter) Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft (John R. Levine) Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft (Barry Margolin) Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft (Anthony Argyriou) Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft (Wulf Losee) Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft (John Meissen) Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft (Ron Schnell) Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft (Billy Newsom) Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft (Randy Miller) Microsoft Deserves EVERYTHING it Gets, and in Spades (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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: bet@network.rahul.net (Bennett Todd) Subject: Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 19:36:18 GMT Moderator said: > [...] I wish Bill Gates the very best of luck and hope that he at least comes > out of this with the shirt on his back, but knowing the unlimited resources > the public serpents have at their disposal and how they will fight and fight > and fight no matter how unfounded their cause, its likely they will not quit > until they have bankrupted Microsoft [...] Sadly, I fear you greatly overstate matters; Microsoft will hold out for their right to require hardware manufacturers to bundle MS apps as long as they think they can get away with it, and if the gov't should actually manage to keep the pressure up (I'm not optimistic) they'll yield a very little bit, temporarily, and it'll all blow over. Would that MS did go under, but I think that's more than anyone can hope for. > [...] and completely rendered Windows 98 useless. Too late, the gov't 'll have to get in line behind Microsoft for a shot at doing that. Given the steady, monotonic progression, I don't expect Windows 98 to be able to boot and run on anything less than a PII-300 w/ 256MB SDRAM, and to crash all by itself after an average of about 5 minutes. -Bennett Your mouse pointer has moved --- reboot system to make change take effect? (yes/no) [y]: ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 19:37:36 -0500 Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V18 #72 From: rvhead@juno.com (R v Head) > So, the United States Department of Injustice, along with political > hacks in about a dozen or so states all ganged up on Microsoft at one > time on Monday, demanding 'fairness'. > Let me see if I understand what it is that Netscape wants: they did > have about 90-95 percent of the browser market (but in their case we do > not refer to that as a monopoly), and now in the past couple years they only > have about 60 percent of the market, with Microsoft having about 35 > percent. Netscape owned the browser market a few years back because Marc Andreesen INVENTED the Web browser. Microsoft currently owns the GUI marketplace because Microsoft STOLE the GUI interface. > There is nothing wrong if Netscape has 90 percent of the market, but > Microsoft is being greedy now that they have 35 percent of it, thanks to > a marketing >strategy that people must love; after all Microsoft Windows > has about 80 percent of the market in operating systems thanks to their > usually spectacular work. I downloaded a W95 "fix" from the Microsoft web site a while back and installed it. As near as I can tell, the ONLY function this "fix" served was to DISABLE Corel WordPerfect. It is not illegal to have a monopoly in America today. It IS illegal to take advantage of that monopoly to muscle into ANOTHER market. Microsoft has been abusing its market dominance for a very long time. They have dearly earned every bit of opprobrium I have heard directed at them. Those contracts which prohibited OEMS from including Netscape on their machines as a condition of licensing W95? Those are technically known as "contracts in restraint of trade" and they have been illegal in this country since the days of Teddy Roosevelt. Billy Gates is finally getting his comeuppance, and it's high time. > Since according to Netscape and their friends in the Department of > Injustice most Americans are too dumb to know how to install a browser or > otherwise manipulate their software and operating systems to run as they > want them to, we all have to be saved from ourselves and shown the error > in our thinking if we prefer Internet Explorer 4.0 over Netscape. OEMS were PROHIBITED from including Netscape on their machines, according to the reports I've heard. Exactly why Bill Gates would set out to destroy Netscape remains a mystery to me, as Navigator has ALWAYS been a free download for personal use ... > Bill Gates in a press conference on Monday explained it quite well: > Coca-Cola must be required to include three cans of Pepsi in every six > pack they sell. Coca-Cola should be required to leave out a couple of > the ingredients in their beverage so that it does not taste quite as good > and Pepsi will be able to sell >more of their beverage instead. This is not quite apposite. A better analogy would be if 90% of the televisions in the world were designed so as to tune to MSNBC for thirty seconds every time they were turned on. Sure, you COULD change the channel settings so as to tune to The Romance Channel or some such, but only by opening your set up and voiding your warranty. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 17:51:50 -0700 From: guym@kotah.Eng.Sun.COM (Guy Martin) Subject: Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft Pat, Come on, you are being so transparent. We all know that MS and BillG have helped out the TD in the past, but do you have to be such a complete homer for them? I work at Sun, but I'm open enough to realize that my employer doesn't always do all the right things. However, MS has been caught numerous times with their hand in the cookie jar with regards to predatory and anti-competitive practices (especially with regard to their preloading deals with computer manufacturers). *THAT* is really what this suit is about, but as you correctly pointed out, Justice is taking the incorrect tack by asking that MS be forced to package Netscape. As much as I really dislike Bill Gates from a technology and moral perspective, he is correct that he shouldn't be forced to bundle Netscape with his product, but he *should* be forced to *not* bundle IE (or Ayeeeeee as a friend calls it), so that consumers can have a choice. Also, as much as you and I want to believe otherwise, consumers are generally a stupid lot, so they'll use whatever browser comes on their system, without a second thought. This is what is at the heart of the anti-competitive part of this suit. I've been reading TD since I was in college, and generally, I respect your opinions and postings, but your painting of "poor BillG and MS", and "poor users waiting for Win98" just makes me violently ill. You should at least try to maintain some form of objectivity in this forum. Please. Sincerely, Guy Martin ------------------------------ From: Greg Herlein Subject: Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft Date: 22 May 1998 00:07:01 GMT Organization: Slip.Net (http://www.slip.net) Reply-To: gherlein@slip.net Well, there is another point of view on this matter. There are many people, myslef included, that believe that Microsoft has definitely not played fair over the years - to the point of breaking the law, most likely. We'll see if this latest round of allegations will sustain the light of day. But let's look for a minute at the big picture, at least as I recollect it. Remember DR DOS? It was a "better DOS than DOS" and lots of us loved it. Gee, Windows would not run on it. Independant sources verified that Windows was using some nefaripous hooks to make sure it failed on DR DOS. Sure, MS posted a fix ... after the damage was done in the minds of many. Remember Stack? It was a great disk compression technology. MS "innovated" and added it to DOS. Of course, they flat stole the technology, as was proved in court when Stack sued them (they won, by the way). But where are they now? What about the webserver issues? O'Reilly and Associates hired some NT experts who independantly confirmed that the only difference between NT Workstation and NT Server was some registry settings - its the same code base. NT Server costs about $1000 more, and oh yeah, it just happens to allow unlimited TCP/IP incoming connections. THe Workstation has a limit of so many per hour ... and NT comes bundled with MS's web server. Why buy the lower cost NT Server and a low cost web server sold by O'Reilly when you get limited connects? Geesh, just buy NT Server and get the free web browser anyway ... Well, free only becasue MS cripples the workstation and effectively subsidizes the web srver with their OS sales. Granted, MS did remove the TCP/IP connect limitation, but it is still in their license the last I heard. Of course, I was out of the US for last year, and never did hear the ultimate resolution, but the actions they took stand, despite the outcome. This latest string of allegations seems to me to be in keeping with the long history of MS. There are rumours and allegations all over the place, and no one can be sure yet what is truth and what is not ... because certainly Sun and Netscape have plenty of incentive to blacken MS's eye. We could talk about Java, the integration of IE into the desktop, what MS did regarding contracts, etc ... but all that will come out in the court case. The bottom line is that there seems to be some evidence that MS did some shifty business. Historically, there is evidence to suggest that MS is willing to go very far to succeed -- even to the point of theft (aka Stack disk compression). So, charges were filed. The evidence is presently being aired in the press, but has yet to see the courtroom. We'll all see, in due time. It's certainly fascinating, and all the players have something to gain - but the issues run very very deep - and will affect all of us that make our livings in high technology. I'm disappointed, Pat, that you so totally take the position of MS. Through the last few years that I've been lurking in this group, off and on, I've taken you to be a voice of intelligent moderation. This is a subject that deserves thoughtful discourse - not blind wolf-pack behavior. I'll gladly take flames by email - because this doesn't have all that much to do with comp.dcom.telecom. Greg Herlein 415-519-3650 Voice Herlein Engineering 415-440-9015 Fax www.herlein.com Software Development - Data Acquisition - Networking Wireless - Unix - Linux - Solaris - Embedded Systems ------------------------------ From: Craig Milo Rogers Subject: Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 10:11:16 -0700 Historical note: Actually, the government *did* require Coca-Cola to leave out an important ingredient, the one that perhaps, at the time, contributed the most to that "good" feeling that Coca-Cola drinkers enjoyed and had come to expect. I'm referring, of course, to cocaine, the "coca" in the name "Coca-Cola". So, from a historical perspective, Bill Gate's choice of Coca-Cola actually supports the government's position. I find it peculiar that Bill Gates would use such a flawed metaphor. Craig Milo Rogers [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are quite correct about Coca-Cola's ingredients in the early years of this century. Cocaine was the big thing back then, in an era when drug use in the USA was treated a lot more differently than it is now. Hey you know, that gives me an idea for marketing Windows 98: Maybe with every sale they could include a coupon redeemable for a free nickle bag of some good stuff to smoke. ... PAT] ------------------------------ From: jmz@southwind.net Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 01:24:03 +0000 Reply-To: jmz@southwind.net Organization: None Subject: Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft I must respectfully disagree with your post in regard to Microsoft. Microsoft has willfully pursued a course of legal brinkmanship with regard to antitrust law and only court decisions will determine on which side of the fine line they have wound up. There is no doubt Microsoft is not just a tough competitor who has fought a clean,hard fight but has done everything plausibly possible under the law and more to leverage his early lottery-win IBM OS deal into hegemony. If you doubt this,just pick up a copy of Computer Shopper and try to buy a PC with non-Microsoft OS installed.I did this as an experiment and while the smaller mom-and-pop clone shops would sell me a machine without MS OS, any supplier large enough to have a complete full color page ad and a pretense of a brand name on the box would not do as much as that. No vendor would ship a machine with a non-Microsoft OS loaded and running. The PC vendors have built themselves a multibillion-dollar industry where Microsoft has openly privatized the profits and commonized the costs of OS development.I could not bring myself to feel any sympathy whatever if the whole house of cards were to implode on them tomorrow or at any future time. I am not a conspiracy theorist and won't speculate as to why the industry did what it did,except to say that you may ask yourself just who benefits from this evolutionary,or devolutionary,path. Of course, I'm prejudiced. I don't like Microsoft. I don't like Microsoft's products,their performance,usability,reliability,their marketing policies,and I do not allow them in my house.If you feel Microsoft products are good,I have no desire to interfere with your using them.Microsoft has made it as difficult as possible for users not to use them and I repudiate the notion that Bill Gates is any kind of hero,much less a character from "Atlas Shrugged" (a pompous Russian work of fiction,anyway). Should Microsoft be required to include a competitor's product? No. Microsoft should be required to sell its products at an equal and open pricing structure,should be prohibited from using undocumented OS calls in its application software,and should be required to offer only a standard software media load to all OEM customers or allow them to use whatever additional startup software they want. Furthermore,Microsoft is absolutely in breach of their contract with Sun to offer Java under Sun's terms (which Microsoft agreed to) and should be faced with the most punitive sanctions the law provides for.I also suspect Caldera's suit is equally valid and if found so,again,I hope they get it hard. Finally,as far as any misplaced sympathy which may be had for Microsoft CEO Gates: If he really thinks he's Atlas (or Roark or Galt):Shrug, baby, shrug. By all means,tell him to cash out his MSFT shares,buy an island and a nuclear sub and a SR-71 and party in style.He has my very best wishes should he choose this path.I would have done so long ago and if the litigation against Microsoft gets him to do so I will have no complaints regardless of the short-term consequences. ------------------------------ From: Michael A. Covington Subject: Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 10:44:05 -0400 > Let me see if I understand what it is that Netscape wants: they did have > about 90-95 percent of the browser market (but in their case we do not > refer to that as a monopoly), and now in the past couple years they only > have about 60 percent of the market, with Microsoft having about 35 > percent. WELL SAID, ESTEEMED COLLEAGUE! The breakup of "Microsoft's monopoly" is, as I see it, a smokescreen to defend Netscape's monopoly. The Internet has its own knee-jerk "political correctness," too. Right now, in order to be considered a real "power user," you have to be blindly loyal to Netscape -- you even have to be committed to writing web pages that only work with Netscape. All in the interest of Netscape's near-monopoly, which is called "freedom," as opposed to Microsoft's technical advance, which is called an evil monopoly. Thank you very much for pointing out that Microsoft is the underdog in the web browser business! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 20:47:06 -0500 From: Yippy Barkalot Subject: Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft Way to go, Pat. Ain't it the truth. ------------------------------ From: djensen@madison.tds.net (David Jensen) Subject: Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 02:18:01 GMT Organization: At My House Reply-To: djensen@madison.tds.net On Wed, 20 May 1998 00:04:50 EDT, in comp.dcom.telecom ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) wrote: > So, the United States Department of Injustice, along with political hacks > in about a dozen or so states all ganged up on Microsoft at one time on > Monday, demanding 'fairness'. .... I guess you never worked for STAC. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: No, I never worked for STAC. Did I miss out on anything? Tell more about STAC. PAT] ------------------------------ From: bigbad@abcdefg.texas.net Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 05:51:30 GMT Reply-To: bigbad@abcdefg.texas.net Subject: Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft > Bill Gates in a press conference on Monday explained it quite well: > Coca-Cola must be required to include three cans of Pepsi in every > six pack they sell. Coca-Cola should be required to leave out a couple > of the ingredients in their beverage so that it does not taste quite >as good and Pepsi will be able to sell more of their beverage instead. Actually, wouldn't it be more appropriate stated as: If Coke manufactured and owned all the soda machines in the world (and bought out anyone else who did), in addition to manufacturing soda, then they should be required to make some space available to Pepsi. Of course, the realistic analogies are harder to repeat. > So now, those of us who were looking forward eagerly to obtaining > Windows 98 probably won't be able to get it in any timely fashion > since Netscape, via their cronies in the Injustice Department, will > do everything they can to prevent its release until it either has been > totally re-written to be less than useless or they get their browser > included as well. Yea, I'm waiting for it too. I'm hoping it will crash less and not sit for 3 minutes on a black screen when I shut down. I'd have switched long ago, except that most programs are written for Win95, seeing as how Microsoft is big enough it can give development packages and free copies to ensure their position. Of course, there aren't a lot of other choices, anymore. -W [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Mine does not sit for a long time on the shut down screen as it used to do ('Please wait while computer is shut down'). I got a patch somewhere -- but I don't remember for sure where -- which claimed it would fix things so one did not have to worry about premature shutdowns, forced reboots after the screen froze, etc. Prior, if the computer was shut off or rebooted without going through the Windows shutdown routine, then the first thing to occur on rebooting would be that little check list of things it would look at and fix automatically as needed to see if any problems had occurred. Since that little patch I put in, now the shut down takes all of maybe 15 seconds. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Telecom@LincMad.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft (A Very Bright Day for the Rest of Us) Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 15:46:58 -0700 Organization: LincMad Consulting; change NOSPAM to COM I can't let this blatant pro-Microsoft nonsense go unchallenged. In article , ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) wrote: > There is nothing wrong if Netscape has 90 percent of the market, but > Microsoft is being greedy now that they have 35 percent of it, thanks > to a marketing strategy that people must love; after all Microsoft > Windows has about 80 percent of the market in operating systems thanks > to their usually spectacular work. Actually, Microsoft Windows has about 90% of the operating system market. The issue is that they are trying to exploit that dominance of one market by compelling customers to accept their products in other areas. THAT is flagrant and blatant anti-competitive behavior, in clear violation of the anti-trust laws (IMHO, IANAL). Further, to describe Microsoft's operating systems as "usually spectacular" is either disingenuous or extraordinarily ignorant. Microsoft's OS work has been a monument to mediocrity. "General Protection Fault" is a phrase that any Microsoft user is intimately familiar with. That's not the hallmark of a well-designed -- or even adequately designed -- operating system. The whole nonsense of 8+3 filenames was shortsighted when DOS began, and by this day and age it's nothing short of inexcusable. For those of you who think that Windows95 fixed that, guess again. Underneath that "long file name" is a unique 8+3. > Since according to Netscape and their friends in the Department of > Injustice most Americans are too dumb to know how to install a browser > or otherwise manipulate their software and operating systems to run > as they want them to, we all have to be saved from ourselves and > shown the error in our thinking if we prefer Internet Explorer 4.0 > over Netscape. The issue is that I don't have the choice of buying a system that has Netscape pre-installed instead of Internet Exploder. The system vendor must include Internet Exploder if it wants to include Windows 98, and the system vendor must not default the system to Netscape. That's not a case of "letting the free market decide," or of "rewarding innovation," as Bill Gates would have us believe. > Bill Gates in a press conference on Monday explained it quite well: > Coca-Cola must be required to include three cans of Pepsi in every > six pack they sell. Coca-Cola should be required to leave out a couple > of the ingredients in their beverage so that it does not taste quite > as good and Pepsi will be able to sell more of their beverage instead. The analogy is inaccurate and inappropriate. A much better analogy is the actual anti-trust suit that Pepsi recently filed against Coca-Cola. If you are a soft-drink distributor and you want to carry Coca-Cola products, the Coca-Cola company will put immense pressure on you NOT to carry Pepsico products. Likewise, Microsoft puts pressure on the ISPs who get listed in the Internet Wizard, to not merely support Internet Explorer, but to cease supporting Netscape. THAT is restraint of trade, and it is and should be illegal. > Oh, and Netscape and Janet Reno would also like you to know that you > are probably much too dumb to figure out how to use the little programs > called 'sysedit' and 'regedit' to change things around so that the > computer boots up in the way you want it to run. Yeah, and when I > walk down to the 7/Eleven about two o'clock in the morning to get my > nourishment for the day, I probably won't be able to find the cooler > with Pepsi products in it either, so better put them automatically > in with Coke and force me to take a few of each. It will only be for > my own good, you know. Bill Gates wants to make sure that Compaq or Dell or Gateway can't sell you a computer on which they've already made the changes you want. And what if that 7/Eleven had to stop selling Pepsi at all if it wanted to sell Coke? > This whole battle is beginning to stink to high heaven. The stench > is overpowering. I wish Bill Gates the very best of luck and hope > that he at least comes out of this with the shirt on his back, but > knowing the unlimited resources the public serpents have at their > disposal and how they will fight and fight and fight no matter how > unfounded their cause, its likely they will not quit until they > have bankrupted Microsoft and completely rendered Windows 98 useless. The only reasonable solution is to break up Microsoft, in much the same way that AT&T was broken up. When Microsoft was designing Windows 95, it released published specs so that other companies could write programs that would run under Win95. However, if your product directly competed with another Microsoft product (for instance, Microsoft Word), then you didn't get access to some of the undocumented secret extra features that Microsoft built into the OS. Of course, the Microsoft Word engineers were given full access to all the inside scoop. The result? Well, surprise, surprise, Microsoft Word is better "integrated" with the OS than WordPerfect. THAT is an excellent example of unfair business practice -- leveraging the dominance in the OS field to give yourself an unfair advantage in the applications software market. If Microsoft truly believed in fair competition and letting the user decide, then it would have made the same information about its OS available to its competitors as to its own applications programmers. Since Microsoft didn't (and won't) do that, the only solution is to compel it. I suggest that Microsoft should be divided into new, separate companies, perhaps under a single holding company, but with at least strong restrictions to prevent it from favoring one part of itself over a competitor. One company should do nothing but operating systems, NOT including the browser. The OS engineers can publish a spec for how the browser should integrate with the OS, so that the browser engineers at any vendor can write a browser that will integrate seamlessly with whatever version of Windows. The engineers writing the next version of Internet Exploder don't get any better information than the engineers writing the next Netscape. The applications software should be separate, so that Microsoft Office can compete on a level playing field with other office suites. > Gates and Microsoft are really getting a raw deal, but what else is > the federal government good for these days except harassing and trying > to control its citizens. Robbery and muggings are crimes in this > country, except when Janet Reno does it, and then it is supposed to be > okay. What about when Microsoft "mugs" computer vendors? You seem to have no problem whatsoever with that strategy. What about when Microsoft "mugs" Netscape? What about when Microsoft "mugs" Linux, WordPerfect, Lotus, or Intuit? (The mugging of Intuit ultimately failed, but that wasn't for lack of trying on Microsoft's part.) And most particularly to the point, what about when Microsoft "mugs" the end-user, compelling you to take a package deal? Microsoft is dead set against giving the end-user a choice. They will dress up the situation to create the illusion that you have a choice, but can you honestly call their design a level playing field? The Department of Justice was utterly spineless in its rank capitulation in the earlier anti-trust case against Microsoft. Let's hope that the DOJ has the gumption to do it right this time, and take real action to stop Microsoft's unfair business practices, so that the end user can benefit from a true open market where innovation -- not the marketing muscle of an 800-pound gorilla -- is rewarded. ** Do not send me unsolicited commercial e-mail spam of any kind ** Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * Telecom@LincMad-com URL:< http://www.lincmad.com > * North American Area Codes & Splits >> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must change "NOSPAM" to "com" << ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 19:32:10 -0500 From: James Bellaire Subject: Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft Netscape had a browser majority, but nobody was forced to buy their browser. Their browser was a chosen alternative, not something that was included with the operating system. They gained their market share by making a product that was superior to the alternatives. Microsoft is requiring vendors to include their other software, pre-installed or NOT get the most popular operating system. Not all computer vendors want to pre-install IE. Some may not want a browser at all. Microsoft's 'must install' line is similar to CocaCola requiring packaging plants to include a few cans of their Minute Maid drink in every case of regular Coke. Sure, the Minute Maid can be easily removed by the consumer, but WHY? I wanted a case of Cola. Give me my choice of orange drinks. > Netscape feels their browser should be included as part of the package > Microsoft sells because that will be the only way that people will be > able to use it. Not exactly - Netscape feels that IF IE is pre-installed by vendor then Netscape should also be easily available. Think about it, you buy a new computer and the only way to get Netscape is to 1) *buy* a boxed version or 2) transfer the free version using Microsoft ftp/browser software. One little bug in IE could prevent you from getting an alternative. > Bill Gates in a press conference on Monday explained it quite well: > Coca-Cola must be required to include three cans of Pepsi in every > six pack they sell. Coca-Cola should be required to leave out a couple > of the ingredients in their beverage so that it does not taste quite > as good and Pepsi will be able to sell more of their beverage instead. Not quite accurate, since it puts Microsoft's product, AN OPERATING SYSTEM, as a equal to Netscape's product, A BROWSER. Mr. Gates silly illustration is more along the lines of requiring Microsoft to include OS2 or Linux with their software. > So now, those of us who were looking forward eagerly to obtaining > Windows 98 probably won't be able to get it in any timely fashion Hopefully the upgrade won't be delayed, since when it is installed it will give the *choice* of installing each module. But the policy that Microsoft uses with OEMs needs to change. Vendors should not be forced to install additional software just to get the operating system. > Oh, and Netscape and Janet Reno would also like you to know that you > are probably much too dumb to figure out how to use the little programs > called 'sysedit' and 'regedit' to change things around so that the > computer boots up in the way you want it to run. I hope the new graphical versions of 'sysedit' and 'regedit' are easy enough to understand. Always changing things so the 'command prompt' programers are left behind ... BTW: My copy of Win98 is reserved. I'll pick it up June 25th. I don't mind Microsoft including OPTIONAL modules, but requiring vendors to pre-install them is over the top. James ------------------------------ From: Steven Carter Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 17:45:26 -0400 Subject: Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft Pat: Its hard to respond to your highly biased article because its hard to know where to begin. Certainly, you expressed one view point. It can very credibly be argued that Microsoft used their near monopoly position with their operating systems to manipulate vendors into distributing only their browser with their Operating System. They further entered into restrictive agreements with ISP's and other content providers to provide a strong preference for working with MS's browser. MS was not very interested in this until Netscape's browser (which works on a variety of OS's) incorporated JAVA. MS also made several moves to make their JAVA a proprietary brand of JAVA. They have lately been joined by some other vendor's such as HP to make a proprietary JAVA. Although HP's efforts are limited to a subset of JAVA that is to run on network devices such as printers. It was crucial to MS's position as the primary OS provider to kill JAVA or weaken it to the point that it could not run independently of its proprietary OS. This is like Coke controlling all of the SODA machines in the world so that only its patented bottles can be dispensed. Or you can liken it to the turn of the century Standard Oil rigging automobiles so that they only efficiently burned Standard Oil petroleum. This is certainly limiting 'market' competition. I also believe that your criticism of the Justice Department is unwarranted. I have seen no evidence to suggest that the DOJ is acting out of some alliance with Netscape. It would appear to me that the Antitrust division of the DOJ is doing what they were chartered to do - investigate and litigate illegal monopolies. In fact, your statements are unsubstantiated and slanderous. (Here I refer to slander not in its legal definition where libelous would be more accurate but in terms of a 'false and malicious statement or report about someone'). I hope that you will reflect upon the facts of the case and reconsider your opinion. Cheers! Steven M. Carter SCARTER@FREENET.COLUMBUS.OH.US qui me amat, amat et canem meam ------------------------------ Date: 20 May 1998 15:59:05 -0000 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y. > This whole battle is beginning to stink to high heaven. The stench > is overpowering. I agree, but the bulk of the stench is from Redmond. Surely you read the reports that Bill met with Netscape and attempted to get them to collude in an illegal market cartel, with Netscape staying out of the Windows market and MS staying out of everything else. But Marc Andreesen took notes. Internal memos from Microsoft said "our browser's no good, we'll have to leverage Windows to force people to use it." And I gather this is just the tip of the iceberg. We've also already heard about the way they threatened computer makers who tried to change anything on the Win95 startup screen on OEM systems. If Microsoft had gained their dominant position by selling a superior product at a competitive price, I'd have considerable sympathy for them. But we're seeing a very clear pattern of specific and egregious violations of anti-trust law. I agree that forcing MS to bundle Netscape is a pretty strange remedy, but there are plenty of plausible remedies available. The best would be similar to what IBM had to do in the 1970s -- document the interfaces among their hardware software products so that third parties could provide competitive versions. This worked very well and was the origin of much of the independent software business. At this point, Microsoft couldn't document an interface to save their lives, but they're smart people, they'd learn how if they had to. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl, Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft Organization: GTE Internetworking, Cambridge, MA Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 18:16:15 GMT In article , TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: > There is nothing wrong if Netscape has 90 percent of the market, but > Microsoft is being greedy now that they have 35 percent of it, thanks > to a marketing strategy that people must love; after all Microsoft > Windows has about 80 percent of the market in operating systems thanks > to their usually spectacular work. There's nothing wrong with Microsoft getting 35% of the browser market if people are making informed choices and going with IE. If they're using IE because MS is giving it away and setting it up as the default browser when you install the OS, that's not so fair. > Since according to Netscape and their friends in the Department of > Injustice most Americans are too dumb to know how to install a browser > or otherwise manipulate their software and operating systems to run > as they want them to, we all have to be saved from ourselves and > shown the error in our thinking if we prefer Internet Explorer 4.0 > over Netscape. Many Americans are too dumb to get their VCRs to stop blinking 12:00! (Yes, I know this is an old cliche, and probably much less true than it was a few years ago, but installing software is more work than fixing the clock on a VCR.) And it's not even ordinary users, but network administrators who succumb to this idiocy. One of the worst DNS servers available is the one that's built into Windows NT 4.0. There are several 3rd-party DNS servers available for NT. But I'll bet that at least 75%, maybe even 90%, of all DNS servers running on NT systems are using this server. You could say that it's the users' fault, not Microsoft's, and they shouldn't be penalized because customers are either too dumb or lazy to install other packages. I'll bet that's the same excuse scam artists make: if someone is so stupid they believe they can get something for nothing, they deserve to have their money taken from them. > Coke analogy ... This is not the same. You can go to a grocery store, and Coca-Cola and Pepsi are right next to each other on the shelves, and you can pick which you want to buy. A better analogy would be if Coca-Cola had a deal with most refrigerator vendors that they could get free delivery of Coke, but to get Pepsi they would have to go to the store -- only die-hard Pepsi fans would take the extra step. Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Cambridge, MA *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups. ------------------------------ From: anthony@alphageo.com (Anthony Argyriou) Subject: Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 18:17:51 GMT Organization: Alpha Geotechnical Reply-To: anthony@alphageo.com One of the problems with evaluating all this sensibly is that our political discourse has become polluted with all sorts of bad ideas. The worst idea, in this type of case, is that "monopoly" is created by otherwise legal actions of capitalists, and that monopolies are automatically harmful. Neither is true! All harmful, and most harmless monopolies require government support, usually in the form of exclusive franchises or licences, but sometimes merely a blind eye towards otherwise illegal actions. Even "natural monopolies" need government support - AT&T had a market share of 35% and dropping before it really started to cut exclusive franchise deals with cities and states. My great-grandparents had two phones in their home in Mexico - Ericsson and Bell. There is some good evidence that Microsoft's OS "monopoly", which is really just a ~90% market share in one segment of computers, was partially obtained by fraudulent methods. Caldera is currently suing Microsoft over MSs actions to suppress competing DOS products, which included creating an error message in the pre-releases of Windows to make the PC community think that Windows would only run on MS-DOS, and using vaporware announcements to discourage consumers from buying existing products which competed with MS-DOS. See: http://www.zdnet.com/sr/breaking/980518/980518c.html MS also does not appear to be terribly compliant with the court orders against some of its OEM sales techniques, placing an illegal restraint against other OSs; and they're known to give their applications developers more complete knowledge of their API to give them a competitive leg up. These issues should be the real focus of DOJ's complaint. Look at how Intel and Cisco operate, compared to Microsoft. Both companies have similar monopolies in their market segments (PC processors and routers), but they don't attract nearly the attention that Microsoft does. > re packaging Netscape with Windows 98 ... Netscape can want lots of things, but no reasonable judge will give them this. The complaint calls for either that _or_ the unbundling of IE from Windows. The latter is the most Netscape can reasonably expect, and all that might survive an appeal I would hope that Windows 98 wouldn't be "less than useless" with IE 4 taken out, but I may be wrong. You never know with MS releases ... I don't have to become a mechanic to decide between leather or cloth seats on my car, or to change them, or to replace the radio. Why should I have to become a computer expert merely to make similar changes to my computer? Most people aren't dedicated "power users", and even if they are smart enough, they tend to not have the time or inclination to bother to learn all the ins and outs of the OS. With Windows95 it isn't that hard to load Netscape, or even to get rid of IE 3. With Windows 98, it looks like using Netscape, or not using IE4, will become much more difficult. > This whole battle is beginning to stink to high heaven. The stench > is overpowering. As is usual with anything the Clinton White House authorizes, or gets involved in. A Republican White House and DOJ may have pursued anti-trust action against MS also, but the claims wouldn't reach as far, or into such shady territory. > Gates and Microsoft are really getting a raw deal, but what else is > the federal government good for these days except harassing and trying > to control its citizens.Robbery and muggings are crimes in this > country, except when Janet Reno does it, and then it is supposed to be > okay. Microsoft has mugged a few competitors in its time - Janet Reno is over-reacting well after the fact, kinda like she did in Waco. Anti-trust is a good thing, but anti-capitalist "reformers" have larded it up with plenty of provisions more useful for tearing down successful companies than for protecting consumers. These provisions are of course the ones that the Democrats in DOJ like the best. Microsoft will get a raw deal, but it does deserve some slapping down. Let's just hope that the judge is sensible, and gives MS about what it deserves, not what Janet Reno is asking for. Anthony Argyriou http://www.alphageo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 12:02:05 PDT From: Wulf Losee Subject: Re: A Dark Day for Microsoft Pat: I know your position on Microsoft, but I can't pass up a chance to respond to your troll ;-). Frankly, I hope the DOJ tears Microsoft apart. For me it's very simple. I resent paying for their damn OS every time I purchase a brand-name PC. It's almost impossible to find anyone who will sell you a PC without Win95. Will Micro$oft refund my money because I don't use their OS? No. They're worse than IBM in their heyday. Oh, and if I hear any more of this whining about how much of an "innovator" MSloth has been, I think I'm going to vomit. They haven't done anything technically original in years ... Wulf ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 12:28:16 -0700 From: jmeissen@pyramid.com (John Meissen) Reply-To: jmeissen@pyramid.com Subject: Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft > Coke analogy ... Actually, this is a poor analogy. A more appropriate one was presented during a news interview the other day - it would be like Coca-Cola owning or having licensing arrangements with all the glass and bottle manufacturers requiring ALL glasses and bottles to be shipped already filled with Coca-Cola. You'd get pretty tired of drinking all that Coke just to get an empty glass ... John Meissen Siemens Pyramid Information Systems jmeissen@pyramid.com 15400 NW Greenbrier Parkway john@meissen.org Beaverton, OR 97006 http://www.meissen.org (503) 690-6286 ------------------------------ From: ronnie@twitch.mit.edu (Ron Schnell) Subject: Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft Date: 20 May 1998 19:55:53 GMT Organization: MIT You make some good points about the Netscape/Microsoft battle, but I notice that you have not mentioned anything about the SUN lawsuit against Microsoft. This is something SUN has been complaining about for a long time, and Microsoft has been anything but fair about it, in my opinion. #Ron [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Why don't you give us some background on it -- I assume you would take the side of Sun, but an update on that side of the battle would be good to have. I admit I have not been following it nearly as much as I have the Netscape/browser wars. Would you please write something on it soon? Thanks. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Billy Newsom Subject: Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 16:42:40 -0500 Organization: http://www.motherboards.org/ What if I told you that Ford was prevented from selling cars with "run flat" tires? Or suppose Motorola could not sell their mobile telephones with a battery or a charger. Let's say that American Lamps, Inc. was told not to sell their lamps with a light bulb installed. Later, Hewlett Packard was kept from selling their printers with a free ream of paper or a parallel cable. Next, someone told Dell that they could not package a modem with their computers. Suppose the government made these offerings illegal. None of these things make sense, do they? Note the last two - both Hewlett Packard and Dell actually sell those products separately under their own brand name. I expect that smart companies will bundle in extras with their products to add value. I like to see a long laundry list of features on the invoice of a car or a computer or a telephone. The more the better. So explain why Microsoft cannot include a browser with an operating system? I hate Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser. I hate it with a passion. I have chosen another competing browser. I run an Internet business, and I use a browser about 8 hours a day. My browser is my business. But yet, I have installed Internet Explorer and I never use it. Why? Because the installation process added features which I like. Features that actually upgrade the operating system. Features. Why would I not want more features? Perhaps I need some extra disk space? Come on, that is moot. There's a lot of junk that an operating system installs that I'll never use. It comes down to this. Windows 98 and Internet Explorer will be installed and running at my business (er, my home) the day it is available. And so will Netscape Communicator, a competing browser. What's the big deal? AOL and every Internet Service Provider on the planet either sells or gives away browsers to new customers. Browsers can be downloaded without a browser from most ISP's. I've done it before. I've also received free browsers, unasked for, from my ISP. Why is a browser such a big deal? It's a feature, and it should stay in Windows 98. I suppose the attorney general buys cars without tires and operating systems without a browser. I don't. Billy Newsom, webmaster of The Motherboard HomeWorld http://www.motherboards.org/ Motherboard questions? MAILTO:spot@motherboards.org Will design *custom websites* for food. MAILTO:smartweb@flash.net Advertise your PC business. MAILTO:business@motherboards.org [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I must say I do have a lot of browsers around here myself. I have probably as many CDs of browsers as I have copies of AOL. And every ISP who has sent me any sort of solici- tation has sent me a copy of Netscape, usually hacked up with a push button to immediatly access that particular ISP's home page. I took one ISP's version of Netscape (he had given himself the big corner box on the upper right side of the screen to click on if you wanted to check your mail on his system) and hacked it a little more myself to make it point to http://telecom-digest.org, with that Bell System operarator picture which currently adorns my web page. Do you know how much patience it takes to hack an executable when you don't have the source to work with? Heck if I had the source, I would diddle that up to suit myself and then recompile it instead ... but lacking the source, I put the executable up in an editor, search for the things I want to change (admittedly mostly print statements, which shows how much smarts I really have, huh?) and then I ** very carefully ** jiggle things around making certain everything remains in the proper context, adding a NOP (no-operation, ascii zero) here and there as needed to flush out the length to what it should be, so that all the operands and their values, etc continue to be just where they should be. The next ISP who solicits my business and promises to send me 'all the special software needed to start using the World Wide Web today' for only $19.95 or whatever had best not send me another copy of Netscape diddled up with his logo, etc. Maybe I will donate all my extra copies of Netscape (of whatever flavor) to the poor people who will get Windows 98 and not have any alternative browser to use. So if anyone wants to send me fifty dollars, I'll send you a copy of Netscape entitled 'Telecom Browser' with a big button on one side to access my web page, a picture of yours truly on the other side which you click if you want to send me email, and 'all the special software' you'll ever need to have a good time on the net, just like I do every night. :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: Randy Miller Subject: Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 10:37:30 -0400 Organization: Compex Corporation However, Pat, you forget that Microsoft owns most of the market right now as it comes to operating systems and productivity applications.(if you want to call them that. I spend more time fighting and busting bugs in Office 97 than I get work done.) When it comes to buying a PC, you have no choice in the operating system but Microsoft, due to their contracts with the hardware manufacturers. When's the last time you tried to get Compaq to install OS/2 on a system you were purchasing? Can't be done, due to Compaq licensing agreement with Microsoft. When's the last time you saw any hardware manufacturer install Corel WordPerfect Office Suite on their equipment? Microsoft's agreements with the hardware boys says the same thing for installing Office. The end user (stupid as s/he may be) isn't given the choice. Ya either buy Microsoft, or don't buy anything! Also, Microsoft has gotten fat and sassy. I'm still waiting to get a relatively bug-free update of Office 97, let alone a version of NT Workstation that won't crash and burn every 5 minutes on my machine at home. I waste more time trying to get Microsoft products work properly than I get work done. If I were a auto mechanic and did this kind shoddy work, I'd be 1)out of business and 2) the state would take away my inspection license (yes, Pennsylvania has an annual state inspecition program for vehicles. It's the most restrictive in the nation.) ------------------------------ From: Bill Levant Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 19:29:04 EDT Subject: Microsoft Deserves EVERYTHING it Gets, and in Spades PAT : Suppose I held the patent on the 80x86 CPU. You want to use the chip in the PAT PC. I say "fine, but you've gotta buy your memory, disk drive, monitor and keyboard from me" (even though they're well-known to be inferior to, and more expensive than, many others commercially available). That's tying, and it's quite properly illegal. Suppose I also say that I'll only license the chip to you if you agree not to make computers with anybody else's chips, monitors, etc. If that's not restraint of trade, I'm Queen Elizabeth. > coke analogy ... Typical Microsoft distortion. It's more like Coke telling your 7-11 that they can only sell Coke if they agree NOT to sell Pepsi. C'mon, now, don't believe EVERYTHING you hear. My undergrad degree was in computer science; I think I know more than the average geek. Microsoft has built so many dirty little "hooks" into Windows 95 that it was almost IMPOSSIBLE to disable IE, and even now, it still sneaks back into the picture every now and again. I daren't actually DELETE it; from what I've read, Windows 95 will revolt if I do, so it also takes up a fair amount of disk space that I could put to better use. You should read the government's brief in support of its request for injunctive relief. You might reach an entirely different conclusion about Microsoft. Bill [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, your Majesty, your points are well taken. And to the rest of the readers -- it's been fun. In the next issue we will return to a discussion more germane to the group charter. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #74 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat May 23 12:13:20 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id MAA06472; Sat, 23 May 1998 12:13:20 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 12:13:20 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199805231613.MAA06472@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #73 TELECOM Digest Thu, 21 May 98 20:41:00 EDT Volume 18 : Issue 73 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Further on Galaxy IV (James Bellaire) Collect Calls From a Jail - was Re: 90# ... (Gail M. Hall) Minnesota 612/651 Area Code Split Fiasco (Linc Madison) New "Overlay" Relief Alternative Approved for 310 Area (LINCS Area Code) Canadian Regulator Introduces Toll-Free Line (David Leibold) Re: Telco Rotary Question! (Carl Knoblock) Re: Telco Rotary Question! (David Willingham) Re: Telco Rotary Question! (Dave Garland) The Best Revenge Is .... (LINCS Area Code Information) 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 18:28:58 -0500 From: James Bellaire Subject: Further on Galaxy IV STATEMENT BY ROBERT BEDNAREK SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER 20 MAY 1998, 11:30 A.M. EASTERN TIME Regarding Implementation of the Contingency Plan for the Galaxy IV Satellite. "PanAmSat has initiated a comprehensive contingency plan to provide continuous service for our Galaxy IV satellite customers. We have advised our customers to implement their restoration plans whenever possible. In addition, we are providing restoration services on several of our satellites. Galaxy VI, a C-band satellite located at 74 degrees West Longitude, will be moved over the next six days to 99 degrees West Longitude, the current orbital location of the Galaxy IV satellite. Ku-band customers on Galaxy IV have been offered capacity on the nearby Galaxy III-R satellite, and several customers have already successfully started migrating to this satellite. We should see the return of many Ku-band services as the day progresses. "PanAmSat continues to experience difficulties in the control of the Galaxy IV spacecraft. The on-board attitude control systems have not been restored and spacecraft engineers continue to examine possible solutions. The satellite is in a safe, stable mode with a deactivited communications payload. Engineers from PanAmSat and Hughes Space and Communications Co. are reviewing all available design information to assess the potential fault and suggest remedies. "PanAmSat remains committed to the immediate restoration of our customer networks. Satellite capacity has been identified and made available to customers, and PanAmSat is making every effort to assist those customers in migration to that spare capacity. We continue to investigate the cause of the Galaxy IV on-board anomaly and will provide further updates as additional information becomes available. "We would also like to express our thanks to other satellite operators in the United States and abroad, which have offered to provide PanAmSat with satellite capacity to meet our customers' service requirements. Our industry recognizes the importance of the services we provide for consumers every day, and we are allied to meet any challenge." ------------------------------ From: gmhall@apk.net (Gail M. Hall) Subject: Collect Calls From a Jail - was Re: 90#... Is There Truth to This? Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 07:28:59 GMT Organization: APK Net, Ltd. On 19 May 1998 03:14:48 GMT, we202c3f@aol.com (WE202C3F) posted to comp.dcom.telecom about "Re: 90#... Is There Truth to This?": > Incidentally the prisons I work in have the coinless phones that do > not allow any calls local or otherwise to be other than collect; and > at least one of my customers fell for the Flash 9 00 # scam on her > 2631 Call Director connected to centrex., and received a sizeable bill > for a call to France. The other day we received a call from from the county jail. The message said if we did not want to accept the call to just hang up. Well, we did. But the caller kept calling back over and over again. My husband finally in desparation -- before the message was finished -- yelled out, "You are calling the wrong number!" I said I hoped we would not be charged for that call. We did not get any more of those calls that day, though. Q: Can the other party hear you say anything while the automated message is going on? Q: If the called party hangs up, does the caller receive a clear message that the call is not accepted? My husband called the phone company and they said we could disable collect calls, but that is an all-or-nothing deal, not just calls from jails or calls from a particular phone. We do have family members out of town and would want to be able to accept THEIR calls. We are in Ameritech country. And just one more Q: Why are the recordings where they give their names so universally bad and unclear??? Oh, how I long for the days of clear-tongued live operators for this type of call! Gail M. Hall gmhall@apk.net ------------------------------ From: Telecom@LincMad.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: Minnesota 612/651 Area Code Split Fiasco Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 17:26:34 -0700 Organization: LincMad Consulting; change NOSPAM to COM I've been reviewing the documents surrounding the upcoming 612/651 area code split in the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area of Minnesota. This split is an utter fiasco in the making. First and foremost, the Minnesota regulators have tried to reconcile two incompatible goals: having the split line exactly follow municipal boundaries, and allowing all customers to keep their 7-digit numbers. The result is that there are 39 prefixes that will be divided by the split. 612-322-xxx1 might stay in 612, while 612-322-xxx2 changes to 651. There will be an extra month or so of permissive dialing for these 39 prefixes, but the confusion created by the first ever area code split to divide prefixes will be mammoth. Secondly, the split is incredibly short-sighted in making, once again, an extremely uneven division of the existing area code. The NANPA Planning Letter's listing of prefixes contains several errors, including prefixes that are listed as being in one rate center and remaining in 612, but also belonging to a completely different rate center and changing to 651, but not belonging to a rate center that will be divided. However, sifting through the mess, it appears that the correct count is something like this: 496 ... RETAINING 612 188 ... CHANGING TO 651 39 ... SPLIT 612 & 651 Of the 39 that will be divided, 24 will be mostly 612, while 15 will be mostly 651. That means that approximately 72% of the numbers in the current 612 will retain the 612 area code in this split. How long do you expect it will be before 612 is back for yet another split? The last split was barely two years ago, but I'd bet it won't be even that long before the next split. What's worse is that there is an obvious split line that would divide the area much more evenly and have far fewer problems with divided prefixes. Everything that is between the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers, plus the small portion of Minneapolis on the east side of the Mississippi, would keep 612, while everything else would change to 651. Only eight prefixes (in the Minneapolis 7th Avenue central office, but serving part of St. Paul) would straddle the split line. The customers on the St. Paul side would then be given COMPLETELY NEW 10-digit numbers in the 651 area code. (The Belle Plaine C.O. might also be split by this line, but it has only one prefix.) Even with that split line, about 60% of the numbers would keep 612, but at least that's a big improvement over 72%. Perhaps the split should have been reduced to "Hennepin County vs. everything else." Stupid lopsided splits like this leave me wondering, not so much "What WERE they thinking?," but rather "Why WEREN'T they thinking?" The Minnesota P.U.C. deserves a prominent place in the Hall of Shame. ** Do not send me unsolicited commercial e-mail spam of any kind ** Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * Telecom@LincMad-com URL:< http://www.lincmad.com > * North American Area Codes & Splits >> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must change "NOSPAM" to "com" << ------------------------------ Reply-To: "LINCS Area Code Information" From: LINCS Area Code Information Subject: Fw: New "Overlay" Relief Alternative Approved for 310 Area... Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 18:00:20 -0400 Here's a real winner... Regina Costa's 2000 moratorium on overlays in California is overturned. BUT An irrational choice of a new overlay code may confuse local residents of Los Angeles county by mid-1999. New "Overlay" Relief Alternative Approved for 310 Area Code New 424 Area Code California's 26th Begins Service on July 17, 1999 LOS ANGELES--(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 20, 1998--The California Public Utilities Commission recently approved the first overlay area code in the state of California. The new area code - 424 - will serve the same geographic area as the current 310 area code (the Westside and South Bay areas of Los Angeles County and a very small portion of Ventura County), and will begin service on July 17, 1999. In an overlay area code, a second area code is added to the same geographic area as the existing area code. All existing numbers will retain the 310 area code. New telephone numbers assigned in the same area may receive the new 424 area code. In an overlay area, all calls require 1 + 10-digit dialing this includes telephone calls within the current 310 area. This means that, under the new plan, all calls currently dialed with seven- digits in the 310 area code will need to be dialed with 1 + 10-digits. The introduction of the new 424 area code, which is California's 26th area code, is needed to meet the rapidly growing demand for additional telephone numbers in the 310 area code and across the state. Local telephone service competition as well as the explosive demand for high-technology are driving the demand for more phone numbers. This change comes just two years after the 562 area code split off from the 310 area code in July 1997. A formal nine-month "permissive dialing" period begins on July 17, 1998. Until April 17, 1999, people calling from within the 310 area can dial either 1 + 310 + seven-digit telephone number, or just dial the seven-digit telephone number. All customers within the 310 area code are encouraged to begin dialing 1 + 10-digits on all calls. Beginning April 17, 1999, all calls within the 310 area code must be dialed using 1 + 10-digits. The details of the overlay area code are as follows: -- The 310 area code will continue to serve all current customers in the Westside and South Bay areas of Los Angeles County and a very small portion of Ventura County. Communities in this area include San Pedro, Wilmington, Compton, Torrance, Gardena, Redondo Beach, El Segundo, Santa Monica, West Los Angeles, Malibu, most of Beverly Hills and Culver City, and part of West Hollywood. -- Beginning July 17, 1999, the new 424 area code will serve the same geographic area as the 310 area code. Call Price Not Impacted Doug Hescox, California Code Administrator, said the introduction of the 424 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. Call distance and time determine the cost of a call, not whether or not you dial an area code," Hescox explained. Mandatory Dialing Period The nine-month "permissive dialing" period ends on April 17, 1999, after which callers must use 1 + 10-digit dialing (1 + area code + seven-digit telephone number) to complete their calls. Callers who forget to use 1 + 10-digit dialing will receive a recorded message reminding them that they must dial 1 + area code + seven-digit telephone number, and they will be required to redial. The recorded reminder will remain indefinitely for those who dial only seven-digits, reminding them they must dial 1 + 10-digits. Things to Remember Hescox said new customers are encouraged to begin dialing all calls on a 1 + 10-digit basis. He said this provides time for customers to get used to the new dialing plan for the 310 and 424 area codes. Some of the things customers should remember include: -- Change stationery, business cards and advertising to reflect the area code if not already shown. -- Update fax machine group calling lists to include 1 + 10-digit phone numbers -- Reprogram speed dialers, auto dialers, alarms and PBX (private phone systems) to reflect the dialing plan change (contact your equipment vendor for assistance) -- Reprogram outdial lists on personal computers to include 1 + 10-digits Area code relief plans are collectively developed by a telecommunications industry group comprised of more than 30 companies including AT&T, AT&T Wireless, AirTouch, the California Cable Television Association, Cox California PCS, Cox Communications, GTE, ICG Telecom Group, L.A. Cellular, MCI, Mobilemedia Communications, Pacific Bell, Pacific Bell Mobile Services, PageNet, Preferred Networks, Sprint and The Telephone Connection. The California Code Administration is an independent planning group that coordinates area code relief planning on behalf of the California telecommunications industry. Final decisions on area code policy issues are >made by the California Public Utilities Commission. CONTACT: The California Public Utilities Commission Alison Costa, 916/441-7606 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 17:40:38 EDT From: David Leibold Subject: Canadian Regulator Introduces Toll-Free Lline CRTC, the Canadian telecom and broadcast regulator, announced the introduction of a toll-free 877 number for public contact. The CRTC's news release on this follows: 19 May 1998 THE CRTC WANTS TO HEAR FROM YOU I am pleased to announce the introduction of the Commissions "intelligent" toll-free number 1-877-249-CRTC. From now on, any member of the public will be able to call us toll-free from anywhere in Canada. What makes it "intelligent" is that callers will be routed to the CRTC office closest to them. I would also like to take this opportunity to report on past and current activities aimed at improving public participation in CRTC processes. Over the past year, we have met with public interest groups and the industry to discuss issues related to public participation in the Commissions proceedings. Since then, we have been aggressively working towards implementing the proposals that resulted from these discussions. I am pleased to provide you with a Report Card on the status of these proposals to date. Some of the highlights of the Report Card are: * The initiation of a number of different informal processes aimed at gathering information from the general public on specific issues that directly affect them; and * New methods of reaching affected areas of the public with our messages by using vehicles such as, rural post offices and Canadian Business Service Centre outlets located throughout the country. As well, I wish to take this opportunity to provide you with a CRTC Information Kit, which includes the Workshop Report Card and newly released information on the upcoming proceedings on Telephone Service to High Cost Areas and Canadian Television Programming. I leave you with our continued commitment to find new and better ways of communicating with you in order to gain your views and suggestions that are essential in shaping our communications systems. Franoise Bertrand ------------------------------ From: Carl Knoblock Subject: Re: Telco Rotary Question! Date: 18 May 1998 20:22:05 -0500 Organization: Newscene Public Access Usenet News Service (www.newscene.com/) Mark Boudoin wrote: > When using rotary service from telco (ie. one number for multiple > lines) how is rotary service broken out at the user location? Does it > come in on a csu/dsu or is it broken out on a terminal block? Since the rotary hunting is done in the central office, it is immeterial to the method of delivery. Multiple lines, rotary or not, can be delivered in many ways, including individual copper pairs, T1, or via Subscriber Line Carrier. 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 ------------------------------ Date: 19 May 1998 03:22:33 GMT From: we202c3f@aol.com (David Willingham) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Telco Rotary Question! Mark-- As I understand the terminology here, "rotary hunting" applies to the first listed number "hunting" to the next one, etc, if the first one is busy; in a small business these will usually be different phone numbers on each one (such that you could also call the 4th line say directly if you know that telephone number, even if the first 3 were idle); and a TRUNK GROUP as on a pbx might have the same number as you pointed out on multiple lines, as 622-2001, terminal 1; 622-2001 term 2, etc, etc ... but in that case I believe the calls would come in randomly and not neccessarily to the first trunk in the group; and under either arrangement the lines could come in on copper pairs or on a T-1. WE202C3F@aol.com(david willingham) ------------------------------ From: dave.garland@wizinfo.com (Dave Garland) Date: 19 May 98 00:26:00 -0600 Subject: Telco Rotary Question! Organization: Wizard Information Mark Boudoin asked: > When using rotary service from telco (ie. one number for multiple > lines) how is rotary service broken out at the user location? Does it > come in on a csu/dsu or is it broken out on a terminal block? The way I've seen it is, broken out as separate lines (just as if it wasn't on a rotary). Matter of fact, my home office has a 2-line rotary, which started out as separate lines, then went to forward-on-busy, then was changed to a rotary when I pitched a fit because I was being double-charged for the forwarded calls (under metered service). -Dave [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Although they function in an almost identical way, most telcos give traditional 'hunting' for free but charge for 'forward on busy'. One difference is that hunting usually is only to numbers in the same physical group; other lines on the PBX, etc. Forward on busy allows for transferring calls off-premises if desired, but call forwarding charges apply. Years ago, hunting could only be done to the next line in the group in sequential order; i.e. line 1 could hunt to line 2, then line 3, etc. Improvements in technology allowed for 'jump-hunting'; a busy line could hunt forward any number of places; then later, hunting backward through a group of numbers became possible. I set up something a while back for a business with three lines where 1 hunts 2, 2 hunts 3, and 3 hunts back to 1. That allows for maximum incoming traffic on all the lines. PAT] ------------------------------ Reply-To: "LINCS Area Code Information" From: LINCS Area Code Information Subject: The Best Revenge Is .... Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 17:42:35 -0400 ...to teach this individual about the cost of owning an 800 number... -----Original Message----- > SUCCESS > >Learn How to make millions from the comfort of your own home. > >Amazing New Secrets revealed, Self Made Millionaire wants to teach >you how to make millions > > > Call Now 1-800-475-4672 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: By now all Digest readers know the routine so I won't bother saying any more. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #73 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun May 24 12:24:31 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id MAA19088; Sun, 24 May 1998 12:24:31 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 12:24:31 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199805241624.MAA19088@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #75 TELECOM Digest Sun, 24 May 98 12:23:00 EDT Volume 18 : Issue 75 Inside This Issue: Happy Memorial Day to All! Opponents of 847 Overlay File Against Ameritech (Adam H. Kerman) UCLA Short Course on "Cost Estimation and Economic Evaluation (Bill Goodin) Internet Telephony and Fax (Al Niven) Setup a Low Cost Telephone Service Anywhere in the World (Yaswat Mirage VoiceStream and 877 (Ryan Tucker) CUB Asks ICC to Halt NPA (LINCS Area Code Information) NPA 424 to Overlay NPA 310 in Southern CA (Mark J. Cuccia) VCR Clocks (Lars Poulsen) BA Gets PA Overlay(s)! (LINCS Area Code Information) Phone Systems and FGB/FGD (F. Chung) Inter-Tel and ESI Phone Systems? (Michael Hayworth) Does Southwestern Bell Offer Visual Message Waiting w/ Callnotes? ( Telecom Website Has Moved (Goodmans Book Marks) 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ahk@chinet.chinet.com (Adam H. Kerman) Subject: Opponents of 847 Overlay File Against Ameritech Date: 23 May 1998 13:04:35 -0500 Organization: Chinet - Public Access From {Chicago Sun-Times}, Saturday 5-23-98 Opponents of the 847 overlay filed their motion with the Illinois Commerce Commission on Friday to block Ameritech's tariff to open the overlay of 847 on November 7 with an area code to be named later. Opposing Ameritech are the Citizens Utility Board (the legislatively-created ratepayers' lobby), Attorney General, Cook County State's Attorney, and the City of Chicago. Ameritech claims that 847 prefixes will be exhausted by this autumn, and that prefixes in the other four Chicago area codes will be exhausted by the end of 1999. However, the Ill.C.C. recently ordered phone companies with fewer than 100 assigned telephone numbers in a given prefix to return 90% of the unassigned numbers to the pool for assignment by other telephone companies. CUB and allies want to demonstrate that number conservation will eliminate the need for new area codes in Chicago. The Census Bureau doesn't expect the metropolitan area's population to grow by 20% any time within the next two years. NPA 847 serves the north and northwest suburbs of Chicago. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Why the City of Chicago should be concerned about, or have any authority over an area code which does not even serve it is something I do not understand. And thanks to CUB's meddling (and they are not really an unbiased consumer organization as they claim), now I will get my third new area code in about ten years. We went from 312 to 708, to 847 and now in a few months to something else. There *will* be a new area code in the north suburbs by the end of this year, regard- less of whether it is installed as an overlay or as a geographic area, and indications are that if it is a geographic split, the northwest area will keep 847 and those of us toward the east will get the new, as yet unknown code. There are still some older phones in this town which sport the 312 number strips! Yes, divestiture, deregulation and competition have really been a great deal for us. Also see the other article in this issue from LINCS discussing this latest development. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Bill Goodin Subject: UCLA Short Course on "Cost Estimation and Economic Evaluation" Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 14:43:45 -0700 On August 10-13, 1998, UCLA Extension will present the short course, "Cost Estimation and Economic Evaluation of Projects", on the UCLA campus in Los Angeles. The instructor is Donald S. Remer, PhD, Oliver C. Field Professor of Engineering, Harvey Mudd College of Engineering and Science, and Partner, Claremont Consulting Group. Rapidly advancing technology, increasing project complexity, and competitive pressures demand better cost estimation and economic evaluation of projects, processes, products, or services, whether developing new ones or improving existing ones. Successful engineers, scientists, and managers must use modern cost estimating and economic evaluation techniques to select the optimum mix of projects for today's cost-conscious environment. Accurate project cost estimates and investment evaluations are critical to staying competitive and optimizing organizational resources. This course develops the skills needed to prepare, review, approve, supervise, monitor, and/or use cost estimates and economic evaluations in research, development, design, manufacturing, marketing, and management. The course also discusses how to produce accurate cost estimates and investment evaluations to avoid large cost overruns or unsatisfactory investment returns, whether the project budget is a few thousand dollars or millions of dollars. The course fee is $1295, which includes extensive course materials. Course materials are for participants only, and are not for sale. For additional 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: alniven@earthlink.net (Al Niven) Subject: Internet Telephony and Fax Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 15:27:11 GMT Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. PlanetTel is seeking gateway owners for the following countries: Algeria, Belarus, Belgium, Bolivia, Central America all, Chile, Cypress, Iran, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Mexico, Mongolia, Nepal, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Slovenia, Syria, Tanzania, Tunisia, Vietnam, Zaire, and Zimbabwe. Thank you. ------------------------------ From: yaswat.miragetech@btinternet.com Subject: Setup a Low Cost Telephone Service Anywhere in the World Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 12:01:48 GMT Organization: Mirage Technologies (The Complete Solution) Calling card and call through platforms/switches. Low cost phone calls from anywhere to anywhere. Also call logging systems for call shops, hotels and business. See our webpage for further details: http://welcome.to/miragetech ------------------------------ From: rtucker+from+199805@katan.ttgcitn.com (Ryan Tucker) Subject: VoiceStream and 877 Date: 22 May 1998 23:25:06 GMT Organization: My other news server has *two* gerbils and a hamster. Reply-To: rtucker+replyto+199805@katan.ttgcitn.com After seeing Mark's post about 877 and BellSouth, I decided to try the test numbers (877-250-0501 and 877-250-0750) on my VoiceStream phone ... immediately after the voice channel opened, I got a rapid busy signal. I gave Customer Care a shout and got a lady who was quite helpful (despite probably not having any clue about what goes on behind the scenes :-) ... she checked with their resource person, who tried it from both landline (it worked) and a VS phone (it worked) ... that narrowed it down to just a problem on the network here (Des Moines). I put her on hold and gave it another try, this time doing 1-877-250-0501 (I normally do ten digits for all calls -- the switch does the Right Thing) ... same thing. I have her get in touch with the local switch techs ... she gets my number and billing verification info, puts me on hold, and checks with 'em. Apparently, it sounds like the local tower hasn't had the right dead chickens for 877 to work waved over it ... it's been mentioned to the techs, so I'm going to give 'em a few business days (what do I expect, calling at 5:30pm on a Friday before Memorial Day). In the meantime, if anyone in Des Moines (or anywhere, really) has a VoiceStream phone, give those test numbers a try and drop me an e-mail. I'd be interested to know if it's just here, or more of a widespread problem. BTW, as an aside ... Ethernet is 25 years old today. Oddly enough, Rocky Horror Picture Show turns 25 this weekend as well ... coincidence? I think not. Ryan Tucker http://www.ttgcitn.com/~rtucker/ UIN: 1976881 VM/Fax: +15157712865 Box 57083, Pleasant Hill IA 50317 If you think the problem is bad now, just wait until we've solved it. -- Arthur Kasspe ------------------------------ Reply-To: "LINCS Area Code Information" From: LINCS Area Code Information Subject: CUB Asks ICC to Halt NPA Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 14:39:05 -0400 CHICAGO, May 22 /PRNewswire/ -- The Citizens Utility Board (CUB) Friday issued an emergency appeal to state regulators asking them to halt Ameritech's plans to begin implementation of a new area code in the 847 region, a move by the phone industry that violates a recent state ruling ordering number conservation measures instead of a new area code. In an emergency motion filed with the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC), CUB asked the agency to issue a "cease and desist" order against Ameritech to stop the new area code. The motion was filed jointly by CUB, the Illinois Attorney General's Office, the City of Chicago, and the Cook County State's Attorney. "Ameritech is clearly trying to derail the phone number conservation plan approved by the ICC, before it is even given a chance to work," said Jonathan Goldman, president of CUB's Board of Directors. "The commission adopted a precedent-setting solution to the number crunch, one that could be a model for the nation, but it will be meaningless if the phone industry is allowed to flaunt their disregard for that ruling." The phone company recently requested the number for the new area code from the national numbering coordinator and it asked that agency to send out a "world planning letter" notifying telephone companies here and abroad of the area code change. CUB's motion charges that those steps violate a May 11 ICC ruling, which did not authorize a new area code at this time. Instead, the commission adopted a number conservation plan, designed by CUB, which revamps the way the phone industry assigns phone numbers. It is the inefficient allocation of phone numbers, not increased consumer demand, that has driven the so-called number shortage. Under the commission's ruling, phone numbers will be assigned to phone companies in blocks of 1,000, rather than 10,000, and phone companies will be required to prove that they have used up 75 percent of the numbers already given to them before they can request new numbers. These measures will conserve millions of phone numbers for future use. In addition, phone companies will be required to return their unused phone numbers, rather than hoard them as they have done in the past, freeing up millions of numbers for circulation to the public. Over seven million phone numbers in the 847 area code have been assigned to phone companies, yet only 3.5 million of those numbers are actually being used. The commission's ruling ordered Ameritech and the other phone companies to begin the number conservation measures immediately. It said a new area code would be implemented only as a last resort and only if the conservation plan failed to work. "There is no shortage of phone numbers in the 847 region or anywhere else in Illinois," CUB Executive Director Martin Cohen said. "If the phone companies abide by the ICC's ruling and begin using a common sense approach to assigning phone numbers, we won't need a new area code in the Chicago region for many years, if ever." SOURCE Citizens Utility Board [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Also see the other article in this issue from Adam Kerman discussing other participants in this case. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 14:21:01 CDT From: Mark J Cuccia Reply-To: Mark J Cuccia Subject: NPA 424 to Overlay NPA 310 in Southern CA In the News Release section of SBC/Pac*Bell's website, http://www.sbc.com/PB/News/current.html there is a link to a news item dated 20-May-1998 regarding relief of NPA 310 in Southern California. The California PUC has approved an overlay of NPA 310 with the new NPA being 424. A permissive period where calls within the 310 NPA will be dialable as now, 'straight' seven-digits (regardless of local vs. measured vs. toll status) _or_ ... as 1+ten-digits (310-NXX-xxxx) will begin this Summer, on 17-July-1998. Customers will be _ENCOURAGED_ to dial their calls within NPA 310 in this manner beginning on this date, and to program all auto-dialing equipment to dial-out calls this way, as well. Next Spring, beginning on 17-April-1999, _MANDATORY_ use of 1+ten-digits (310-nxx-xxxx), for _ALL_ calls within NPA 310 will take place. A recorded announcement will be played for callers who dial simply 'straight' seven-digits NXX-xxxx, starting on this mandatory date. (I guess that this recording will be a 'customized' version of what is known as a "partial-dial" rejection recording). _New_ NXX c/o codes with _new_ line-number assignments, under the _new_ 424 NPA is expected to take place _NEXT_ Summer starting on 17-July-1999. _Existing_ customers with the 310 NPA will _NOT_ have to change their telephone number nor area code. The present 310 NPA code (and its future overlay 424 NPA) covers communities in the western/southern part of Los Angeles County, as well as a small portion of southeastern Ventura County. Some of these communities include: San Pedro, Wilmington, Compton, Torrance, Gardena, Redondo Beach, El Segundo, Santa Monica, West Los Angeles, Malibu, most of Beverly Hills and Culver City, and part of West Hollywood. (BTW, is CBS Television City presently in NPA 310, or is it still in NPA 213 but in that part soon-to-be NPA 323? Lauren?) Frank, Deano and Sammy FOREVER! (Elvis, TOO!) 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: lars@anchor.rns.com (Lars Poulsen) Subject: VCR Clocks Date: 23 May 1998 09:28:54 -0700 Organization: RNS / Meret Communications In article Barry Margolin writes: > Many Americans are too dumb to get their VCRs to stop blinking > 12:00! (Yes, I know this is an old cliche, and probably much less > true than it was a few years ago, but installing software is more > work than fixing the clock on a VCR.) Actually, this has been solved by two technical innovations: 1) The plug-and-play VCR feature: A time stamp is included in the VBI data on many TV channels, and the VCR learns the local time from this data, thus relieving the user of the need to set the clock on the VCR. 2) The VCR+ code has provided a way to request taping of a specific program without having to learn the menu system of the specific VCR. It is interesting that both of these "fixes" circumvented the problem instead of improving the main user interface in any way. I am not sure how this relates to the Microsoft case, but other than that, it is a good tidbit. Yes, the average consumer is getting dumber. A recent article in the Los Angeles Times stated that when Pacific Bell hires telephone operators, they must interview and test 7 high school graduates for every one that passes the simple test of reading comprehension and basic arithmetic skills. The state of California is considering the allocation of $50 million for a program to pay for first-grade level reading textbooks to high schools, so that they can actually teach the worst at-risk student to read and write instead of having them sit in the back of the class and be disruptive. Lars Poulsen Internet E-mail: lars@OSICOM.COM OSICOM Technologies (Internet Engineering Center) 402 East Carrillo Street, #A Telefax: +1-805-884-1053 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: +1-805-884-1986 ------------------------------ Reply-To: "LINCS Area Code Information" From: LINCS Area Code Information Subject: BA Gets PA Overlay(s)! Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 12:15:49 -0400 May 21 - The Pennsylvania PUC announced today that both 215 and 610 would be overlaid --- each with a separate new code. The new overlay codes have not yet been chosen, but would go into effect in June 1999. A six month period of permissive ten-digit dialing will precede the introduction of the new overlay codes. 717 will be split, with a new code and detailed implementation information to be announced shortly. ------------------------------ From: chungy2@rpi.edu (F. Chung) Subject: Phone Systems and FGB/FGD Date: 23 May 1998 15:39:51 -0400 Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY Hello, Does anyone know of a URL where FGB/FGD are explained in detail? I have only managed to find general glossary definitions but nothing on what these feature groups cover and how they are best used. I have come across the term Special Access Station (SAS) with loop and ground start. This is even more difficult to find a description. Does any of the telecom experts here know of a good source for these type of info? I have visited the Nortel and Lucent sites but they does have any docs on these either. At least I could not find any details. Thanks, Felix ------------------------------ From: Michael Hayworth Subject: Inter-Tel and ESI Phone Systems? Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 15:00:55 -0500 Organization: Innovative TeleSolutions I have received a number of replies to my post concerning a decent, comparatively inexpensive system to install for my church. A number of them have recommended Panasonic systems, which I'll take a look at. A friend's company just put in an Inter-Tel system and they seem to be pretty happy with it, but they've only had it for a couple of months. Would appreciate comments on the system and levels of long-term satisfaction with it. One of the pastors of the church had already been talking to an inter- connect sale guy who cold-called him, representing an ESI system. Now I know there are dozens of brands out there, and I certainly don't claim to be familiar with all of them, but I thought I had at least HEARD of all of them. Anyone know anything about this ESI system? Thanks, Michael Hayworth ------------------------------ From: markarmitage@my-dejanews.com Subject: Does Southwestern Bell offer Visual Message Waiting with Callnotes? Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 17:59:39 GMT Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion I subscribe to Southwestern Bell Callnotes (phone company voicemail). I also have a Nortel 9417CW phone that has a voicemail waiting light. To illuminate this light, the phone company has to send a signal using either CLASS or voltage signalling. SWB offer stutter dialtone, but I can't find anyone there to tell me how to get one of the other signalling systems on this line. Does anyone know if SWB offer this service, and if so, what's the magic incantation that I need to use to get SWB to give it to me (the service, that is). Thanks in advance! Mark Armitage Austin, TX ------------------------------ From: gbmarks@gbmarks.com (Goodmans Book Marks) Subject: Telecom Website Has Moved Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 15:26:59 GMT Organization: CampusMCI Reply-To: gbmarks@nospam.gbmarks.com Hello ... My telecom website has been moved to a new domain, since a lot of people who frequent this and other telecom newsgroup visit my site thought I put out the work. Goodmans Book Marks, a telecom-oriented web site active since June of 1995 has moved from its old domain of www.wp.com/goodmans to a new site: http://www.gbmarks.com Thanks!! gbmarks@gbmarks.com Goodmans Book Marks: http://www.gbmarks.com (Remove the 'nospam' when replying) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #75 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun May 24 22:07:27 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA14336; Sun, 24 May 1998 22:07:27 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 22:07:27 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199805250207.WAA14336@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #76 TELECOM Digest Sun, 24 May 98 22:07:00 EDT Volume 18 : Issue 76 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft (Andrew B Sherman) Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft (bem@cmc.net) Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft - Historical Perspective (Rich Shockey) Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft (Very Bright Day ...) (John McNamee) Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft (Ron Schnell) Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft (nedjel@sprint.ca) Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft (Adam Atkinson) Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft (G. Dragon) Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft (Joe Greco) Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft (But Good For Telecom) (Dan J. Declerck) Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft (Jeffrey D. Carter) Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft (Louis Raphael) Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft (David Jensen) Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft (Michael A. Covington) Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft (Matthew Black) Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft (Jim Cobban) Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft (Ed Ellers) Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft (Linc Madison) "Microsoft's Usually Excellent Work" (Jay R. Ashworth) Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft (Brett Frankenberger) Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft (Greg Stahl) 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrew B Sherman Subject: Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 05:10:06 GMT Organization: ICGNetcom Pat, An interesting tidbit. Microsoft would have us believe that you can run any business on NT, given a big enough network of servers. That is, of course, why Microsoft subsidiary Hotmail is still running its service on Solaris. As badly as Redmond wanted them to port the service to NT, when NT didn't scale up for them, the geek-types at Hotmail apparently held their ground -- for now. Another question. If IE can compete fairly with Netscape in the marketplace of quality, why punish manufacturers with loss of license for offering a choice to their customers? That is what the lawsuit is about. The turning of a horizontal monopoly into a vertical one is something antitrust laws have taken a dim view of for a long, long, time. Anybody who thinks Mr. Bill is invulnerable because of the size of empire would do well to review the history of U.S. vs. AT&T, settled via consent decree in 1983. Andy Sherman (posting from home to protect my employer and myself!) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 22:25:20 -0700 From: bem@cmc.net Subject: Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: No, I never worked for STAC. Did I miss > out on anything? Tell more about STAC. PAT] STAC made 'Stacker', the first major disk compression software for PCs. MS wanted to buy Stac, who refused, so MS stole the technology and pretended it was their own, in violation of both copyright and patents on the software. Stac sued and won and has since used the proceeds to invest in other businesses, since it's clear that 'DriveSpace' is now MS property. More of the "give us the technology or we steal it". You may want to look into how much Microsoft paid to license the Mosaic that is at the core of IE from Spry. Hint: they pay a portion of the license fees, and they don't charge. Hence, they don't pay. Think they told Spry beforehand that they'd be giving it away for free and drive Mosaic off the market? Is this unusual? Nope, more 'innovation' from Microsoft: http://www.cnnfn.com/digitaljam/9802/05/microsoft_pkg/ If the DOJ doesn't succeed in controlling Microsoft, expect to turn on your Microsoft WebTV on your Microsoft Cable system to order plane tickets from the Microsoft Expedia travel agent online, read the news of your hometown with a strange Redmond slant from Microsoft Sidewalk and get your national news from MSNBC. Your ISP will be either your Microsoft Cable system or perhaps ADSL from your Microsoft Telephone company. If you dare to try and replace part of your Microsoft life with standards complaint tools (like, say, use Netscape), you'll find that you can't get to www.disney.com because Microsoft has convinced Disney to make their page work only on Windows with IE in order to get their "channel" on both the Windows Desktop and Microsoft Cable. Your television won't work without the Win-CE (or 'wince') cable box. It will come with the same choice of pre-programmed channels that you have on your Windows desktop, all for sale to the highest bidder that must also ensure their offerings don't work with non-Win-CE boxes. This quote sums it up (from the above URL): "[Providing TV listings] is a logical extension of the system for a certain class of users. No different from enabling desktop publishing a few years ago, or networking capability five years ago." I wonder how much the TV companies will have to pay to be listed in this offering. How much will cable companies (at least those that MS doesn't have a stake in) have to pay to have their channel lineup in there? Will they be required to carry MSNBC to get in? What about using Win-CE cable boxes, or will the old Zenith boxes work? My only gripe with the DOJ is that they have waited too long for this. It is probably far too late to correct the damage done to companies as diverse as Stac, Netscape, American Airlines and TV Host. ------------------------------ From: rshockey@ix.netcom.com (Richard Shockey) Subject: Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft - A Historical Perspective Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 16:51:36 GMT Organization: ICGNetcom I commend the following article that recently appeared in the electronic version of the {Atlantic Monthly} to the readers of the Digest no matter what your view on the current Microsoft action. http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/flashbks/monopoly.htm It is a reprint of a 1881 piece entitled "Story of a Great Monopoly" about the tactics and business practices of the Standard Oil Company and its leader John D. Rockefeller. A reminder ..."Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it" Richard Shockey 8045 Big Bend Blvd. Suite 110 St. Louis, MO 63119 Voice 314.918.9020 FAX 314.918.9015 Internet E-Mail/IFAX rshockey@ix.netcom.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Another book to read on the same topic was published about 30 years later -- around 1910 -- which was a sort of muckracking account of Rockefeller. It was titled 'History of the Standard Oil Company'. Written by Ida Tarbell, it is still available in some public libraries. John Rockefeller was also the subject of a feature story in the {Chicago Tribune} in 1912 which was a little more flattering than most reports, but recall that in that era the Tribune was *very* Republican and *very* pro big-business. I have to admit to some bias: much of my childhood was spent in a community which benefitted greatly from Rockefeller's largesse. Whiting, Indiana was never a (Standard Oil) 'company town' in the same sense as George Pullman's village on the southern city limits of Chicago (Pullman, IL; now the city of Chicago neighborhood known as Pullman) nor was it like William Gary's namesake in northern Indiana where United States Steel had its huge steel works. I guess Rockefeller was 'more enlightened' than to own the entire town where his refinery was located (and took up 30-40 percent of the land area). His presence was *everywhere* though, as I think has been discussed here in the past. When I was a child, the very old people who lived in Whiting who saw him on a regular basis when *they* were young often recalled that of the several people in town whose first name was 'John', Rockefeller was the person being referred to when someone mentioned 'John said such and such' or 'John is going to do thus and so' ... his word was his bond. Whiting is still to a large extent living off of his money. My grandfather was an executive at the Whiting Refinery. Rockefeller was fond of building a high school or a swimming pool or a municipal building then giving it to the town at no charge. What can I say? Money corrupts people. Some say it is the root of all evil; I say it is the root of all good. Perhaps we agree it is the prime mover, the basis upon which and the reason things happen. Anyone who keeps me clothed, housed, warm and well-fed while letting me have my own way most of the time is my friend. Two or three years ago it was Bill Gates; 40-45 years ago it was the descendants of JDR who were still, years after his death, cheerfully handing out his money to everyone; come one, come all in places like Whiting. What can I say? I guess I have been corrupted and my objectivity stolen. PAT] ------------------------------ From: John McNamee Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 14:17:48 +0000 Subject: Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft (A Very Bright Day for Rest) > When Microsoft was designing Windows 95, it released published specs > so that other companies could write programs that would run under > Win95. However, if your product directly competed with another > Microsoft product (for instance, Microsoft Word), then you didn't > get access to some of the undocumented secret extra features that > Microsoft built into the OS. Of course, the Microsoft Word engineers > were given full access to all the inside scoop. This never happened, and I'm tired of hearing this Big Lie repeated as truth. There are so many real things you can complain about Microsoft doing that I wish people would stop making up imaginary sins. There certainly are undocumented interfaces in Windows 95, but Microsoft Word doesn't use them. John [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But John, lies are part of it. They *have* to be part of the politics -- and that is all it really is -- of this entire thing. Without the lies, so much of the case against Microsoft would fall flat. You wouldn't want that to happen would you? PAT] ------------------------------ From: ronnie@twitch.mit.edu (Ron Schnell) Subject: Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft Date: 23 May 1998 22:05:08 GMT Organization: MIT In article ronnie@twitch.mit.edu (Ron Schnell) writes: > You make some good points about the Netscape/Microsoft battle, but I > notice that you have not mentioned anything about the SUN lawsuit > against Microsoft. This is something SUN has been complaining about > for a long time, and Microsoft has been anything but fair about it, in > my opinion. > > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Why don't you give us some background > on it -- I assume you would take the side of Sun, but an update on > that side of the battle would be good to have. I admit I have not been > following it nearly as much as I have the Netscape/browser wars. > Would you please write something on it soon? Thanks. PAT] You can find lots of stuff about this at http://java.sun.com/aboutJava/info/index.html Here is the basic history (according to Sun), some of which is paraphrased from this web page: Microsoft licensed the Java technology from Sun in 1996. Microsoft made attempts to defeat Java by creating a wrapper called ActiveX. The market rejected ActiveX in favor of JavaBeans. In the summer of 1997, Microsoft created proprietary Windows dependent class libraries known as application foundation classes (AFC). The market rejected AFC in favor of Java foundation classes. Microsoft then made proprietary changes to the common core of the Java platform, which clearly violates their contract with Sun. Sun filed suit in October 1997 because of that. Now Microsoft is making actual changes to the language specification itself. I find it hard to believe that Microsoft would be so brazen as to completely violate the terms of the license that allows them to integrate and ship Java. I thought the point of Java was for it to be open, and compatible across platforms. Why would Microsoft make changes to the basic structure of it so that it would be incompatible. Having only seen Sun's side to this argument, I would like to hear if I have it wrong. Sun's recent filings seek the following: 1.That Microsoft ship Windows 98 with a fully compatible version of the Java technology or, 2.If they continue to ship their incompatible implementation of the Java technology in Windows 98, that they be required to ship Sun's Java run time environment also bundled with that product or, 3.That Microsoft simply remove any incompatible versions of the Java technology from Windows 98. Seems completely fair to me. I am just an outsider, reading possibly biased press releases, but unless there are total lies in these press releases, I can't imagine how Microsoft thinks they can do this. Ron ------------------------------ From: nedjel Subject: Re: A Dark Day for Microsoft Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 23:07:58 -0700 Organization: Sprint Canada Inc. (Regards people who complain about Microsoft) ... You have a good point, but I don't know anybody that was forced to by Microsoft Products. What is the problem? If you don't like using Microsoft Explorer, go ahead and buy Netscape. I paid $128 CAN for my WIN95 and I like it. I am willing to pay the same amount to anyone who could write me an OS for my PC. Since Sun Microsystems and Netscape are so damn smart why don't they write their own OS and market it. The bottom line is buy it if you like it and if you don't like it don't buy it. Ned ------------------------------ Date: 23 May 98 08:23:15 +0000 From: Adam Atkinson Subject: Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft Organization: Collegio Pierpaoli, Montaguzzo > Since according to Netscape and their friends in the Department of > Injustice most Americans are too dumb to know how to install a browser > or otherwise manipulate their software and operating systems to run > as they want them to Sadly this might well be true. And not just Americans. My experience everywhere I've ever worked is that many people, even with Macs or Windows machines, don't know how to copy files, execute programs not already present in their Office toolbars, unzip files, etc. Since installing something would involve either unzipping something or executing something "unusual" or both, I tend to fear many of my co-workers would be unable to do it. I think this is pretty poor, but sadly it appears to be the case. (Re sysedit and regedit changes made by users) Almost NONE of my cow-orkers would be able to do this. And I don't think I'd want them to, since I'm the one they all call when they mess up. (coke and pepsi) I think the parallel here would be more like "I won't be able to find the cooler with Pepsi products in it, because in order to sell Coca-Cola products the store owner will have been forced to promise never to stock Pepsi, never to refer to it, and not to acknowledge its existence". Please note that I think IE 4 being included with Win98 is fine - just like Write and Paint being included is fine. I think many people are stupider and/or more ignorant than you realise, but I have relatively little sympathy for the ones who are ignorant by choice. (Which is most of the cases I've seen - actual incapacity to learn how to copy files is relatively rare. Though "I deleted all files whose purpose I didn't know and now my computer won't work" is pretty bloody stupid as well.) What I don't think is fine is e.g. forcing ISPs to stop supporting Netscape, though maybe Microsoft has already stopped doing this. I also don't think the "pay for Win95 even if it's not there" thing is especially fine. If someone really is proposing forcing Microsoft to pre-install Netscape then that's pretty daft. If people are ignorant/stupid/ totally lacking in initiative and gumption then that's their problem, more or less. It's worrying, though, how large companies seem to have very senior people with some combination of these problems who decree that all Unix machines shall be replaced with NT boxes, and Microsoft Exchange shall be used to replace any and all other email programs. Adam Atkinson (ghira@mistral.co.uk) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, let's face it Adam. It has been due to the ignorance of people in general when faced with the relative complexity of computers which has kept all the large computer/software firms in business and (for the most part) in big bucks. And when it comes to making decisions of any consequence in huge corporations -- all decisions, not just those involving computers -- as often as not it comes down to which 'consultant' does the best job of sucking up to the head honchos. A three-martini lunch, a little cash spread around where it will do the most good, a few afternoons on the golf course or maybe a weekend at a fancy resort; those things make decisions. Very seldom does the engineering or other technical staff get any real input. Oh sure, they ask them to be polite, but that's about it. PAT] ------------------------------ Organization: "G. Dragon's cave" From: G. Dragon Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 09:47:06 +0400 (MSD) Subject: Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft PAT, You wrote in your note 20.05.1998: > I put the executable up in an editor, search > for the things I want to change (admittedly mostly print statements, > which shows how much smarts I really have, huh?) and then I ** very > carefully ** jiggle things around making certain everything remains > in the proper context, adding a NOP (no-operation, ascii zero) here > and there as needed to flush out the length to what it should be, so > that all the operands and their values, etc continue to be just where > they should be. You're a very smart guy. Actually, as smart as I am myself (because I sometimes do same operations - just for fun) :-). But NOP (no-operation) is ascii 90h "officially" (though, there are some other operations with the same result). ASCII 00h is just a text line terminator for ASCII strings (the other, "obsoleted" terminator is 24h or ASCII '$') At another point you noted: > There is nothing wrong if Netscape has 90 percent of the market, but > Microsoft is being greedy now that they have 35 percent of it, thanks > to a marketing strategy that people must love; after all Microsoft > Windows has about 80 percent of the market in operating systems thanks > to their usually spectacular work. Ah-ah MicroSquat has "only" 80% of the OS market - 10% less than Netscape had of the browsers market! I'm so scared: Netscape has almost established the monopoly of their dirty browser, we were all at the edge of a abyss. But now, thanks to dear uncle Bill, we're safe. What a cutie this uncle Bill is! He's woldwide known as an ardent fighter against all sorts of monopolies. He keeps 80% of the OS market (and how much of the PC market? I have seen only two users here working with Mac, - both work in the publishing business, - and one with Unix on his PC, - he is responsible for HP OpenView installations. Other 99.9% of the PC's I know of run MustDie'95) to protect end users from any price wars and other disasters, the other competitors could pose. No, uncle Bill is not a monopolist he himself competes with himself ... and you forget about the rest 20% of the market (it's only the Central Bank of Russia, where I've seen real mainframes. They may have some share of the market, but all these 20% can't influence the market as dramatically as the new release of MustDie can). Man, I've seen a MustDie 3.x emulator for Mac. Nice picture.. :-( > Since according to Netscape and their friends in the Department of > Injustice most Americans are too dumb to know how to install a browser Most users in the world are too dumb to understand that fonts are only attributes of information. Text mode and a font built-in the printer is quite enough for most of papers. But no, the users want the papers they print out today to toss out tomorrow to look "beautiful" ... A dumb attempt to hide the absence of ideas behind the nice looking picture. > Bill Gates in a press conference on Monday explained it quite well: > Coca-Cola must be required to include three cans of Pepsi in every > six pack they sell. Coca-Cola should be required to leave out a couple > of the ingredients in their beverage so that it does not taste quite > as good and Pepsi will be able to sell more of their beverage instead. Bill will be right the day Netscape starts selling their OS + "Netscape Office" for PC. Otherwise, it's like comparing a giraffe and a parrot. > Oh, and Netscape and Janet Reno would also like you to know that you > are probably much too dumb to figure out how to use the little programs > called 'sysedit' and 'regedit' to change things around so that the > computer boots up in the way you want it to run. If you've run "regedit" even once, you must know how horrible the settings there look - much worse than even assembler instructions. G. Dragon [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Alright, I will admit it. Regedit and the registry itself scares me to death. I *laways* back it up umpteen times then hide all the backups out of my immediate reach before I touch anything there. This is the same thing I do with executables I want to -- umm, modify -- for personal use. Then I tiptoe in very slowly and start poking around, using (I hope) due diligence before changing anything. Actually assembler does not bother me all that much; I come from an Apple ][+ background in the early 1980's when uncle Bill's very own Microsoft BASIC (although Apple licensed it and changed its name to Applesoft BASIC) was used a lot, and it was common to write little things using the 'Poke' and 'Peek' commands, along with 'Call'. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Joe Greco Subject: Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 11:32:30 CDT (re Coke and Pepsi analogy) What a load of horse manure. I've been reading comp.dcom.telecom for years, and while I occasionally disagree with something you say, this takes the cake for totally-off-the- wall. All of you people who are whining about the injustice being served up by our federal government in Microsoft's direction are missing the bigger picture. Personally, I've always been rather ambivalent about how things work in the government, with special interests, scandals, and all the other fun stuff. It is very encouraging to me to see the government doing exactly what I think needs to be done. I've been appalled at the number of information/computer professionals who have sided with Microsoft in this affair. Yes, the immediate issues may end up delaying the release of Windows 98, and that may have some negative impact. However, the longer term picture is scary, and nobody seems interested in considering it! The Internet was built on a model that involved (semi-)well defined open public standards, and this model has been a key enabling property that has allowed the spectacular success of the Internet. Microsoft has recognized that this model may mean that they do not always get exactly what they want, and they have made numerous efforts to redefine things according to their own tastes when it suits them. A great example of this is Java: Sun innovated and devised a platform-independent interp- reted language, which is a fundamental new technology for the next century. Microsoft felt that there were some inadequacies, and proceeded to make their own variant of it - essentially destroying Java's most valuable property, that wonderful platform independence! Microsoft likes to think that they innovate. They don't. They are not inventing new technologies. They take technologies and ideas invented else- where, and they do an okay job of integrating them all together in various ways. However, their product quality is mediocre at best, and the number of bugs is rather high. How many people think it's _normal_ to have some problems with their computer, and to have to reboot periodically? There isn't any competition, and there needs to be! There have already been a lot of other valid comments made about Microsoft and its questionable practices, so I won't go into all of that. It's clear that Microsoft has repeatedly exploited their virtual monopoly to promote their own interests, whether that happens to be applications, web development tools, or languages. However, I do have a few thoughts I wanted to share: 1) Gates has put a "close the doors" threat out there. This should be very bothersome! Follow the chain of logic: by making such a threat, Gates is trying to get corporate America to apply pressure to the government. Clearly, corporate America feels that the loss of Microsoft would be catastrophic, and Gates obviously realizes this and is trying to play on it. However, the fact that the loss of Microsoft would be catastrophic means that Microsoft has a monopoly! If they didn't, it wouldn't be a catastrophe for Bill to close his doors, because there would be competing products to fill in the gaps. Gates knows he has a monopoly. What worries me: what happens when Bill gets tired of playing geek- turned-billionaire, and decides to close the doors so he can buy the world's biggest yacht and go fishing for the next ten years of his life? What's to stop this? Who/what would fill in? 2) I have a very strong feeling that Bill has seen where the future is going. Getting back to Java, we have an infant new technology that may render the underlying "operating system" largely irrelevant. I think Gates knows this, and is making a very large bid to control the direction of any future platform-independent language ventures. By winning the browser war, Gates is more than halfway to controlling what version of Java the world embraces. And that shouldn't be controlled by a company with a long, proud tradition of undocumented OS calls and anti-competitive practices. This is speculative, but in ten years, I'll be interested in seeing how things actually developed. Unfortunately, the DOJ is not able to prosecute speculative issues. Still, when I look forward five or ten years, it scares me to see the direction that Microsoft is trying to go in. Sure, I believe in the "Internet desktop" - I've had one for almost a decade, myself. I just don't believe in a "Microsoft-controlled propietary Internet desktop". Let them put their product out there, fairly, and have the world decide what's better. Do away with the strong-arm tactics. Microsoft has done enough damage to the industry with its brand of so- callE "innovation". The MS road has been paved with the dreams of truly innovative companies such as STAC, and its a real shame to sit here and watch them repeat their strong-arm tactics on an ever increasing scale. We want open standards. The Internet development model has worked very well. It is important that the DOJ stop Microsoft from engaging in monopolistic practices which would start us down a road that would result in us ending up with "the Propietary Microsoft Internet" rather than the Internet that we all know and love. Joe Greco - Systems Administrator jgreco@ns.sol.net Solaria Public Access UNIX - Milwaukee, WI 414/342-4847 ------------------------------ From: Dan J. Declerck Subject: Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft (But Good For the Telecom World) Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 11:36:33 -0500 Organization: Motorola Cellular Infrastructure Group TELECOM Digest Editor wrote in support of Microsoft ... This is really humorous, coming from a person whom was royally hosed by Microsoft products for more than a week (almost a month??). Buy and install Linux, Leave Gates and the rest of Redmond behind. Their telecommunications strategy is flawed (it's what this forum is about, isn't it?) 1) Microsoft OS products are not robust (you could never depend on a PBX running on NT). 2) They've bastardized the BSD TCP/IP stack in their implementation, replete with it's bugs (just scan the Microsoft groups dealing with NetBui, etc..) 3)They promoted TAPI, even developing DLL's for the it, then screwed the telecom hardware development groups by delivering the product NetMeeting, which is TOTALLY incompatible with TAPI (talk about vaporware!). 4) Microsoft is also synonymous with "Slow". Linux with Samba serving as a print monitor, disk serving and internet firewall is 2-3x faster than the equivalent NT solution. You pay for MS, you can get a distribution of Linux for about $50, and support is cheaper through Debian/RedHat/Caldera, than waiting indefinitely on MS's support line. 5) Microsoft and Intel are at odds over USB. It's no wonder that Win98 crashed at comdex, when a peripheral was plugged in. Intel has one format and Microsoft another (the difference lies in priority between isochronous and packet services). USB is the very reason you're supposed to upgrade to Win98 (good luck!). They don't innovate. They have the biggest case of "Not Invented Here" syndrome I have ever seen. They didn't like the BSD socket, so they created their own, and locked the world into it. The only way they have created such a huge market-share is through collusion (ever notice how advancements in the PC industry have come to a creep, once that Microsoft dominated an area??) Spreadsheets, Word Processors, and Databases have not improved, since the MS office suite took over the marketplace. Dan DeClerck | EMAIL: declrckd@cig.mot.com ------------------------------ From: Jeffrey D. Carter Subject: Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 13:01:10 -0400 Organization: Interware, Inc. Barry Margolin wrote: > In article , TELECOM Digest Editor > wrote: >> Since according to Netscape and their friends in the Department of >> Injustice most Americans are too dumb to know how to install a browser >> or otherwise manipulate their software and operating systems to run >> as they want them to, we all have to be saved from ourselves and >> shown the error in our thinking if we prefer Internet Explorer 4.0 >> over Netscape. > Many Americans are too dumb to get their VCRs to stop blinking 12:00! > (Yes, I know this is an old cliche, and probably much less true than it was > a few years ago, but installing software is more work than fixing the clock > on a VCR.) Well, actually, this is not really the fault of the consumer :-) It is truly ridiculous that the VCR manufacturers can't be bothered to include the $1.50 part that would allow the RTC to ride out a power glitch. I am blessed with truly unreliable power served by a company that is so on the ball that I once called in a power failure report, and they pleasantly informed me that it had been fixed a half hour before. Anyone who can't spot the problem here? But I digress, as I almost always do. There are a few, more expensive VCRs that *do* include battery-backed clocks. As a consumer with crappy power, and way too many devices with built in clocks (the kitchen stove, a bread machine, the TV, the VCR, yadda yadda) I'd be willing to pay more for this feature. Microsoft's alleged behavior in regards DOS and Windows desktop software (I'm not including the browser here) is to "allow" Circuit City and Sears to sell other brand's of VCRs in addition to the MicroVCR, but that they would have to pay Microsoft for all VCRs sold regardless of brand. Now, if somebody were allowed to do this in VCR-land, there would be no battery-backed clocks on VCRs until the monopolist decided that we needed them. This is what is meant by using a market-dominant position to squelch competition. It's not that they're so big (or even dominant) that is the problem. It's the fact that their dominance allows them to demand (and they get) contract terms from their distributors that would cause any reasonable person to say "hey, that's not fair": that's the problem. Their distributors may not be 'hurt' by the agreements, but the market is. And on the "Too dumb to run the registry editor" issue: Have you *read* the instructions and the "if you run this program, your machine will crash, the ice cream in your freezer will melt, your car will fail the emissions test and your kids will get syphilis" warning that comes along with the registry editor? And almost every MS knowledge base article that I've used that says 'do this in the registry editor' carries this warning, and usually has some factual error in the instructions so that if you follow them to the letter, the warning comes true. Jeff Carter Interware, Inc. jeffc@shore.net [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Interesting you mention errors in the documentation of those programs which require (or strongly suggest) changes to the registery to optimize their use. A couple weeks ago I picked up some shareware called 'Midigate' which is a midi player with the ability to accept a queue of things -- let's say from a site which specializes in classical music -- and play them one after another. I had been using MS Active Movie Player for my midi files, and it was the default out of IE-4 and Netscape for me. The author gave very detailed instructions on making a change in the registry to get his player as the default if desired. Trouble is, his instructions were all wrong. When I talked to him on the phone, he did walk me through the correct way of making the changes. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Louis RAPHAEL Subject: Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft Date: 23 May 1998 02:19:58 GMT Organization: Societe pour la promotion du petoncle vert Greg Herlein wrote: > I'll gladly take flames by email - because this doesn't have all that > much to do with comp.dcom.telecom. Indeed. I'd like to suggest a moratorium on further MS-related discussions, except in ways that directly affect telecom. Every time the subject comes up, it overwhelms the digest for a little while. Louis [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I was going to only do issue 74 on it but that would have been unfair to the several people whose letters arrived later the same day. This issue however *will* be it for now. PAT] ------------------------------ From: djensen@madison.tds.net (David Jensen) Subject: Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 02:57:16 GMT Organization: At My House Reply-To: djensen@madison.tds.net PAT asked: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: No, I never worked for STAC. Did I miss > out on anything? Tell more about STAC. PAT] Stac Electronics made a disk compression utility that Microsoft was supposed to license from them for DOS 6. There appears to have been a failure to come to terms on the licensing, but, it seems, Microsoft used it anyway. Essentially, Microsoft's use of the product improperly, many have characterized it as "stole the code," ended up costing them $120,000,000 damages to STAC for the honor. Unfortunately, STAC was never the same after that and Microsoft really didn't notice the damages they paid. It is not just the dollars in damages, but also the market momentum that are affected. I agree with you that the Netscape case may not be a slam dunk for Justice, unless they can show that Microsoft asked Netscape to collude in splitting the browser market. The really big problem is the lock on OEM installs of Windows that Microsoft supposedly gave up in 1995. I know that Microsoft and the Gates Foundation have made a great effort to wire American libraries. For that I salute them, but some of their aggressive business tactics are illegal. Realistically, civil lawsuits have not and will not deter Microsoft's illegal behavior if they can pay for their activities after the fact and still keep the benefits of what they were not able to do by contract. ------------------------------ From: Michael A. Covington Subject: Re: A Dark Day for Microsoft Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 09:22:01 -0400 Organization: Covington Innovations Wulf Losee wrote in message ... > I know your position on Microsoft, but I can't pass up a chance to > respond to your troll ;-). Frankly, I hope the DOJ tears Microsoft apart. > For me it's very simple. I resent paying for their damn OS every time I > purchase a brand-name PC. It's almost impossible to find anyone who will > sell you a PC without Win95. Will Micro$oft refund my money because I > don't use their OS? No. They're worse than IBM in their heyday. I think the DoJ would do well to separate the conditions-of-sale issue (obligatory bundling of OS with hardware, etc.) from the Internet browser issue. The browser issue is a red herring. Microsoft's real competitors are the other OSes, not Netscape. As Pat pointed out, Netscape is the monopolist there and Microsoft is breaking up a browser monopoly, not creating one! BTW, you are right that Microsoft never invented anything ... as a trick question I sometimes ask people, "What did Bill Gates invent?" (The answer is, nothing.) However, look what Microsoft did achieve. They solved the almost insoluble problem of hardware diversity, thereby allowing an unprecedentedly _free market_ for PCs. (You can only by Macs from Apple.) They also successfully made the PC into an appliance -- you buy it, bring it home, and it works. Remember what it was like to configure hardware and software, then learn the software, in the early 1980s? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Gates did not 'invent' anything, but I do believe the earliest versions of BASIC were his work. I do not know if saying he 'invented' Microsoft BASIC or Microsoft DOS would be the proper phraseology. PAT] ------------------------------ From: black@csulb.SPAMMY.edu (Matthew Black) Subject: Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft Date: 22 May 1998 14:19:46 GMT Organization: California State University, Long Beach In article , mc@ai.uga.edu says... [Original message edited for brevity --matt 980522] > The breakup of "Microsoft's monopoly" is, as I see it, a smokescreen to > defend Netscape's monopoly. > The Internet has its own knee-jerk "political correctness," too. > Right now, in order to be considered a real "power user," you have to > be blindly loyal to Netscape -- you even have to be committed to > writing web pages that only work with Netscape. > All in the interest of Netscape's near-monopoly, which is called "freedom," > as opposed to Microsoft's technical advance, which is called an evil > monopoly. > Thank you very much for pointing out that Microsoft is the underdog in the > web browser business! Perhaps you haven't followed this thread. Many consider Microsoft's behavior predatory and anticompetitive. Microsoft is trying to displace Netscape with modifications to IE that won't work with other Java-enhanced browsers. MS has clearly violated the terms of the Java agreement with Sun. Why? MS sees the search engine and browser as the ultimate in information access. MS pays royalties to web site operators who alter their content so it runs better on IE. But IE has extended Java to break compatibility with other browsers. Why? To put Netscape out of business. Those who've been in the computer business for well over ten years understand that both standards and competition helped form this industry. If my only choice were Microsoft, I'd quit the field and find another career. [To respond via e-mail, remove obvious component from Reply-to address] -------------------------------(c) 1998 Matthew Black, all rights reserved-- matthew black | Opinions expressed herein belong to me and network & systems specialist | may not reflect those of my employer california state university | network services SSA-180E | e-mail: black at csulb dot edu 1250 bellflower boulevard | PGP fingerprint: 98 4E DF BE 49 A8 DF 99 long beach, ca 90840 | 6A 7A 1B F1 3E 50 E5 D2 ------------------------------ From: Jim Cobban Subject: Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft Date: 22 May 1998 15:12:26 GMT Organization: Nortel In article , > I agree that forcing MS to bundle Netscape is a pretty strange remedy, > but there are plenty of plausible remedies available. The best would > be similar to what IBM had to do in the 1970s -- document the > interfaces among their hardware software products so that third > parties could provide competitive versions. This worked very well and > was the origin of much of the independent software business. At the beginning of the 1970s IBM had a greater dominance of the data processing market than Microsoft will ever have. Microsoft, after all, only dominates the personal computer market. They have little penetration of the high end workstation market, and nothing at all in the high end server/mainframe market. In 1970 IBM owned 89% of the total data processing market across all categories of platforms. However you are wrong to claim that IBM that IBM was forced to document their interfaces in the 1970s. IBM has always documented their interfaces. Not only did they document their interfaces but through the 1960s and early 1970s when they maintained their market dominance they actually sold the source code of any of their products for basically the cost of the media plus distribution. Of course they could get away with this in part because the source code they sold was written in a proprietary systems programming version of PL/I that they did not sell the compiler for. But still you cannot get a much more precise definition of the syntax and semantics of an interface than to have the source code of the system regardless of what language it is written in. It was not until IBM's dominance was challenged in the late 1970s and 1980s that IBM started to circle the wagons, withdrawing first the source code, and then portions of the published documentation. Note that even then IBM did not hide their internal interfaces in the sense that Microsoft has. The complete specifications of the internal interfaces were still available to anyone who had a license to use the software which implemented those interfaces. To give you a feel for how thoroughly IBM documents their products: For US$100 (major credit cards accepted) anyone can obtain a copy of IBM publication SK2T-6700. This is an 8 CD-ROM set of publications for IBM's mainframe operating system. The list of publications included in this set runs for 55 pages! The publications which specifically describe the low level programming interfaces occupy 66MB, not to mention the high level language specific documentation. To repeat, at the beginning of the 1970s IBM had a greater dominance of the data processing market than Microsoft will ever have. They also published their specifications to a greater extent than any manufacturer of either software or hardware has ever done. Is it not arguable that there is a cause and effect here? After all a number of the participants in this discussion would agree that the availability of source code for UNIX, even if it is only used to resolve questions about the exact functionality of operating system interfaces, has a lot to do with the affection which they have for UNIX. Would they not also agree that the principal reason that the PC has overwhelmed the Mac has been that IBM did NOT jealously hold on to the specifications for its interfaces. I contend that if Microsoft split its operations into separate operating companies, which communicated with each other only over well published interfaces which are therefore open to competition, that the result would probably be even more billions in Bill Gates' bank account and a lot of much happier customers as well. Jim Cobban | jcobban@nortel.ca | Phone: (613) 763-8013 Nortel (MCS) | | FAX: (613) 763-5199 ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 00:42:15 -0400 Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. James Bellaire wrote: > "Microsoft is requiring vendors to include their other software, > pre-installed or NOT get the most popular operating system. Not all > computer vendors want to pre-install IE. Some may not want a browser at > all. Microsoft's 'must install' line is similar to CocaCola requiring > packaging plants to include a few cans of their Minute Maid drink in every > case of regular Coke. Sure, the Minute Maid can be easily removed by the > consumer, but WHY? I wanted a case of Cola. Give me my choice of orange > drinks." We're not talking about cola here. We're talking about software. If Microsoft isn't to be allowed to include Web browsing capability in Windows, what else will it have to leave out next? The disk defragmenter? The disk error scanner? Dial-up networking? Peer-to-peer networking? ALL networking capability? After all, all of these functions could be provided by third parties. Either Microsoft can add to Windows those features that they believe customers want, or they can't -- and if they can't, the logical conclusion is that Windows can only be sold in a form that will just barely boot up and allow you to run an application, in which case we'll *have to* go out and buy five or six other products in order to come up with a useful operating environment. As for not allowing OEMs to leave out features, I *support* this policy. Think of how you'd feel if you bought a VCR and found that the dealer had taken out the cables that come with it, or had removed the carrying case from the package before selling you a 35mm camera. Microsoft is simply making sure that those who buy Windows get the whole product. Nothing is preventing computer manufacturers from adding others' software over and above Windows, and in fact some computer makers do include Netscape's browser. (I also have yet to see any evidence that OEMs are prevented from offering other operating systems, or that those manufacturers that offer products like Office on an OEM basis are prevented from also offering competing products.) > "Think about it, you buy a new computer and the only way to get Netscape is > to 1) *buy* a boxed version or 2) transfer the free version using Microsoft > ftp/browser software. One little bug in IE could prevent you from getting > an alternative." And the folks in Redmond would be tasting liquid hell within an hour if such a bug popped up in IE. Honestly, do you really think Microsoft would dare try such a stupid trick? ------------------------------ From: Telecom@LincMad.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 02:02:30 -0700 Organization: LincMad Consulting; change NOSPAM to COM In article , Billy Newsom wrote: > It comes down to this. Windows 98 and Internet Explorer will be > installed and running at my business (er, my home) the day it is > available. And so will Netscape Communicator, a competing browser. > What's the big deal? The big deal, quite simply, is that Microsoft wants to require the vendor to load MSIE and *ONLY* MSIE on your machine, as a condition of being permitted to pre-install Win95/Win98 on the machine. *THAT* is illegal restraint of trade. Not only must the *end user* be free to install whichever browser he or she chooses (and pick a default browser, if more than one is installed), but the *OEMs* must also be free to install whichever browser they believe will better serve their customers. The ISPs must be free to offer competing browsers, rather than being required to offer ONLY Internet Explorer as a condition of being listed in the Win95/Win98 Startup menu. ** Do not send me unsolicited commercial e-mail spam of any kind ** Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * Telecom@LincMad-com URL:< http://www.lincmad.com > * North American Area Codes & Splits >> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must change "NOSPAM" to "com" << [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But note what Ed Ellers says in the message just before this one. Has anyone yet ever come up with an actual contract between Microsoft and a vendor/retailer explicitly forbidding such installations by retailers? What Microsoft *wants* is one thing; what they get is another. I'd love to have lots of things. Will someone please produce an actual sales document or contract or other memorandum from Microsoft to one of its retailer/ vendor customers formalizing the demands everyone is claiming is the case? Does Microsoft refuse to sell to retailers who refuse to go along with 'the plan'? Can anyone produce a retailer/vendor who has had this happen, where Microsoft literally said do it or else (you won't sell our products)? It has been noted that in the past Coca-Cola tried to claim that stores could sell whatever kinds of cola drinks they wanted, but that with regards *fountain* drinks there would not be any competing beverages in the Coke fountain, nor the other way around. Ditto the paper cups at the fountain: advertisements for Coca-Cola products only; no more, no less. Red paper cup, Coke logo on it. Then one day they met their match in the Southland Corporation, better known for its thousands of 7/Eleven stores everywhere. Southland said to Coke we will put whatver syrups we damn please in the fountain which will have our logo on it, and furthermore, regardless of cola beverage being sold, the paper cup will have *our* advertisement on the side, not yours. Will that be a problem? If so, your syrups will be pulled out of the fountains period, as fast as a memo can go out to all the franchisees. Almost as fast as you can say 'Pepsi Cola hits the spot/twelve full ounces, that's alot/all of that, just a nickle too/Pepsi Cola is the drink for you!' ... (an *ancient* Pepsi radio commercial). Will it be a problem? And you know what? Coke backed off, so valued was the 7/Eleven pur- chasing power. McDonald's, the hamburger people, watched all the commotions and just winked. Because at one point Coke was also going to make *all* McDonald's take Coke products, and Coke only, or else none would get it. I guess that following Coke's decision to work along with 7/Eleven, McDonald's got a couple punches in also and told Coke to shape up fast on their pricing, distribution and policies or never see the inside of a McDonald's again. Coke once again took the prudent, and business-like approach. Coke also felt what was a good pressure tactic where the fountains was concerned should also work okay with vending machines, so the word went out if you have a Coke machine in your office, or store or whatever, best not let us find anything other than Coke products on sale in it. Furthermore, do not put Coke in any machine that does not prominently advertise Coke on the front and sides of the machine. Then a very large discount chain which put 'pop machines' in the front of and/or outside its stores in shopping malls as a courtesy to customers (in addition to selling bottled beverages in six/twelve packs inside the stores) cut a deal with some vending machine company and said from now on all the cold drinks go in this one machine, and they returned to Coke all the machines they had been leasing; ditto all the Pepsi machines, etc. Coke took umbrage at this ... 'it is not part of our understanding' ... the chain said that would be fine, how soon could Coke come and pick up their products? 'Well now, let's not be hasty and all that' was the message in response from Atlanta. And Coke backed down again. We know Microsoft is huge and has a lot of power, but do you really think they have Comp-USA, Tandy/Radio Shack, and guys like that so totally wrapped around their little finger that nothing can be done to stop the Redmond giant? What if two or three of the huge retailers decided Apple MacIntosh was the way to go? "Let's commit to buying six jillion of them this year provided Apple will do X and Y .. and we can get our Spin Doctors to work on the stupid public and tell them this is where things are at from now on, and have a big sale at Christmas time and load them with lots of software ..." do you think Gates would notice and soon be calling on his underlings to find out where the line was being formed for those who wanted to kiss some posterior and start sucking up? I think he would. Remember, government action is distasteful, seldom very effecient and in all frankness, IMHO, against what American enterprise should be all about. Money is the root ... maybe the giant retailers and vendors should be explaining things to uncle Bill rather than the government. They could force a change if they wanted to and had reason (i.e. more money) to do so. I don't think Microsoft *makes* them do anything; I think they just like the deal they get for doing so. PAT] ------------------------------ From: jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 11:27:26 EDT Subject: "Microsoft's Usually Excellent Work" > There is nothing wrong if Netscape has 90 percent of the market, but > Microsoft is being greedy now that they have 35 percent of it, thanks > to a marketing strategy that people must love; after all Microsoft > Windows has about 80 percent of the market in operating systems thanks > to their usually spectacular work. This would be the desktop operating system in which the installation of a web browser necessary to use some other piece of software (IE4, USR Courier install software) causes other missions critical and unrelated software (Premiere 4.2, Video for Windows) to completely stop working, right? The company who's "mission critical" operating system (Windows NT -- that's "No Testicles") allows a problem in one application to completely lock up the machine in the Blue Screen of Death? C'mon, Pat; Microsoft Quality Software is _just_ good enough to get by, and has been since they got big enough that it didn't matter anymore. There is, and has for some time been, a fundamental lack of architectural talent at the top of the MS hierarchy; trying to completely reimplement Windows atop the Mac OS in earlier version of Works and Office being merely one small example thereof. Thousands of unrelated programmers of varying skill levels _working for free_ have managed in less than a decade to produce an _operating system_ (not even something as trivial as an application program :-) that has higher reliability than any product MS has ever shipped -- except maybe TRS-80 Level II Basic. You're pretty good about only editorializing in postings over your own name, and you haven't broken that rule here, but I think it's time to stop and examine whether good enough is good enough to justify putting everyone else out of business. You should have a perfect example to compare to: Ma Bell cutting prices to zero to drive out competition in the early days of telephone service. Maybe ISDN wouldn't have taken until the early nineties to roll out if there'd been some realistic competition earlier. Cheers, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "Two words: Darth Doogie." -- Jason Colby, Tampa Bay, Florida on alt.fan.heinlein +1 813 790 7592 Managing Editor, Top Of The Key sports e-zine ------------ http://www.totk.com ------------------------------ From: brettf@netcom.com (Brett Frankenberger) Subject: Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft Organization: Netcom On-Line Services Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 03:06:17 GMT (re Department of Justice and Microsoft) There are plenty of idiots in the Department of Justice. If it were appropriate to discuss things here, I probably wouldn't disagree with an assertion that the Department is run by an idiot. Some of the demands being allegedly placed on Microsoft are also ludicrous -- I agree with Bill's claim that requiring Microsoft to bundle NetScape with Windows 98 "has no basis in law". Nevertheless, the fact remains: Microsft has routinely and blatently violated the anti-trust laws of this country. I do not begrudge Microsoft (and Bill Gates) the massive amounts of money and market share they have worked hard to obtain and maintain. Windows (98 and NT) is the dominant operating system because Bill built a better product, not because of some sinister or illegal plan implemented by Microsoft. (By better I mean in the business sense. Some would suggest that Linux is technically a better OS. Some would suggest that prior to NT, OS/2 was better than anything Microsoft offered. I might agree, but that's not the issue here. Microsoft and it's competitors competed on a reasonably level operating-system playing field, and Bill won handily. Whether it's because of superior product or superior marketing is irrelevant to anti-trust law.) Bill now effectively has a monopoly in the Operating System industry, tbut that's not illegal and I don't begrudge him his effective Operating System monopoly. He earned it, and did so legally. But we have laws in this country. The law says that once you have a monopoly or near monopoly, you can't use that market power to increase your monopoly. Microsoft flagrantly violated that law when they inked contracts with computer vendors requiring them to pay Microsoft a license fee for every PC they sold. Oh, they didn't have to put a Microsoft OS on it -- They could install anything they wanted -- but they had to pay for the Microsoft OS either way. This effectively allowed Microsoft to make sure it was always cheaper for a computer manufacturer to install the Microsoft OS. No one else could have forced such an agreement on manufacturers. Suppose IBM said that with OS/2 -- Gateway 2000 and the like would have laughed them right out the door. But Microsoft could do it because they had huge market share and computer manufacturers could not compete if they didn't offer the Microsoft OS. The law says that you can't sell stuff at below cost for the purpose of forcing a competitor out of business. Microsoft violated this law when they paid millions of dollars to programmers to write IE, and then proceeded to give it away. IE may or may not legitimately be a part of the OS now (I'll address that below), but when they started giving it away, they didn't even pretend that it was part of the OS -- it was a separate stand-alone product, even available for OS's (Windows 3.1) that were no longer being upgraded. What possible purpose could Microsoft have for doing this expect to force Netscape out of the market. This is no different than Walmart coming in to town and selling everything below cost until all the competing department stores go out of business. (In the traditional example, the selling-at-a-loss store then raises it's prices after the competition is gone. Microsoft is obviously never going to raise the price of it's browser. In this case, it's the backend where prices rise -- Microsoft gives it's browser away forever, but once Netscape's out of the picture, Microsoft controls all the desktops and starts charging more to, say, advertise on whetever page IE goes to when it is started up.) The law says that you can't use a monopoly in one business to create one in another business. Microsoft violated this law when they used their OS monopoly to force computer vendors to put IE on every machine they sold. This effectively gave Microsoft about 100% market share in the browser industry on all new PCs, and the only way they were able to do this is because of their OS monopoly. That's illegal. It would be like Coke getting a 90% market share in the Cola market, then telling stores that if they wanted to sell Coke, they had to also sell Sprite, and could not sell 7up or Slice. > There is nothing wrong if Netscape has 90 percent of the market, but > Microsoft is being greedy now that they have 35 percent of it, thanks > to a marketing strategy that people must love; after all Microsoft > Windows has about 80 percent of the market in operating systems thanks > to their usually spectacular work. You misunderstand the point completely. No one is objecting to anyone's Market Share. Netscape's 90% of the browser market it fine (whether it's effectively a monopoly or not). Microsoft's 35% (quoting your numbers -- I have no reason to doubt them, but haven't personally verified them) of the browser market is fine, as is their 80%+ of the OS market. Some of the mainstream press is misrepresenting the issues at the core of this matter. Market share is not a problem. Violation of antitrust laws is a problem. The fact that Microsoft has 35% of the browser makert is irrelevant. Whatever that percentage -- 0%, 50%, 90% -- it is illegal for them to use a monopoly (which they do not have in the browser market, but which they do have in the OS market) to increase market share in a different market (the browser market). Did Netscape use it's 90% to increase it's market share? No. They did nothing to prevent or make it more difficult for people to get and install competing browsers. Microsoft, on the other hand, used it's 90% OS share to make it more difficult to buy competing operating systems (because, with more computer vendors, you had to pay for the Microsoft OS no matter which OS you wanted.) Did Netscape sell anything at a loss to force competitors out of business? Certainly not. (They now sell their browser at a loss, but that's to compete with Microsoft, not to force anyone else out of business.) Did Netscape use it's Browser monopoly to create a monopoly or near monopoly in another business? No. They could have -- for example, had they made their browser work much better with the NetScape Web Server than with competing servers, they could have forced people to buy their Server. But they didn't. Microsoft, though, used it's monopoly in the OS market to increase share in the browser arena, by making it *easier* to get IE than to get Netscape. I'm not saying getting Netscape is diffcult -- I don't think it is -- just that installing Windows 95 is without a doubt *easier* than installing Windows 95 and then installing something else. > Since according to Netscape and their friends in the Department of > Injustice most Americans are too dumb to know how to install a browser > or otherwise manipulate their software and operating systems to run > as they want them to, we all have to be saved from ourselves and > shown the error in our thinking if we prefer Internet Explorer 4.0 > over Netscape. The facts are that very few people who get Windows 95/98/NT with the included IE go get and install Netscape. It matters not why this is: Maybe it's because people are stupid (there's a strong case to be made for that, by the way), maybe it's because people think the products are equivalent and don't want to waste the time switching, maybe it's some other reason. But: Microsoft uses its OS monopoly to increase its Browser market share. That's illegal. > Netscape feels their browser should be included as part of the package > Microsoft sells because that will be the only way that people will be > able to use it. That's ludicrous, and a major PR gaffe for the Justice Department. As you point out below, Gates has been able to use that statement to his advantage. No one I know seriously thinks Microsoft should or will be forced to include Netscape. But trying to shoot down the well-though-out, well-ground, but not well-publicized, specific legal issues in the case by pointing to one idiotic statement doesn't address the root issue: Microsoft violated anti-trust laws. No amount of silly posturing by Justice Department officials who want Microsoft to ship Netscape with Windows will change that. (re Coke analogy) The analogy fails under any scrutiny. First of all, neither Coke nor Pepsi has a monopoly to capitalize on. To make this analogy relevant, you need to assume that, say, Pepsico has a monopoly on supermarkets -- something like they own 80% of the supermarkets in the country. Then, assume that Pepsico uses that monopoly to control what people see in the stores and eat away at Coca-Cola's soft drink market share. > Coca-Cola should be required to leave out a couple of the ingredients > in their beverage so that it does not taste quite as good and Pepsi > will be able to sell more of their beverage instead. Again, not comparable. First, no one is suggesting that Microsoft be forced to cripple it's competing product -- IE and Netscape can compete on their own merits and Microsoft can put whatever features it wants in IE. Second, there's no market power being exerted by Coca-Cola or Pepsico. What Microsoft is doing is akin to Coca-Cola gaining 90% of the soft-drink market, and then giving everyone who purchases a 6-pack of Coke a free six-pack of Sprite, to force 7up and Slice out of business. > Oh, and Netscape and Janet Reno would also like you to know that you > are probably much too dumb to figure out how to use the little programs > called 'sysedit' and 'regedit' to change things around so that the > computer boots up in the way you want it to run. Um, Pat, there is a large segment of the population who wouldn't do anything but destroy their system if they tried to use RegEdit. But that's not the fundamental point. > Gates and Microsoft are really getting a raw deal, but what else is > the federal government good for these days except harassing and trying > to control its citizens. Robbery and muggings are crimes in this > country, except when Janet Reno does it, and then it is supposed to be > okay. If you don't like the antitrust laws, that's fine. That's a valid political debate, but not one which is really relevant to this group. I'm not (in this message) arguing in favor of or against antitrust laws as they exist today. Why I am arguing against is the notion that there is somehow a vendetta by the Government against Microsoft, or that antitrust laws are somehow being unequally applied to Microsoft. Don't focus on the hype -- the hype from the Justice Department and from Microsoft are both nonsensical attempts to manipulate public opinion. Look at the core legal issues: As antitrust law stands today, Microsoft is in violation. And they are being sued for it. This is no more or less agressive that the federal government has been against other such monopolies. IBM, for example. There is some bad timing on the part of the Justice department. Windows 98 has done a very fine job of integrating the Browser into the Desktop (and, thus, effectively into the OS, since Microsoft doesn't separate the Desktop from the OS). And, just by looking at the state of things today, it's difficult to tell if this integration is beneficial to customers and is a legal, natural evolution of computing, or if it's an attempt to illegally bundle a monopoly OS with a browser in order to increase browser market share, with the integration serving as nothing more than a clever way to disguise the intent. I don't claim to know the answer to this question, although I'm sure there are internal Microsoft documents that would tell (which we may or may not ever see). But if you'll look even a little bit into the past, you'll see Microsoft's long history of much more blatent violations of antitrust law. - Brett (brettf@netcom.com) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 09:00:34 -0400 From: Greg Stahl KE4LDD Organization: St.Lawrence University Subject: Re: A Very Dark Day for Microsoft Don't these people have better things to do, like stopping drug traffickers. I like Bill Gates' analogy, he right. Isn't this about the American way and choices? How can anyone expect MS NOT to include their browser and push their and their partners sites, products, etc. Every company does it. LET THE EDUCATED CONSUMER MAKE HIS/HER OWN CHOICE. Greg A. Stahl- KE4LDD Communications Technician St. Lawrence University Telecommunications Dept. Canton, NY 13617 V- (315)229-5918 GSTA@music.stlawu.edu F- (315)229-5547 http://www.stlawu.edu/gsta [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: A lot of people here feel the Coke analogy was quite flawed, and perhaps it was. But I would like to suggest one final idea as this thread (hopefully!) comes to a close. In the very early, 'pioneer' days of telephony, AT&T used tactics quite similar to those of Microsoft. Theodore Vail, AT&T's Chairman early this century and Bill Gates share a lot in common. But what happened in AT&T's case was that a consortium -- at the time a few thousand small independent telcos -- was formed to serve the tiny phone companies and protect them against the very same kinds of tactics Microsoft is alleged to be involved in now; ie. cooperate entirely, do one thing in order to get the benefits of another thing you must have, etc. The United States Independent Telephone Association was formed to provide the missing links the small telcos needed to survive independent of 'the Bell'. By the early 1930's, the Greyhound Bus Company was asserting the same kind of tactics: to the small, localized bus lines all over the USA they were saying either give us the percentage of your ticket sales we are demanding, and do things just as we say, or we won't 'interline' with you to get your passengers from one side of the country to the other. See how long you can stay in business selling tickets between two towns ten miles apart instead of long-haul tickets, and how well you can survive when none of the bus agents (independent operators of bus stations all over the USA) know you exist because you are not listed in the schedule books we publish and control. If they don't know about you then they can't sell tickets for your bus, and their passengers will wind up riding the whole trip with Greyhound instead. The answer: a consortium known as 'Trailways'. Any small bus line was free to join the Trailways Association; they got to use the red and white logo, they got help in the form of a national publication for their schedules, back office interline accounting functions, etc. In its heyday, the group of bus companies operating under the Trailways banner was able to get passengers all over the USA without any need to interline with Greyhound at all. As an association, they sued Greyhound on a few occassions to force changes; they lobbied the various state commissions which set the prices of tickets and bus routes that Greyhound operated; they were successful in most communities in convincing the bus agent to sell their tickets and let them use the same bus station as Greyhound was using; in summary, they gave Greyhound a *huge* amount of grief. Whenever Greyhound tried to pressure an agent to 'get Trailways out of your station or else we are going to pull out' (taking maybe 60 percent of the agent's business with them) the association would help the agent sue if he desired. The Trailways association of bus companies brought huge reforms to the bus business and as a result lower prices and better service. Now I have to wonder, what would happen today if 'certain' hardware manufactuers, dealer/distributor/vendors, and software houses were to form something like a consortium or association deliberatly designed to help the consumer/end user avoid Microsoft at all costs. A new OS; you won't need Windows any longer. Lots of new software and hardware deliberatly coordinated with the idea of using the new OS. A large outfit like Tandy/Radio Shack can talk back to Microsoft and sass them all they want, but what is a small storefront guy to do? An association, or consortium, with its own brand name, its own public recognition, and dozens or hundreds of software houses, hardware makers and dealers all having one goal in mind: pooling their resources in such a way to coordinate everything all very nicely, just like Microsoft does with its own stuff now, but Micro- soft no where to be found in the picture. The association would do just like USITA years ago or Trailways: provide public relations and national advertising for its members (more correctly, for the brand name its members used for their computer products); provide a nationwide technical support service; coordinate efforts among the members in their software products, etc. The association's underlying theme would always be, 'you don't need Microsoft any longer ... for anything'. That would be the *one* single common goal of each member, regardless of what they were doing, ie hardware, software or other peripherals ... you don't need Microsoft any longer to survive in business. We furnish the hardware, we furnish the OS, the software, the plug-ins, the browser, the internet connectivity, the works. All very nicely coordinated so you can go to any of our members for purchases, service or technical advice. What any of our members sells works correctly with whatever else another member sells ... just like Microsoft with all its products and features and services and technical help lines, only very few people use them any longer because they were so repressive and their prices were so high. USITA told the telcos they could get along just fine without Bell; Trailways told the little bus companies and the agents they could get along just fine without Greyhound; it has happened in other industries as well. No one who joined the new association would give up their independence in any way; they would just pledge to support a mutual standard based on their new OS; they'd still even continue to make stuff for Windows if they felt like it as well. I think Bill Gates might notice something like that, don't you? PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #76 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon May 25 20:20:03 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id UAA11652; Mon, 25 May 1998 20:20:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 20:20:03 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199805260020.UAA11652@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #77 TELECOM Digest Mon, 25 May 98 20:20:00 EDT Volume 18 : Issue 77 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Telecom Update (Canada) #134, May 25, 1998 (Angus TeleManagement) Cordless Magneto Switchboard Info Wanted (Gregory Stewart) UCLA Short Course on "Inventing, Patenting, and Licensing" (Bill Goodin) AT+T - $1 Carrying Charge For All? (Lisa Hancock) Book Review: "Windows 95 and NT Networking", Wayne Robertson (Rob Slade) Re: Opponents of 847 Overlay File Against Ameritech (Dan Meldazis) Re: Opponents of 847 Overlay File Against Ameritech (Adam H. Kerman) Re: Opponents of 847 Overlay File Against Ameritech ((Michael Sarro) Last Laugh! 888 Plus Eight Digits? (Jack Applin) One More Last laugh!: Archeology Report (The Old 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 11:05:33 -0400 From: Angus TeleManagement Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #134, May 25, 1998 ************************************************************ * * * TELECOM UPDATE * * Angus TeleManagement's Weekly Telecom Newsbulletin * * http://www.angustel.ca * * Number 134: May 25, 1998 * * * * Publication of Telecom Update is made possible by * * generous financial support from: * * * * Bell Canada ................. http://www.bell.ca/ * * City Dial Network Services .. http://www.citydial.com/ * * Computer Talk Technology .... http://icescape.com/ * * fONOROLA .................... http://www.fonorola.com/ * * Lucent Technologies ......... http://www.lucent.com/ * * * ************************************************************ IN THIS ISSUE: ** MetroNet Buys Rogers Telecom ** Lockheed Signed Up for Number Portability ** NBTel Granted Stay on Business Rate Changes ** Call-Net Seeks Overturn of fONOROLA "Poison Pill" ** CRTC Rejects Customer-Specific Centrex ** Profits Surge at Mitel ** Cantel Offers Prepaid Cellular ** Competitors Request Change to Bundling Rules ** CRTC Sets Up Toll-Free Number ** Motorola, Teledesic Merge Satellite Plans ** BC Tel Connects Remote Communities ** InfoInterActive Loses Appeal ** CCTA, Quebec Cable Association to Open Joint Office ** CRTC Requests Comment on Telus Multimedia Trial ** CRTC Rules on Interconnection Disputes ** Nortel Promises "Voice Over Any Medium" ** Bell Mobility Offers Paging Watch ** An Inside Look at the Telecom Shake-Up ============================================================ METRONET BUYS ROGERS TELECOM: MetroNet Communications is paying $600 Million cash and $400 Million in non-voting shares to buy Rogers Telecom, whose 3,100-km fiber network connects to 1,200 buildings in Toronto, Vancouver, Ottawa, London, and Kitchener. Rogers promises not to provide non- wireless local service to business customers for four years. ** Rogers Communications has fired Jos Wintermans, President and CEO of its cable division, citing the need for "a President with greater depth of experience." LOCKHEED SIGNED UP FOR NUMBER PORTABILITY: Lockheed Martin has signed a five-year agreement with the Canadian Local Number Portability Consortium to provide and maintain Canada's local number portability database. Lockheed replaces Perot Systems, which bowed out in March. (See Telecom Update #127) NBTEL GRANTED STAY ON BUSINESS RATE CHANGES: NB Tel has asked that its business line rate reductions, approved in CRTC Order 98-468 to take effect May 19, be put on hold until it can appeal the order. The Commission has granted the stay; NB Tel has 30 days to file an appeal. ** MTS received approval May 19 for Multiline Business rates of $49.45 in Bands A, B, and C, along with reductions in other capped services. This supersedes the prices approved in Order 98-467. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/telecom/order/1998/o98468_0.txt http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/telecom/order/1998/o98467_0.txt CALL-NET SEEKS OVERTURN OF fONOROLA "POISON PILL": Call-Net Enterprises is asking the Ontario and Quebec securities commissions to overturn fONOROLA's shareholder rights plan, to permit shareholders to decide immediately on Call-Net's purchase offer. Call-Net has extended its offer to May 29. (See Telecom Update #132) CRTC REJECTS CUSTOMER-SPECIFIC CENTREX: In Telecom Order 98- 496, the CRTC turns down a Bell Canada proposal to reduce Centrex rates for the University of Toronto. The Commission says customer-specific rates are appropriate only if the telco can show that the cost of providing the service is lower than for other customers. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/telecom/order/1998/o98496_0.txt PROFITS SURGE AT MITEL: Mitel's net income for the year ending March 27 more than doubled to $91.9 Million. Revenue was $889 Million, up 28%. Mitel says semiconductors account for 83% of its order backlog and 41% of last-quarter sales. CANTEL OFFERS PREPAID CELLULAR: Rogers Cantel has launched "Pay-As-You-Go," a prepaid cellular service that offers an analog cellphone and 60 minutes calling time for $150; additional domestic airtime is 42 cents/minute. COMPETITORS REQUEST CHANGE TO BUNDLING RULES: A group of 17 competitive telecom carriers, including AT&T Canada, Call- Net, fONOROLA, MetroNet, Microcell, and Rogers Cantel, have asked the CRTC to prohibit Stentor telcos from bundling local with competitive services, and from bundling tariffed services with those of affiliated companies or with non- telecom services. CRTC SETS UP TOLL-FREE NUMBER: The CRTC has introduced a Canada-wide toll-free number, 1-877-249-CRTC (2782), which connects callers to the Commission's closest office. ** Commission hearings on phone service to high-cost serving areas begin May 25 in Whitehorse, Yukon. (See Telecom Update #130) MOTOROLA, TELEDESIC MERGE SATELLITE PLANS: Motorola Inc. has dropped plans to build its own broadband satellite network and joined the Teledesic satellite consortium. Teledesic plans to begin service with 288 satellites in 2003. ** On May 17, Iridium completed the launch of its 72 low- earth-orbit satellites; service is to start September 23. BC TEL CONNECTS REMOTE COMMUNITIES: BC Tel will contribute $2.7 Million to a $4-Million program to bring phone service to about 250 residences in six remote communities by the end of 1999. And in a separate project, the telco is building a high-speed network linking 17 remote bands of the Shuswap Nation. INFOINTERACTIVE LOSES APPEAL: Last June, Halifax-based InfoInterActive asked the CRTC to order Bell Canada to modify its Call Answer service so that customers could also use IIA's Internet Call Manager service. Telecom Order 98- 497 rejects the request. (See Telecom Update #96) http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/telecom/order/1998/o98497_0.txt CCTA, QUEBEC CABLE ASSOCIATION TO OPEN JOINT OFFICE: The Canadian Cable Television Association and the Association des cablodistributeurs du Quebec (ACQ) plan to open a joint office in Montreal this year. CRTC REQUESTS COMMENT ON TELUS MULTIMEDIA TRIAL: CRTC Broadcasting Public Notice 1998-52 seeks comment on Telus' request that its broadcast license be amended to permit its multimedia trial to proceed without digital equipment. (See Telecom Update #119) http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/bcasting/notice/1998/p9852_0.txt CRTC RULES ON INTERCONNECTION DISPUTES: CRTC Telecom Order 98-486 rules on various disputed issues related to transiting and points of interconnection and referred to it by the CRTC Interconnection Steering Committee. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/telecom/order/1998/O98486_0.txt NORTEL PROMISES "VOICE OVER ANY MEDIUM": Northern Telecom has announced a new product line for carriers to deliver "voice over any medium" including IP and ATM. The first Universal Edge products are to be available for trials later this year. BELL MOBILITY OFFERS PAGING WATCH: Bell Mobility now offers Beepwear, a combination pager-wristwatch that receives numeric and text messages (up to 100 characters). Price: $179.95 plus $7.95/month. ** Mobility Canada's 15 member companies have allocated $60 Million for wireless R&D projects over the next three years. AN INSIDE LOOK AT THE TELECOM SHAKE-UP: "Telecom Strategies Today," a free bonus to new Telemanagement subscribers, includes exclusive profiles of MetroNet, Sprint, fONOROLA, AT&T, and other companies shaking up Canadian telecom. ** The Bonus Offer also includes a glossary with concise, plain-English explanations of nearly 200 important telecom acronyms. ** To subscribe to Telemanagement (and receive the 25 reports in Telecom Strategies Today) call 1-800-263-4415, ext 500 or visit http://www.angustel.ca/teleman/tm-sub.html ============================================================ HOW TO SUBMIT ITEMS FOR TELECOM UPDATE E-MAIL: editors@angustel.ca FAX: 905-686-2655 MAIL: TELECOM UPDATE Angus TeleManagement Group 8 Old Kingston Road Ajax, Ontario Canada L1T 2Z7 =========================================================== HOW TO SUBSCRIBE (OR UNSUBSCRIBE) TELECOM UPDATE is provided in electronic form only. There are two formats available: 1. The fully-formatted edition is posted on the World Wide Web on the first business day of the week. Point your browser to http://www.angustel.ca/update/up.html 2. The e-mail edition is distributed free of charge. To subscribe, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should contain only the two words: subscribe update To stop receiving the e-mail edition, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should say only: unsubscribe update [Your e-mail address] =========================================================== COPYRIGHT AND DISCLAIMER: All contents copyright 1998 Angus TeleManagement Group Inc. All rights reserved. For further information, including permission to reprint or reproduce, please e-mail rosita@angustel.ca or phone 905-686-5050 ext 225. The information and data included has been obtained from sources which we believe to be reliable, but Angus TeleManagement makes no warranties or representations whatsoever regarding accuracy, completeness, or adequacy. Opinions expressed are based on interpretation of available information, and are subject to change. If expert advice on the subject matter is required, the services of a competent professional should be obtained. ------------------------------ From: Gregory Stewart Subject: Cordless Magneto Switchboard Info Wanted Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 22:44:27 GMT Organization: Bell Solutions I just picked up a 10 line "cordless" magneto switchboard, made by Western Electric (Cordless in that there is no cords/jacks -- calls were put through by a matrix of switches being turned ...) The thing sits on a desktop, and at one point had a 211 handset telephone affixed to the side of the wooden box it consists of (according to the schematic pasted inside) ... - A 211 set is basically a telephone hookswitch, and a handset, often called a "Space Saver" telephone set, for those who don't know WECo set naming conventions. Does anyone know how it works, or have one? Its going to be a while before I get around to cleaning it up/refinishing it (it looks like it sat in someones garage for quite a while). Its probable use was as a early PBX for a small office, using magneto telephones. The front has 15 drops (5 in the first row, 10 in the second), 2 rows of RED 10 red keys, 2 white keys, and 1 row of 11 BLACK keys. Drop me a line at trialrun@netrover.com, if you've got some info on this box. Thanks, Greg ------------------------------ From: Bill Goodin Subject: UCLA Short Course on "Inventing, Patenting, and Licensing" Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 16:43:41 -0700 On August 17-19, 1998, UCLA Extension will present the short course, "Inventing, Patenting, and Licensing", on the UCLA campus in Los Angeles. The instructor is Patrick MacCarthy, PhD, Consultant on Product Development and Inventing; and Professor of Chemistry, Colorado School of Mines, Golden. This course presents a step-by-step approach to documenting and protecting ideas and inventions, and provides information on how to obtain a patent and license a product. It explains what can happen after the patent issues, and offers the necessary information to make better decisions at the early stage of the application process to avoid mistakes that may prove costly later. The course addresses the entire patenting and licensing process from the initial inventing activity, through the patent application, to licensing the product, and beyond. The nature of patents, the subtleties of patent claims, patent interference, and patent infringement are all explained, and several case histories of patenting and licensing activities are presented. The information presented should also allow inventors and technology managers to work more effectively with an external or in-house patent attorney, and to better understand the attorney's role in the process. Participants have the opportunity to interact and share experiences in an informal setting. Inventors, entrepreneurs, researchers in small companies and universities, engineers in large corporations, research administrators, and corporate executives responsible for intellectual property protection should all benefit from the course. The course fee is $1195, which includes course materials. These materials are for participants only, and are not for sale. For additional 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: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: AT+T - $1 Carrying Charge For All? Date: 24 May 1998 17:55:35 GMT Organization: Net Access BBS Is it true that AT&T will charge its occassional customers a carrying charge of $1.00 per month starting in July? I don't make enough long distance calls to justify a "plan", and I am perfectly happy with AT&T's a la carte billing for those times I do. (Though I wish they'd give me a break on calls to ten miles away, they charge me the same as calls to Seattle.) I don't like the idea of a monthly service charge. If AT&T is facing higher interconnect expenses, then add the costs to the per minute charges. Let those who use the service the most pay it. Also, why are these "interconnect charges" going up? What does our "FCC Line Charge" cover on the bill? ------------------------------ From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 08:28:30 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "Windows 95 and NT Networking", Wayne Robertson Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BK95NTNT.RVW 980320 "Windows 95 and NT Networking", Wayne Robertson/Edward Koop, 1997, 0-07-912983-8, U$49.95/C$71.95 %A Wayne Robertson %A Edward Koop %C 300 Water Street, Whitby, Ontario L1N 9B6 %D 1997 %G 0-07-912983-8 %I McGraw-Hill Ryerson/Osborne %O U$49.95/C$71.95 800-565-5758 fax: 905-430-5020 %P 389 p. + diskette %T "Windows 95 and NT Networking" The intended audience seems to be everyone. This makes it difficult both to write the book and to assess it. For a rank beginner the book should provide some introduction to the areas to be addressed, but overall it fails to provide the detail at any level necessary to get networks to run. Chapter one purports to be an overview of the two operating systems, but reads more like a sales brochure, failing to look seriously at the competition or the shortcomings of the products. Network architecture is discussed in chapter two, but so is a whole range of topics from cabling to IP (Internet Protocol) addressing, and therefore the coverage in any area is quite brief. Windows NT is presented in more detail, but still in promotional mode, in chapter three. Chapter four does start to get into a useful level of technicality, but this only serves to point out the surprising fact that the book is based strictly on NT version 3.5. Therefore the connectivity discussion in chapter five becomes moot, since most of the setup options have been significantly changed in the more recent version. The same holds true for the coverage of Novell NetWare support in chapter six. The look at Windows 95 is chapter seven is slightly more realistic. The authors do admit that "Plug and Play" promises more than it delivers, and that installation of 95 might not be a cakewalk. I found it odd that the book did not address questions of more concern to experienced MS-DOS and Windows 3.x users, such as the fact that MSDOS.SYS has changed from an untouchable binary file to a text file that the authors recommend modifying. Chapter eight is supposed to deal with network settings in the Registry, but most of the material describes other, general areas of configuration. A number of aspects of Microsoft networking are mentioned in chapter nine, but without a lot of logic to the organization. The explanation of Windows 95 connectivity to Novell NetWare is much more detailed in chapter ten than was the case in chapter six, but chapters eleven and twelve seem to cover the same ground, albeit from slightly different perspectives. Chapter thirteen looks very briefly at other networks. The lack of coverage of NT 4.0 would be a major failing were it not for the fact that the book does not deal with NT at any depth. Windows 95 gets by far the larger share of the ink, and the work may be useful for those who are still integrating 95 clients into a NetWare environment. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1998 BK95NTNT.RVW 980320 ------------------------------ From: dmeldazis@focal.com (Dan Meldazis) Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 17:27:38 -0500 Subject: Re: Opponents of 847 Overlay File Against Ameritech > However, the Ill.C.C. recently ordered phone companies with fewer > than 100 assigned telephone numbers in a given prefix to return 90% of > the unassigned numbers to the pool for assignment by other telephone > companies. This is untrue. The Commission ordered number pooling to begin, not how it was to be done. The industry drafted the guidelines on number pooling. The level of numbers assigned in an NXX-X block, or contamination level, was set at 10%. Also, not all of the NXX-X blocks in NPA 847 with 10% or less contamination level have to be returned. There is nothing in the Commission order that states that. The pooling guidelines state only that a carrier has to be capable (LNP capable) of contributing NXX-X blocks to the pool in order to get blocks from the pool. Dan Meldazis ------------------------------ From: ahk@chinet.chinet.com (Adam H. Kerman) Subject: Re: Opponents of 847 Overlay File Against Ameritech Date: 24 May 1998 13:17:23 -0500 Organization: Chinet - Public Access In article , > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Why the City of Chicago should be concerned > about, or have any authority over an area code which does not even serve > it is something I do not understand. It's perfectly clear: The plan is to extend the overlay 847, and then extend it to the other four Chicago-area NPA's, including 773 and 312 in the city. I guess the city is trying to head it off years in advance. > And thanks to CUB's meddling (and they are not really an unbiased consumer > organization as they claim), Heh. I've never been a member, objecting to the ethics of an organization to represent the interests of ratepayers against utilities that wasn't founded by consumers. CUB was a political compromise by the legislature during a year that rapid political support was building for electing the members of the Ill.C.C. and removing patronage from the Governor. It was a backlash against years of electric price hikes thanks to ComEd continuing to build unneeded capacity in nuclear generating. Also, there were significant hikes in natural gas prices and coal-generated electric prices, thanks to ridiculous "take-or-pay" contracts signed during the late '70's, that the Ill.C.C. allowed. > now I will get my third new area code in about ten years. We went > from 312 to 708, to 847 and now in a few months to something else. Heh. Can't blame CUB for the original 312 split; they hadn't yet been chartered! Although, it's unfortunate that no one had the foresight to advance the idea of an overlay way back when. > There *will* be a new area code in the north suburbs by the end of this year, > regardless of whether it is installed as an overlay or as a geographic area, > and indications are that if it is a geographic split, the northwest area will > keep 847 and those of us to the east will get the new, as yet unknown code. Pat, I would have favored overlays in lieu of the 708 to 630/847 split, and 312 to 773 split. But, I oppose yet another new area code in Chicago. I really want to see the Ill.C.C. seriously enforce their number conservation order! It'll immediately free up tens of thousands of phone numbers per exchange. Unfortunately, the order didn't go far enough. It should have withdrawn those prefixes that have fewer than 100 numbers assigned, and forced those phone companies to take available blocks of 1000 numbers from previously- assigned prefixes in those exchanges. Is there really a reason to believe that if number conservation is seriously enforced that NPA 847 must be overlayed this year? Aargh! Why did anyone ever think it was necessary to give pager companies entire prefixes? ------------------------------ Reply-To: From: Michael Sarro Subject: Re: Opponents of 847 Overlay File Against Ameritech Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 12:34:36 -0400 It is a shame to learn that the ICC has caved in to the pressures of the OVERLAY lobbists in this country. Being a Chicago native who grew up in the NW Suburbs I am deeply sadened to learn that Chicago, which I thought was on the forefront of alternative telephone technologies, like number pooling, has lost its "clout" and its "Big Shoulders" appraoch to political issues. I have personally changed the phones numbers of most of my friends and family over the past 10 years, since 708 introduction in 1989, and feel sorry for the folks in Chicagoland who will now be inconvenienced ad infinitum with mandatory 11 digit dialing. The recent 1996 splits of 708 and 312 into the five code area it is today was one of the smoothest and most well informed splits that I have tracked. Not to mention that everyone I know in the Chicago area was aware of it and basically unaffected. Of course, the costs associated with changing stationary and business cards are measurable, but I believe that a business located in a telephone hotbed should welcome an area code split as a progressive measure. Sure there is the allegation that it is all a hoax based on the archaic number assignment policies of days gone-by (i.e. 10,000 numbers per carrier, even tough all may not be in use), but I feel that it is still a positive sign of an area's growth and the demands that business and its denizens are placing on the resources. It is a shame that a metropolitan area like Chicago which is so well geographically divisible cannot come up with an acceptable plan which would inconvenience, and I use the term loosely, a limited, distict region only for a short period of time instead of inconveniencing FOREVER AND EVER the nearly 8 million Chicagoans who used to call 312 home. Does anyone remember the phone books in Chicago for the suburbs in the 70's? They were nicely divided into Near North, Far North, Northwest, Near West, Far West, and South, and as far as I can tell from my travels home over the years, most of these local divisions still fit. Why not carve up the area based on these divisions and be done with it. Split 847 down the Des Plaines River to the Lake Co. border and then break the line NW to Volo where Lake Zurich, Barrington, and Buffalo Grove would stay 847. New code would be assigned to Near North and Far North. Split 630 E and W at Route 53 with 630 retained in Naperville/Aurora. New code would be assigned to Eastern Du Page Co. Split 708 between the Near West suburbs and the South suburbs at about I-55 with the Near West retaining 708. Lastly and most importantly the North / South division of CHicago has existed since the 1800's, and I'm certain a line could be agreed on for a split of 773, say at the Eisenhower Expressway. 312 can also be divided, while I would agree that it is difficult and pratically ridiculous given the small amount of real estate that it currently covers; however, not without merit of consideration. It's really not so difficult. Is there any alternative left to overturn the insanity of the OVERLAY wave? Unfortunately, I live in the NY Tri-State area and OVERLAYs were just approved for the city of NY. They caved in as well. Manhattan could easily have been divided at 23rd St. Did anyone see the Seinfeld a few weeks ago where they mocked the new OVERLAY code? It had me rolling. If this is the prefered approach today, why didn't we just start this madness in the 80's and leave the old boundries in place? Just think where we'll be in 2010 after two more codes have been commonly "overlayed" on the Chicago area ... A person could live in Elk Grove and work in Addison, where his home number would be 847 and work number 630. After common overlays on the five codes moving into the future, a second line in the home could be 636 (a > hypothetical 1998 newly assigned OVERALY code) and then a fax line at home could be 979 (a hypothetically assigned code in 2000). Three area codes for one household, sounds pretty stupid to me. Welcome to the advances of technology and public apethy. Supporters? SAVOI, Inc. Michael A. Sarro Flemington, NJ 08822 savoi@worldnet.att.net ------------------------------ From: neutron@hpfcla.fc.hp.com (Jack Applin) Subject: Last Laugh! 888 Plus Eight Digits? Date: 25 May 1998 00:07:56 GMT Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Ft. Collins, CO In the May 24, 1998 (Denver Colorado) {Rocky Mountain News}, p. 18C, there's an advertisement for a bicycle tour. The ad states the following, including the parenthetical comment: If you prefer hotel accommodation, please call Alpine Travel at 1-888-702-57463 (Please dial--the new 888 numbers have one additional digit). Really? I often see numbers with extra digits for mnemonic purposes, such as 1-888-COMIC-BOOK, but I assumed that only seven digits after the 888 (or 800, or in general 8xx) counted. Note that 702-57463 is 70-ALPINE, and it's Alpine Travel. -Jack Applin neutron@fc.hp.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Whoever placed that ad in the newspaper is stupid, and whoever at the newspaper approved the ad for publication probably is not too bright either. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 23:40:48 -0400 From: The Old Bear Subject: One More Last Laugh!: Archeology Report Arno Martens of Toronto, Ont., Canada passes this along: Scientific Discoveries -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- German scientists dug 50 meters underground and discovered small pieces of copper. After studying these pieces for a long time, Germany announced that the ancient Germans 25,000 years ago had a nationwide telephone network. Naturally, the British government was not that easily impressed. They ordered their own scientists to dig even deeper. 100 meters down, they found small pieces of glass and they soon announced that the ancient Brits 35,000 years ago already had a nationwide fiber net. Irish scientists were outraged. They dug 200 meters underground, but found absolutely nothing. They concluded that the ancient Irish 55,000 years ago had cellular telephones. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Bravo! And to all, I do hope your Memorial Day holiday weekend was a pleasant one, and that you are preparing for and cheerfully anticipating the start of summer. Can you handle *just one more* round in the Microsoft thing? I am getting a *summary* later tonight of the two issues which were devoted to it and will probably send it out soon. It will be purely a summary of the published remarks; no further email responses will be accepted. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #77 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon May 25 21:53:38 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id VAA16464; Mon, 25 May 1998 21:53:38 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 21:53:38 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199805260153.VAA16464@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #78 TELECOM Digest Mon, 25 May 98 21:53:00 EDT Volume 18 : Issue 78 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Updated GSM-List May 21, 1998 (Jurgen Morhofer) Re: Collect Calls From a Jail - was Re: 90# (Nelson Bolyard) Re: Collect Calls From a Jail - was Re: 90# (Brad) Re: Collect Calls From a Jail - was Re: 90# (Peter Corlett) Re: Collect Calls From a Jail - was Re: 90# (Mark W. Schumann) Re: Telco Rotary Question! (Carl Knoblock) Re: Telco Rotary Question! (mcsman@aol.com) Re: Bill to Legalize Sspam!! Ack! (John Cropper) Re: VCR Clocks (Chris Farrar) Re: BA Gets PA Overlay(s)! (Lee Winson) Ok, What Exactly Are the Benefits of Local Competition? (Lee Winson) 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 15:42:25 +0200 From: Jurgen Morhofer Subject: Updated GSM-List May 21, 1998 For the latest edition of this list look at my Web-Site: http://www.cs.tu-berlin.de/~jutta/gsm/gsm-list.html kindly supplied by Jutta Degener. Since the introduction of Dual-Band GSM phones it makes sense for the first time to add DCS 1800/1900 operators too as the original purpose of this list was meant to be a roaming guide. (Changes in the list marked by "*") Date May 21, 1998 Country Operator name Network code Tel to customer service ------ ------------- ------------ ----------------------- Albania AMC 276 01 Andorra STA-Mobiland 213 03 Int + 376 824 115 Argentina Armenia * Armentel 283 01 Australia Optus 505 02 Int + 61 2 9342 6000 Telecom/Telstra 505 01 Int + 61 18 01 8287 Vodafone 505 03 Int + 61 2 9415 7236 Austria Mobilkom Austria 232 01 Int + 43 664 1661 max.mobil. 232 03 Int + 43 676 2000 Connect Austria Int + 43 1 58187300 Azerbaidjan Azercell 400 01 Int + 994 12 98 28 23 JV Bakcell Bahrain Batelco 426 01 Int + 973 885557 Bangladesh * Grameen Phone Ltd 470 01 TM International * Sheba Telecom Belgium Proximus 206 01 Int + 32 2205 4912 * Mobistar 206 10 Int + 32 95 95 95 00 Bosnia Cronet 218 01 PTT Bosnia 218 19 Botswana * Mascom Wireless Brunei DSTCom 528 11 Jabatan Telekom 528 01 Bulgaria Citron 284 01 Int + 359 88 500031 Burkina Faso OnaTel Cambodia * CamGSM 456 01 * Cambodia Samart * Cambodia Shinawatra Cameroon PTT Cameroon Cellnet 624 01 Cape Verde * Cabo Verde Telecom Canada Microcell 302 37 Chile * Entel Telefonia China Guangdong MCC 460 00 Beijing Wireless China Unicom 460 01 Zhuhai Comms DGT MPT Jiaxing PTT Tjianjin Toll * Liaoning PPTA 460 02 Congo African Telecoms * Congolaise Wireless Croatia HR Cronet 219 01 Int + 385 14550772 Cyprus CYTA 280 01 Int + 357 2 310588 Czech Rep. Eurotel Praha 230 02 Int + 42 2 6701 6701 Radio Mobil 230 01 Int + 42 603 603 603 Denmark Sonofon 238 02 Int + 45 8020 2100 Tele Danmark Mobil 238 01 Int + 45 8020 2020 * Mobilix 238 30 * Telia 238 20 Egypt Arento 602 01 Estonia EMT 248 01 Int + 372 6 397130 Radiolinja Eesti 248 02 Int + 372 6 399966 * Q GSM 248 03 Ethiopia ETA 636 01 Faroe Isl. * Faroese Telecom Fiji Vodafone 542 01 Int + 679 312000 Finland Radiolinja 244 05 Int + 358 800 95050 Telecom Finland 244 91 Int + 358 800 17000 Alands Mobiltelefon 244 05 * Telia 244 03 Finnet 244 09 Int + 358 800 94000 * L=E4nnen Puhelin * Helsingin Puhelin Int + 358 9 500 100 France Itineris 208 01 Int + 33 1 44 62 14 81 SFR 208 10 Int + 33 1 44 16 20 16 Bouygues Telekom 208 20 Fr.Polynesia Tikiphone 547 20 Fr.W.Indies *Ameris 340 01 Int + 590 93 27 47 Georgia Superphone Geocell 282 01 Magticom 282 02 Germany D1, DeTeMobil 262 01 Int + 49 511 288 0171 D2, Mannesmann 262 02 Int + 49 172 1212 * E-Plus Mobilfunk 262 03 * Viag Interkom Ghana Franci Walker Ltd ScanCom 620 01 Gibraltar GibTel 266 01 Int + 350 58 102 000 G Britain Cellnet 234 10 Int + 44 753 504548 Vodafone 234 15 Int + 44 836 1191 Jersey Telecom 234 50 Int + 44 1534 882 512 Guernsey Telecom 234 55 Manx Telecom 234 58 Int + 44 1624 636613 * One2One 234 30 * Orange 234 33 Greece Panafon 202 05 Int + 30 94 400 122 STET 202 10 Int + 30 93 333 333 * Cosmote 202 01 Greenland * Tele Greenland Guinea * Int'l Wireless 611 * Spacetel 611 * Sotelgui 611 02 Hong Kong HK Hutchison 454 04 SmarTone 454 06 Int + 852 2880 2688 Telecom CSL 454 00 Int + 852 2888 1010 * P Plus Comm 454 22 * New World PCS 454 10 * Mandarin Comm 454 16 * Pacific Link 454 18 * Peoples Telephone 454 12 Hungary Pannon GSM 216 01 Int + 36 1 270 4120 Westel 900 216 30 Int + 36 30 303 100 Iceland Post & Simi 274 01 Int + 354 800 6330 * Icelandic Mobile Phone 274 02 India Airtel 404 10 Int + 91 10 012345 Essar 404 11 Int + 91 11 098110 Maxtouch 404 20 BPL Mobile 404 21 Command 404 30 Mobilenet 404 31 Skycell 404 40 Int + 91 44 8222939 RPG MAA 404 41 * Modi Telstra 404 14 * Sterling Cellular 404 11 Mobile Telecom Airtouch * BPL USWest 404 27 Koshika Bharti Telenet Birla Comm Cellular Comms * TATA 404 07 * Escotel 404 12 JT Mobiles * Evergrowth Telecom * Aircel Digilink 404 15 * Hexacom India * Reliance Telecom * Fascel Limited Indonesia TELKOMSEL 510 10 Int + 62 21 8282811 PT Satelit Palapa 510 01 Int + 62 21 533 1881 Excelcom 510 11 * PT Indosat Iraq Iraq Telecom 418 ?? Iran T.C.I. 432 11 Int + 98 2 18706341 Celcom Kish Free Zone Ireland Eircell 272 01 Int + 353 42 38888 Digifone 272 02 Int + 353 61 203 501 Israel * Partner Communications Italy Omnitel 222 10 Int + 39 349 2000 190 Telecom Italia Mobile 222 01 Int + 39 339 9119 Ivory Coast Ivoiris 612 03 Int + 225 23 90 00 Comstar 612 01 Int + 225 21 51 51 Telecel 612 05 Int + 225 32 32 32 Japan Jordan JMTS 416 01 Kenya Kenya Telecom Kuwait MTCNet 419 02 Int + 965 484 2000 Kyrgyz Rep * Bitel Ltd La Reunion SRR 647 10 Laos Lao Shinawatra 457 01 Latvia LMT 247 01 Int + 371 256 2191 * BALTCOM GSM 247 02 Lebanon Libancell 415 03 * Cellis 415 01 Int + 961 3 391 111 Lesotho Vodacom 651 01 Liechtenstein Natel-D 228 01 Lithuania Omnitel 246 01 Bite GSM 246 02 Int + 370 2 232323 Luxembourg P&T LUXGSM 270 01 Int + 352 4088 7088 * Millicom Lux' S.A 270 77 Lybia Orbit * El Madar Macao CTM 455 01 Int + 853 8913912 Macedonia PTT Makedonija 294 01 Madagascar Sacel * Madacom 646 01 * SMM Malawi TNL 650 01 Malaysia Celcom 502 19 Maxis 502 12 * My BSB 502 02 * MRTEL 502 13 * Adam 502 17 * Mutiara Telecom 502 16 Malta Telecell 278 01 Marocco O.N.P.T. 604 01 Int + 212 220 2828 Mauritius Cellplus 617 01 Int + 230 4335100 Monaco Itineris 208 01 Int + 33 1 44 62 14 81 SFR 208 10 Int + 33 1 44 16 20 16 Office des Telephones Mongolia MobiCom=20 Mozambique * Telecom de Mocambique 634 01 * T.D.M GSM1800 Namibia MTC 649 01 Int + 264 81 121212 Netherlands PTT Netherlands 204 08 Int + 31 6 0106 Libertel 204 04 Int + 31 6 54 500100 * Telfort Holding NV New Caledonia Mobilis 546 01 New Zealand Bell South 530 01 Int + 64 9 357 5100 Nigeria EMIS Norway NetCom 242 02 Int + 47 92 00 01 68 TeleNor Mobil 242 01 Int + 47 22 78 15 00 Oman General Telecoms 422 02 Palestinia * Palestine Telecoms Pakistan Mobilink 410 01 Int + 92 51 273971-7 Papua Pacific 310 01 Philippines Globe Telecom 515 02 Int + 63 2 813 7720 Islacom 515 01 Int + 63 2 813 8618 Poland Plus GSM 260 01 Int + 48 22 607 16 01 ERA GSM 260 02 * IDEA Centertel 260 03 Portugal Telecel 268 01 Int + 351 931 1212 TMN 268 06 Int + 351 1 791 4474 * Main Road Telecoms Qatar Q-Net 427 01 Int +974-325333/400620 Romania MobiFon 226 01 Int + 40013022222 MobilRom 226 10 Int + 40012033333 Russia Mobile Tele... Moscow 250 01 Int + 7 095 915-7734 United Telecom Moscow =20 NW GSM, St. Petersburg 250 02 Int + 7 812 528 4747 Dontelekom 250 ?? * KB Impuls 250 99 JSC Siberian Cellular 250 ?? San Marino Omnitel 222 10 Int + 39 349 2000 190 Telecom Italia Mobile 222 01 Int + 39 339 9119 SaudiArabia Al Jawal 420 01 EAE 420 07 Senegal Sonatel 608 01 Seychelles SEZ SEYCEL 633 01 Serbia Singapore Singapore Telecom 525 01 Int + 65 738 0123 MobileOne 525 03 Slovak Rep Eurotel 231 02 Int + 421 903 903 903 Globtel 231 01 Int + 421 905 905 905 Slovenia Mobitel 293 41 Int + 386 61 131 30 33 South Africa MTN 655 10 Int + 27 11 301 6000 Vodacom 655 01 Int + 27 82 111 Sri Lanka MTN Networks Pvt Ltd 413 02 Spain Airtel 214 01 Int + 34 07 123000 Telefonica Spain 214 07 Int + 34 09 100909 Sudan Mobitel 634 01 Swaziland Sweden Comviq 240 07 Int + 46 586 686 10 Europolitan 240 08 Int + 46 708 22 22 22 Telia 240 01 Int + 46 771 91 03 50 Switzerland* Swisscom 900 228 01 Int + 41 46 05 64 64 * Swisscom 1800 228 01 Syria SYR MOBILE 417 09 Taiwan LDTA 466 92 Int + 886 2 321 1962 Mobitai TransAsia=20 Tanzania Tritel 640 01 Thailand TH AIS GSM 520 01 Int + 66 2 299 6440 Total Access Comms 520 18 Tunisia Tunisian PTT=20 Turkey Telsim 286 02 Int + 90 212 288 7850 Turkcell 286 01 Int + 90 800 211 0211 UAE UAE ETISALAT-G1 424 01 UAE ETISALAT-G2 424 02 Int + 971 4004 101 Uganda Celtel Cellular 641 01 Ukraine Mobile comms 255 01 Golden Telecom 255 05 Radio Systems Kyivstar JSC USA Bell South 310 15 Sprint Spectrum 310 02 Voice Stream 310 26 Aerial Comms. 310 31 Omnipoint 310 16 Powertel 310 27 Wireless 2000 310 11 Uzbekistan Daewoo GSM 434 04 Coscom 434 05 Vatican Omnitel 222 10 Int + 39 349 2000 190 Telecom Italia Mobile 222 01 Int + 39 339 9119 Vietnam MTSC 452 01 DGPT 452 02 Yugoslavia Mobile Telekom 220 01 Pro Monte Zaire African Telecom Net Zimbabwe NET*ONE 648 01 Telecel Zimbabwe ------------------------------ From: Nelson Bolyard Subject: Re: Collect Calls From a Jail - was Re: 90#... Is There Truth to This? Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 13:29:24 -0700 Organization: Bolyards R Us Gail M. Hall wrote: > The other day we received a call from from the county > jail. The message said if we did not want to accept the call to just > hang up. Well, we did. But the caller kept calling back over and > over again. > My husband called the phone company and they said we could disable > collect calls, but that is an all-or-nothing deal, not just calls > from jails or calls from a particular phone. We do have family > members out of town and would want to be able to accept THEIR calls. Most long-distance companies and many local phone companies offer a type of calling card that is ONLY useful for calling the subscribed number. This card is good for calling home. I had collect calls disabled for my home phone, and gave this type of calling card to my children and a few others from whom I'd previously allowed collect calls. This has been a great solution for my family and me. So I suggest you call your local phone company and your long distance company to find out what they offer than might help you. Nelson Bolyard [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Ameritech refers to these as 'Call Me' cards. They look just like regular plastic telephone calling cards, but with an important difference. The one I used to have had only a four digit PIN printed on it; a message on the card said 'dial zero, the area code and number you are permitted to call, then enter the PIN shown above on request.' Attempts to dial any other number except the one tied to the PIN would fail. I think AT&T issues this type of restricted calling card also. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Heymoe@DELETETHIS.bigfoot.com (Brad) Subject: Re: Collect Calls From a Jail - was Re: 90#... Is There Truth to This? Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 23:08:18 GMT Organization: International Amangamation of Morons, Local 6 7/8 On Thu, 21 May 1998 07:28:59 GMT, gmhall@apk.net (Gail M. Hall) wrote: > My husband called the phone company and they said we could disable collect > calls, but that is an all-or-nothing deal, not just calls from jails or calls > from a particular phone. We do have family members out of town and would > want to be able to accept THEIR calls. Good Luck. Southwestern Bell has third party billing exclusion, but it doesn't seem to block the prisons. I have the same problem you did. The announcement even announced "You have a collect call from a Missouri Correctional Facility from ..." . My phone as been blocked for over 20 years. Numerous calls to MCI tried to palm the problem off on SWBT, who did actually have the block in place after all. It seems this LD service doesn't take advantage of this service. MCI acts like an AOS when it comes to their collect calling, that is to say totally irresponsible. I still occasionally get calls from this convict. He's probably more polite than the LD service. Brad [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The Bell Companies, AT&T, Sprint, and MCI consult one data base. Other carriers may use the same one or they may use different ones. You need to get on the data base in each and every case. Maybe MCI's collect calling service does its own thing, I dunno. At least they tell you it is from a correctional institution; that way as long as none of your friends or associates are currently serving out a term in prison ... you can just hang up on not listen any further. I wonder if 202-456-1414 is blocked against receiving calls from prisons? So many of their cronies are in jail or have been in the past. PAT] ------------------------------ From: abuse@verrine.demon.co.uk (Peter Corlett) Subject: Re: Collect Calls From a Jail - was Re: 90#... Is There Truth to This? Date: 24 May 1998 12:46:45 +0100 Organization: The Haunted Fishtank Gail M. Hall wrote: > Oh, how I long for the days of clear-tongued live operators for > this type of call! In the UK, all operator service is handled by live humans. This does increase the expense of operator-connected calls, but it also avoids certain phrauds possible through automated systems. If somebody wishes to call collect they will dial 100 and ask the operator for a reverse charge call. ("Reverse charge" is the usual term for a collect call in the UK.) The operator will then ask for the caller's name and the number they wish to contact. The operator will not connect to a number that belongs to a number translation service such as 0870, but only to "real" numbers with a proper area code. (Imagine the effect of calling collect to a 1-900 number!) The operator will call the number. If the recipient has Caller Display, it will show "OPERATOR". They will then be asked "I have a call from will you accept the charges?" The recipient has to make a positive response to accept the call ("Yes"), as opposed to a positive response to reject it (hanging up.) This doesn't always work. I've answered a call from the operator who just wanted to dump the call on me without telling me who it was from. She seemed rather upset when I asked who it was who was calling. The caller shouted "It's me!", which I could hear. Only *then* did I accept. I wonder if sometimes the operator just connects the call without the recipient accepting the charges. I'd bet it happens when the operator is very busy. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I know that in the case of calls to PBXs where the extension users are charged for their calls (against their budget or whatever) the call *must* be collect on a person- to-person basis in order that the local PBX operator can in turn question the extension user before giving an okay to the telco operator (or denying it, as the case may be). For example, in hotel and dormitory situations, where the extension user is responsible for paying the bill, it is very important that the PBX operator have the details before ever allowing the call past her console. What will happen though is that sometimes the one paying the bill or perhaps the caller realizes that person-to-person is much more expensive, so they'll try to get it through as a 'station' call, to the detriment of the PBX admin trying later on to reconcile the bill. If the PBX operator accepts the station call on a collect basis and then the extension user refuses to accept the charges, the PBX gets stuck for the charges. Another thing that sometimes happens is the telco operator bypasses the PBX operator, although usually this is done accidentally and without any intent to defraud. The PBX operator will answer and the operator will say "John Smith please" *without* stating it is a collect call. The PBX operator puts it through and when the extension user answers, the telco operator asks *him* if he wants to accept the charges! In those cases where a live operator handles a collect call, the very first words she is supposed to say to *whoever* answers the phone (and the assumption is made that the first person to answer is the person responsible for the phone) is 'this is a collect call'. The PBX operator is to respond by asking 'operator, who are you? I will need the calling number, plus time and charges when the call is completed provided the called party will accept.' Only after obtaining the city where the operator is located, the calling number, and the name of the caller is she then to split the connection and privately ask her own user about their intentions. Then she goes back to the incoming line and agrees or not based on her extension user's desire. It is up to the distant operator to call back with time and charges once the call is complete. PAT] ------------------------------ From: catfood@apk.net (Mark W. Schumann) Subject: Re: Collect Calls From a Jail - was Re: 90#... Is There Truth to This? Date: 23 May 1998 19:59:23 -0400 Organization: Akademia Pana Kleksa, Public Access Uni* Site In article , Gail M. Hall wrote: > The other day we received a call from from the county > jail. The message said if we did not want to accept the call to just > hang up. Well, we did. But the caller kept calling back over and > over again. I'm fairly certain it's a scam. [snippity snip] > We are in Ameritech country. So am I, and I've gotten those calls too. > And just one more Q: Why are the recordings where they give their names so > universally bad and unclear??? That's easy. The scammer wants you to accept the call "just in case it's someone you know." Now what the actual scam *is*, I have no idea. But I can imagine prisoners using their one call per day/week/month to pick random victims for whatever kind of fraud they might have in mind. ------------------------------ From: Carl Knoblock Subject: Re: Telco Rotary Question! Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 02:20:05 GMT Organization: Newscene Public Access Usenet News Service (www.newscene.com/) David Willingham wrote: > As I understand the terminology here, "rotary hunting" applies to the > first listed number "hunting" to the next one, etc, if the first one > is busy; in a small business these will usually be different phone > numbers on each one (such that you could also call the 4th line say > directly if you know that telephone number, even if the first 3 were > idle); Exactly. If there are more than 16 lines in the group, it's better to go to a real hunt group, which may, or may not have individual line numbers. There are also choices as to how the hunting is done with a hunt group. But, again, the lines are individual lines that are associated by translations in the central office, and can be delivered in a variety of ways. > and a TRUNK GROUP as on a pbx might have the same number as you > pointed out on multiple lines, as 622-2001, terminal 1; 622-2001 term > 2, etc, etc ... but in that case I believe the calls would come in > randomly and not neccessarily to the first trunk in the group; and > under either arrangement the lines could come in on copper pairs or on > a T-1. A trunk group can hunt in a couple of ways. It can hunt from one end until it finds an idle trunk, or it can select the trunk that has been idle the longest. Hunting from the high end would only be used by one end of a two way trunk group. 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 ------------------------------ Date: 25 May 1998 02:07:48 GMT From: mcsman@aol.com (MCSMAN) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Telco Rotary Question! > When using rotary service from telco (ie. one number for multiple > lines) how is rotary service broken out at the user location? Does it > come in on a csu/dsu or is it broken out on a terminal block? Here in GTE land, the lines entire the building as individual lines on individual pairs that are tied together into rotary service at the CO. ------------------------------ From: John Cropper Subject: Re: Bill to Legalize Sspam!! Ack! Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 13:53:44 -0400 > Last week Senator Murkowski attached an amendment to an > anti-telephone-slamming bill (S1618) which effectively legalizes > spamming, legitimizes misleading subject lines in spam and doesn't > require spammers to remove you from their mailing lists. We have always maintained that UCE relayed through our servers without our permission is theft of service, akin to cable signal theft (except that they get to use the cable signal to broadcast THEIR own infomercials). For Senators Murkowski and Torricelli (whom I did NOT vote for) to sponsor such legislation is a slap in the face to every ISP in the world. > Senator Murkowski claimed whilst entering the amendment that it was > substantially the same as his original proposal (S771). In fact, the > amendment is much closer to Tauzins original proposal (HR2368) - the bill > that the Electronic Privacy Information Center described as "worse than > the status quo, it incorporates the worst features of the Internet, such > as spam and invasion of privacy, and basically legalizes them." The residents of Alaska, many of whom rely on more modern means of electronic communication, should take heed to the screwing they're getting from their own elected officials. > It does not require spammers to label each spam with the word > 'Advertisement', as some have claimed. It does not require a legitimate > return address in the headers of spam. It does not forbid misleading or > forged subject lines. It also does not specifically prohibit the use of others' domain names when faking the return address. > It does provide a legal basis to prevent ISPs closing spammers accounts. > If an ISP cannot shutdown the email account a spammer uses to receive > orders it will become much more profitable to spam. We are bypassing this by creating a new 'class of service'. Bulk email relaying fees are a part of each and every dialup account, to the tune of $10 per piece of SPAM per address sent/relayed to through our mail system. You play, you pay, PERIOD! You don't pay, we cut your service for non-payment. To spammers, we provide our mail logs should you question your billing. > If these bills become law then spamming will become much worse. Already > nearly $2 of every home internet users bill is due to spam and this bill > will make it worse. Blanket estimate. Smaller providers are hit much harder since our margins are tighter to begin with, and our resource pool smaller. > Both these bills are being rushed through the legislative process, and > stand a very good chance of making it into law. Contact your > representatives office on Monday, and make sure they understand your views > on these bills. We have responded, and will continue to hammer away at our local representative. Likewise we will deal with Senators Murkowski and Torricelli by going to the local press with stories, documentation, and examples as needed. These two gentlemen should be voted OUT at the earliest possible opportunity. Scum out there will think nothing of hitting unwitting clients for $100 a pop to 'advertise' for them, then turn around and steal the bandwidth from us to do it. We don't need the US government to take away OUR ability to protect ourselves from this theft. John Cropper, CIO LINCS Internet http://www.lincs.net ------------------------------ From: Chris Farrar Subject: Re: VCR Clocks Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 22:19:12 GMT Organization: Bell Solutions Lars Poulsen wrote: > Actually, this has been solved by two technical innovations: > 1) The plug-and-play VCR feature: A time stamp is included in the > VBI data on many TV channels, and the VCR learns the local time > from this data, thus relieving the user of the need to set > the clock on the VCR. Don't know of any stations in my area that are doing this (in Canada). I have heard that some stations in the US are. > 2) The VCR+ code has provided a way to request taping of a specific > program without having to learn the menu system of the specific VCR. Well, my VCR has built in VCR+ code, but the process of programming what the VCR+ assigned channel is that relates to the cable channel is more complicated than using the on-screen programming to simply put in what channel to record, on what day, from when to when, and at what speed. 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: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson) Subject: Re: BA Gets PA Overlay(s)! Date: 24 May 1998 16:41:18 GMT Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS > May 21 - The Pennsylvania PUC announced today that both 215 and 610 > would be overlaid --- each with a separate new code. FWIW, I attended a Memorial Day BBQ this weekend, and this topic came up in conversation. The plan went over like a lead balloon. No one likes the idea of ten digit dialing. Nobody saw any benefit or reason for additional local phone companies, which is the reason for the overlays. (Finally the newspapers are correctly blaming local competition for running out of phone numbers; noting that each new company gets a whole 10,000 exchange even if it only has a handful of customers.) Also, everyone had a "war story" about telephone service problems. Several people were "slammed" and a had a very rough time going back to the old carrier and getting credits for exhorbitant changes. No one can understand their phone bill, nor why even a low use account has so many pages. -------------------- P.S. On this Memorial Day weekend, a moment of pause to honor and remember those who gave the supreme sacrifice for our country. I've met a number of recent immigrants from the former Soviet Union, and aside from their poverty, Americans cannot imagine what life was like in such a place where the secret police watches you with dire consequences. And in World War II, the U.S. lost 300,000 soldiers, in the Soviet Union, 20 MILLION people. No family escaped terrible loss. We Americans should remember our blessings. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thank you for saying it so well for me. I did not editorialize on the holiday as I have sometimes done in the past; I am glad you remembered to do so. PAT] ------------------------------ From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson) Subject: Ok, What Exactly are the Benefits of Local Competition? Date: 24 May 1998 16:46:20 GMT Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS With the changes in the telephone industry over the recent years, I as a consumer have seen my costs go up, and my total overall quality of service go down, all of which because of competition. Fraud artists have taken full advantage of the changes with slamming long distance and adding false charges of "telecom services" to local bills. Pay phones shot up to 35c, and pay phone long distance charges are absurd. I, as many people, will have to dial ten digits for every call. Now, with all those problems are more, exactly what are the benefits I'm supposed to get as a result of "competition"? They better be substantial to make up for all of the above. Could someone explain it to me? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Would you like a quick, two word answer to the question 'what are the benefits of local competition?' or a more detailed answer? The two word version is 'none, really' ... a longer, more detailed version would take too much space to include in this issue, but even it can be expressed in a few words. Politics has a lot to do with it. People who have had an intense dislike for the Bell Companies over the years have had a lot to do with it. There is much more to it than that of course, but that is a good starting point. Perhaps readers will contribute their own thoughts to this thread in the next day or two. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #78 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue May 26 21:19:07 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id VAA20887; Tue, 26 May 1998 21:19:07 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 21:19:07 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199805270119.VAA20887@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #79 TELECOM Digest Tue, 26 May 98 21:19:00 EDT Volume 18 : Issue 79 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Canadian "Toner Phoner" Fined $250,000 (Nigel Allen) Are Folks Hoarding Vanity 800/888 Numbers? (gkirikos@my-dejanews.com) Programmer Faces Crypto Probe (Monty Solomon) Spam Bills in Congress: It's Time to Get Serious (Bill Horne) Help For Phone Line Test Codes (William Pappas) Re: Northern Illinois to Get 847/708 Overlay (Ray Hearn) Re: Ok, What Exactly are the Benefits of Local Competition? (Sanjay Parekh) Re: Ok, What Exactly are the Benefits of Local Competition? (epsmiley@epix) Re: Ok, What Exactly are the Benefits of Local Competition? (Nick Marino) Re: Updated GSM-List May 21, 1998 (Sam G. Spens Clason) Last Laugh! Not a Thing For the House of God (Ton van de Peut) 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 22:39:13 -0400 From: Nigel Allen Subject: Canadian "Toner Phoner" Fined $250,000 I like it when bad telemarketers get caught. Here is a press release from the Competition Bureau of Industry Canada, the Canadian federal=20 government agency that deals with misleading advertising and other restrictive trade practices, including what is known in the U.S. as anti-trust issues. (Other offices within Industry Canada deal with telecommunications policy and spectrum management issues.) I found the press release on the Industry Canada web site at http://www.ic.gc.ca/ Telemarketing Operation Fined Record $250,000 Under Misleading Advertising Provisions of the Competition Act OTTAWA, May 25, 1998 - The Competition Bureau announced today that 841299 Ontario Limited, carrying on business as The Office Supply Centre, and company president, Mr. Richard Mellon, pleaded guilty to one offence contrary to the misleading=20 advertising provisions of the Competition Act. A fine of $200,000 against The Office Supply Centre and $50,000 against Mr. Mellon were imposed by Madam Justice Molloy of the Ontario Court (General Division). The fine is the highest ever imposed against an individual telemarketer for a conviction of a misleading advertising offence under the Competition Act. "Deceptive telemarketing is an increasingly worrisome problem," said Konrad von Finckenstein, Director of Investigation and Research. "We will prosecute the operators of these scams with the full rigour of the law. This case is particularly odious as the targetted victims included churches and charitable organizations." The charges relate to telemarketing practices for photocopier toner during the period July 1, 1989 to February 29, 1996. During this time, The Office Supply Centre sold toner to large and small businesses, as well as non-profit organizations, charities and churches. Telemarketers, under the guise of doing a market survey, first contacted victims and obtained from them the make and model numbers of their photcopiers as well as the name of the person responsible for ordering copier supplies. This information was then "plugged" into a standard script which was designed to leave the impression that the telemarketers, in a follow-up call, were from the regular supplier of toner. The telemarketers then would advise that a price increase was coming and that customers should order additional toner at the old price. The actual price was not mentioned. When the orders were shipped, the invoice prices charged by The Office Supply Centre were higher than those of the regular supplier. In addition, Madam Justice Molloy imposed a Prohibition Order to prevent a repetition of the anticompetitive conduct. For more information, please contact Cecile Suchal at (819) 953-5303 Release Number: 7950-e -- forwarded by Nigel Allen ndallen@interlog.com http://www.ndallen.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Oh, good! I am glad to see those jerks out of business also. They also operate here in the USA using exactly the same scam. I cannot tell you how many times the phone would ring when I had a business line listed in a company name, and the cheerful lady on the other end would say something like this: "Oh hi, this is Gloria in the stockroom calling. Listen, I need to get the serial number and model number off of the copy machine there in your department, so we can check it against what our inventory records say here. We need to bring our records up to date." I am sure many secretaries and office-assistants were more than happy to go look for the information and give it to the person on the phone. And 'Gloria' could get vicious if she sensed the person answering the call was too dumb (not uncommon in large corporations) to know better than believe what she was told but yet loyal enough to the corporation to not know for sure what to do. "If I have to call your supervisor to get this, you will get fired for not being cooperative with other departments ..." PAT] ------------------------------ From: gkirikos@my-dejanews.com Subject: Are Folks Hoarding Vanity 800/888 Numbers? Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 00:28:36 GMT Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Hello, I am in the process of getting a toll-free number, and ideally wanted a 800/888 one (due to the various problems mentioned with 877 in this newsgroup), and one that spelled something easy to remember (or at least meaningful to me). I submitted 10 different numbers (for either 800 *or* 888, I didn't care which), and had verified that they were not being used by calling them up first (got the "The number you have reached is not in service. This is a recording." message, as opposed to the "The number cannot be reached from this area", for regionally- restricted toll-free numbers). Of the 10 numbers (20, if you count the 2 prefixes), all were unavailable to me. I eventually got assigned a "vanity" one in the 877 prefix, but is there any way to get the number in the 800/888 prefix if it's not being used? (i.e. do I just keep reapplying, until it becomes a "spare", or is there anything else one can do? Maybe buy the number?) By the way, is there a searchable database of assigned, reserved, spare, or in-use 800/888/877 numbers on the Internet? The long distance carrier did my search for free, but it would be faster and more efficient if I could search it. Regards, George -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Perhaps Judith Oppenheimer would care to respond to this. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 04:00:44 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Programmer Faces Crypto Probe http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,22415,00.html Programmer faces crypto probe By Tim Clark Staff Writer, CNET NEWS.COM May 22, 1998, 11:40 a.m. PT A Silicon Valley programmer on Tuesday is slated to respond to a subpoena by an arm of the Commerce Department investigating whether a security plug-in that can be downloaded from his Web site violates U.S. laws barring the export of strong encryption. Charles Booher of Sync Systems, who wrote the SecureOffice encryption module while recovering from his third bout with cancer, said he will show up at the San Jose, California, offices of the Office of Export Enforcement, as ordered. "Sync Systems is basically me and a program I put together that nobody's paid attention to so far except for the export administration," Booher said in an interview. "I've got a regular 9 to 5 job. I do disk drive testers for a living. Crypto is just sort of like a hobby for me." Commerce Department officials declined to comment on the matter, citing departmental policy not to discuss issues that may or may not be under investigation. However, a copy of the subpoena posted on Booher's site indicates the government is investigating whether his Sync Systems has distributed 168-bit triple DES (data encryption standard) crypto software. U.S. laws generally require government approval to distribute encryption technology that is stronger than 56 bits outside the U.S. except to financial institutions. Even government approvals often require a promise that the seller will initiate a "key recovery" system within several years. Key recovery and key escrow systems give law enforcement agencies -- with court approval -- and businesses access to cryptographic keys that can be used to decrypt scrambled data. Booher's subpoena requires him to turn over business records, notes of phone conversations and meetings, email messages, fax transmissions, and export documents that might shed light on where the encryption software may have been distributed. But Booher said he doesn't have most of the requested information. "Basically, the documents aren't there," he said. SecureOffice hasn't been a hot-selling product, Booher said. The download from his Web site allows 40 free uses of the software, but users then can request a key to unlock the software for future uses. So far, two people have requested that key, and Booher isn't charging for it. "Basically, there has been zero interest. It has not been an overwhelming response," he said. Except from the Commerce Department, which requested Booher's source code. He has declined to turn it over so far. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Isn't it great watching the public serpents hard at work each day, helping to keep America safe. I dunno, you'd think Bill Daley (Commerce Secretary and younger brother of Chicago's very own Mayor Daley II) might be able to find something better to do with his time. If Booher's experience is typical, the feds will make all kinds of outlandish demands, and eventually break him of his bad habits of creative thinking and public service web page activity. PAT] ------------------------------ From: bhorne@lynx02.dac.neu.edu (Bill Horne) Subject: Spam Bills in Congress: It's Time to Get Serious Date: 25 May 1998 20:58:47 GMT Organization: Northeastern University, Boston, MA. 02115, USA Pat and Fellow Netizens, It's time to get serious about getting meaningful anti-spam laws passed. In order to do this, we must all write to our elected representatives, and get their attention by doing something that is new and novel for most - Send cash. Think about it: only a tiny percentage of the average congressman's mail comes from contributors, so any envelope that has a check in it is going to get shunted over to the *money* side of the organization, and will get much faster attention and more influential people to read it. They may even have to remail it to a reelection group, which means even more impressions for your message. It really doesn't matter what the amount is: as a practical matter, it's impossible to maintain two accounting systems, and they have to keep track of everybody's contribution anyway. I've sent checks for $10 to each of my Congressman: for a $30 investment, I'm betting that I'll have a lot more of an influence than someone who doesn't include a contribution. If I get a call asking me to attend a fundraiser, I'll just say that my schedule is full and ask what the Senator/Representative is doing about spam. Trust me, they'll get the message. I know that sounds cynical, but Washington is a cynical place. I figure my time is worth the investment. Bill Horne -------------------- Here's a sample note (the shorter the better - your check does all the talking needed). Dear (Senator/Representative), I'm opposed to key provisions of two bills currently being considered in Congress. Senator Murkowski's amendment to S1618 would legalize the use of the Internet for transmission of Unsolicited Commercial Email, commonly known as "spam". A similar measure, HR3888, has been introduced in the House. Those who want to make spam legal are trying to trick you into letting them send advertisements (for everything from pornography to pyramid schemes) for free. Since it costs them nothing to send these sleazy come-ons, I and the other ordinary citizens that rely on the Internet to do our jobs have to pay the costs whether we like it or not. Please oppose any action that would allow the sleaze merchants now prowling on the Information Superhighway to send their junk mail "postage due". Not long ago, Rep. Smith introduced The Netizen's Protection Act of 1998, which is a much better and more effective measure that would extend (to the Internet) the current prohibitions against unsolicited ads sent via fax machine. Please support it in the current session. Thanks you for your prompt attention to this matter. I appreciate the job you're doing, and have included a small contribution toward your reelection campaign. Sincerely, etc. --------------- Bill Horne bhorne@lynx.neu.edu [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Be sure to use the phrase, 'enclosed is a donation to your re-election campaign' rather than 'enclosed is a bribe to help you understand my position better.' PAT] ------------------------------ From: William Pappas Subject: Help For Phone Line Test Codes Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 11:02:12 -0700 Organization: Newsite Internet Services Reply-To: bill@newsite.com I need a resource of codes for testing my phone ringer. I used to be able to dial 1191 and hang up and my phone would ring. Can any help me here? Thanks in advance, bill@newsite.com ------------------------------ From: Ray Hearn Subject: Re: Northern Illinois to Get 847/708 Overlay Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 10:51:22 -0500 Organization: Primary Network. http://www.primary.net Pat, After this message, and the recent experience of calling a Chicago suburb with an old number that Sprint PCS operator couldn't find the current area code for (Streamwood) I asked for the list of the area codes and was presented with a string of at least eight numbers. Is there a provision in the North American number plan that sugguests a point where we go to local eight digit numbers? Ray Hearn St. Louis Mo [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I know of no such provision. If the Sprint operator was unable to find the correct area code for Streamwood, IL, it is quite likely that whatever 'string of at least eight numbers' she quoted you was also wrong unless maybe she said something very rapidly like '312630708773815847' which is the list of codes here and you somehow thought she was giving you a number to dial for information of some sort. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 08:19:25 -0400 From: Sanjay Parekh Subject: Re: Ok, What Exactly are the Benefits of Local Competition? I haven't been keeping up with the Digest lately so I thought I'd take a crack at this. First, a disclaimer... I work at a cable telephony equipment provider (Arris Interactive - www.arris-i.com) so thats the perspective I'm coming from. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Would you like a quick, two word answer > to the question 'what are the benefits of local competition?' or a > more detailed answer? The two word version is 'none, really' ... a > longer, more detailed version would take too much space to include in > this issue, but even it can be expressed in a few words. Politics has I don't think this is entirely true. I think cost is a major benefit for the end consumers. Lets take a look at some North American sites (I won't even discuss our international sites which are amazingly beneficial to consumers). Cox - Omaha (http://www.cox.com/omaha/Telephone/CDT_Rates.html) Cox US West Monthly Line Charge $15.89 $17.65 Long Distance $.10/min up to $0.45/min Second Line $7.89 $17.65 Installation FREE $33.00 Cox - Orange County (taken from Cox pamphlet) Cox Pacific Bell Monthly Line Charge $9.99 $11.25 Local and Zone 3 Calls FREE up to $.08/min Local Toll Calls $.05/min $.14/min Second Line $4.99 $11.25 Installation FREE $34.75 Now I know your saying, "But I don't want to use my cable company as my telephone provider, they suck." And in the case of some cable companies, I'd agree with you. But you also have to understand that the cable companies haven't ever provided lifeline services and are just starting to learn their weaknesses and your comparing them to RBOCs that have been doing lifeline for a long time. And I know you'll say "Hey, I have to change providers to get this benefit, that sucks too." Well, its only a matter of time before RBOCs start changing their price structure. Look at NTT, previously the largest private telephone company in the world (until the recent break up talks), they recently (in the last week?) announced they were reducing their pricing for phone lines. This for a phone company that charges users some horrendous amount ($500+?) just for the "privilege" of TALKING to the phone company so that you can order a phone line. The quality is the same (can you have better sounding dialtone?) and in some cases better (I can't get over 26.4k at my house but I can get good speed (40k+) connects with our equipment). > a lot to do with it. People who have had an intense dislike for the > Bell Companies over the years have had a lot to do with it. There is Man, isn't this the truth. People in the northeast hate NYNEX like something wicked. Dunno what it is. Maybe its those northern winters that make 'em so bitter. Anyways ... Just my two cents... =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= | Sanjay Parekh | | .@arris-i.com | | Systems Engineer - Cornerstone | | Arris Interactive | | Atlanta, GA | =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ------------------------------ From: epsmiley@epix.net Subject: Re: Ok, What Exactly are the Benefits of Local Competition? Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 08:47:27 -0400 Organization: epix Internet Services Lee Winson wrote: > With the changes in the telephone industry over the recent years, I as > a consumer have seen my costs go up, and my total overall quality of > service go down, all of which because of competition. Fraud artists > have taken full advantage of the changes with slamming long distance > and adding false charges of "telecom services" to local bills. Pay > phones shot up to 35c, and pay phone long distance charges are absurd. > I, as many people, will have to dial ten digits for every call. > Now, with all those problems are more, exactly what are the benefits > I'm supposed to get as a result of "competition"? They better be > substantial to make up for all of the above. > Could someone explain it to me? It provided alot of work for attorneys and retired telco execs not to mention all the so called consultants. ------------------------------ From: Nick Marino Subject: Re: Ok, What Exactly are the Benefits of Local Competition? Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 04:11:34 GMT Organization: @Home Network Lee Winson asked: > Now, with all those problems are more, exactly what are the benefits > I'm supposed to get as a result of "competition"? The way Congress enacted it and the Bells abused it, nothing. The entrenched Bell monopolies still control just about everything. Best you can hope for is to squeeze some savings out of the 20% (maximum) discount CLECs get for re-selling local access, but the CLECs won't even talk to you unless you're a business with at least a few lines. They have no choice - they're living off of crumbs. I've been saying for years that the local loop infrastructure should have been broken out of the Bell monopolies. There's no other way to wrest control and enhance competition in the local loop. The local loop needs to belong either to the government or to a newly-created company. The half-assed solution enacted by Congress is definitely not working. > Nobody saw any benefit or reason for additional local phone companies, > which is the reason for the overlays. (Finally the newspapers are > correctly blaming local competition for running out of phone numbers; > noting that each new company gets a whole 10,000 exchange even if it > only has a handful of customers.) That's an over-simplification. Exchange allocation for the CLECs may have accelerated the situation, but the cause is too many people wanting too many phone numbers. It would have happened whether or not there were large allocations of local number for CLECs. If Bell Atlantic was willing to cooperate on local number pooling the problem would certainly be lessened, but they're not willing to help the consumers if it means giving up control of the local loop. You can pine for the good old days when Bell Atlantic had an uncontested monopoly, but you can't ignore the glacial pace of telecom advancement in the 'final mile' in this country. Compare it to the computer industry, where computers which once filled entire office floor were placed onto millions of desktops. Compare it to advances in automobiles, financial services, consumer electronics. What did Bell Atlantic offer consumers? Did local dialing get progressively cheaper? Did they offer digital services? They even had the nerve to keep charging extra for touch tone capability, even though they actually benefited by having more people using it. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 08:50:54 +0200 From: Sam G. Spens Clason Subject: Re: Updated GSM-List May 21, 1998 At 15:42 1998-05-24 +0200, Jurgen Morhofer wrote: > For the latest edition of this list look at my Web-Site: > http://www.cs.tu-berlin.de/~jutta/gsm/gsm-list.html > kindly supplied by Jutta Degener. You have forgotten USA 17, i.e., Pacific Bell Mobile Services ("Pac Bell"). Customer care can be reached at +1 800 393-7267, or via www.pacbell.mobile.com. Sam Spens Clason sam@macduff.com Kaptensgat. 17 vi Macduff Consulting +46 75 1234567 SE-114 57 Stockholm ------------------------------ From: Ton van de Peut Subject: Last Laugh! Not a Thing For the House of God Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 11:17:06 -0100 Organization: Lucent Technologies, Huizen - The Netherlands www.lucent.com [From the Dutch newspaper "De Telegraaf"] The diocese of Roermond has instructed all its priests again that using a wireless phone in church is taboo. This week, the GSM phone of the chaplain rang during a crowded ceremony at the parish of "Berg en Terblijt". The chaplain, who just raised a chalice, grabbed under his robe for the apparatus. Moments later, the outraged parochians noticed him phoning busily on the altar. According to the diocese, "Such a thing doesn't belong in the house of God". mailto:tvdpeut@lucent.com Ton van de Peut Lucent Technologies ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #79 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed May 27 21:11:03 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id VAA24243; Wed, 27 May 1998 21:11:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 21:11:03 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199805280111.VAA24243@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #80 TELECOM Digest Wed, 27 May 98 21:11:00 EDT Volume 18 : Issue 80 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Prison Term For 'Internet Kidnapper' (TELECOM Digest Editor) Re: Are Folks Hoarding Vanity 800/888 Numbers? (Judith Oppenheimer) Re: Ok, What Exactly are the Benefits of Local Competition? (Tim Gorman) Re: Ok, What Exactly are the Benefits of Local Competition? (Dean Foreman) Re: Ok, What Exactly are the Benefits of Local Competition? (Joel Hoffman) Re: Ok, What Exactly are the Benefits of Local Competition? (Mark Atwood) Re: Ok, What Exactly are the Benefits of Local Competition? (Mike Bryant) Re: Ok, What Exactly are the Benefits of Local Competition? (Martin Baines) Re: Ok, What Exactly are the Benefits of Local Competition? (Steve Smith) Re: Ok, What Exactly are the Benefits of Local Competition? (Rick Strobel) Re: Ok, What Exactly are the Benefits of Local Competition? (S. Michelson) Re: Ok, What Exactly are the Benefits of Local Competition? (Eric Ewanco) Re: Ok, What Exactly are the Benefits of Local Competition? (F. Goldstein) Missouri Users Group Being Started (Sherry Banks) Re: Last Laugh! Not a Thing For the House of God (Daryl R. Gibson) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 17:32:36 EDT From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: Prison Term For 'Internet Kidnapper' This is just an update on the 'Internet Kidnapping' case which was first reported here in the Digest on Wednesday March 20, 1996 (in volume 16, issue 131 'Youngster Kidnapped by Internet Chat Companion') and on Friday, April 5, 1996 (in volume 16, issue 163 'Internet Kidnap Suspect Pleads Not Guilty'). Richard Romero, believed to be 39, a native of Brazil and resident of Jacksonville, Florida in 1996 was a frequent user of Internet Relay Chat, and in several sessions on line, he posed as a fifteen year old boy named 'Kyle'. During those sessions he chatted frequently with another fifteen year old boy in Mt. Prospect, IL, a northwestern suburb of Chicago. He and the boy exchanged photos (he had a photo of some child who became 'Kyle' for his purposes) and at some point in their various conversations on line, he became himself, and began to talk with the Chicago-area boy on a regular basis via telephone. After several phone conversations and online chats, the boy decided to run away from home, and go live with Romero in Florida. At some point in their various conversations, the boy's mother found out about the online/telephone relationship and asked her son to break it off immediatly and have no further contact with Romero. Romero came to Mt. Prospect on March 18, 1996 and checked into a motel in the community where the boy met him the next day. From there, they went to the Greyhound Bus Station in Skokie, IL where they boarded a bus bound (eventually) for Jacksonville, FL. leaving at 9:15 AM. When the boy failed to appear in school that day at the regular time, school authorities contacted his mother. His mother went immediatly to check the boy's room, where she found he had packed many of his clothes in a duffle bag which was missing. He had also packed his computer into a backpack. The mother reviewed her phone bills and other items in the boy's room and found Romero's address and telephone number in Jacksonville. The rest was easy ... Police were able to detirmine that a boy matching the description of her son and Romero -- whose picture she had seen earlier when she confronted her son about his online companion -- had been seen boarding a bus for Florida that morning at the Greyhound Station in Chicago. The bus would be stopping for a dinner break just a couple hours later in Louisville, KY at about 6:00 PM. FBI agents in Louisville met the bus when it pulled in to the station there, and placed Romero under arrest. On April 5, 1996, the story in the Digest reported that Romero had chosen to remain silent in court. He appeared without an attorney and the judge (a) appointed an attorney to represent him and (b) entered a plea of not guilty. Since that point, Romero has had two trials. His first trial actually ended as a mistrial, with a jury which could not reach a decision. His second trial, which was concluded late last year, resulted in a finding of guilty by the jury on charges of kidnapping, and transport- ing a minor with the intent to engage in sexual activity. At his sentencing on Thursday, May 21, 1998, Romero was sentenced to 34 years in federal prison. US District Court Judge Charles Kocoras in Chicago stated that, "Richard Romero's crimes represented the worst thing anyone can imagine," and that "Romero created a nightmare for the family, for which there is no comparable dimension in the course of human experience." Virginia Kendall, the assistant US attorney handling the case, said that Romero was the nation's first convicted 'Internet kidnapper'. (Quote marks around 'Internet kidnapper' inserted by TELECOM Digest Editor.) And that concludes still another chapter in the history of the net. When this story first appeared in the Digest in March, 1996, I received mail from a couple readers who objected to the use of the word 'Internet' as an adjective for 'kidnapper', however, since the very beginning of this saga, the accounts which have appeared in the print media -- most noticably the {Chicago Sun-Times} have routinely used the phrase when discussing Romero. I've sent written objections to the newspaper about that description, but to no avail. PAT ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 12:53:03 -0400 From: Judith Oppenheimer Reply-To: joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com Organization: ICB TOLL FREE NEWS. 15 Day FREE Trial: http://icbtollfree.com Subject: Are Folks Hoarding Vanity 800/888 Numbers? Where to begin? ------- Q. Is there a searchable database of assigned, reserved, spare, or in-use 800/888/877 numbers on the Internet? The long distance carrier did my search for free, but it would be faster and more efficient if I could search it. A. There is no database available to the public - only the SMS/800 database available exclusively -- and anticompetitively -- to RespOrgs. Anticompetitively, because RespOrgs are also marketers competing with you for good numbers (vanity and repetitive numeric), and most often also carriers whose revenue increases if they give "good" numbers to larger customers who bill more traffic. (See "Hint" below.) That said, the search the carriers did for you, may itself not be complete. Often, what appears unavailable to one carrier, is quite available via another because that one has not yet returned a disconnected or transitional number to the pool, and is willing to assign it, even though it's "supposed" to go back into the pool for first-come-first-serve distribution (to whom? RespOrgs? Subscribers? Depends on which day of the week you ask the FCC.) Hint: If you ask for the number by its vanity spelling, you're likely to be grilled on how/why you're going to use it, to see if you're a big enough biller to "spend" it on, as carriers use vanities as incentives. Always better to ask for it numerically, and feign ignorance of such crass ulterior motives such as your own marketing needs. ------- Q. Is there any way to get the number in the 800/888 prefix if it's not being used? Maybe buy the number? A. By not being "used", you mean what? If it's subscribed to someone in working status, and they're paying the bill, it's being used. Is this "hoarding"? Sure. Who does it? MCI. American Express. Joe-Small-Businessman-down the street. The entire call center industry. Shared-use marketers. etc. etc. etc. Numbers are used periodically. Seasonally. They're shelved to keep them out of other peoples' hands. They're "stored" while marketing plans/financing are being developed, or new clients or campaigns pitched. And yes, a very small percentage are held by dealers who provide the much-in-demand service of making numbers available retail, that would otherwise be kept out of the market entirely, primarily by the big-name markerers and carriers. 800 numbers are a valuable commodity, regardless of dysfunctional FCC policy (someone should start a 12-step program in DC for the FCC - Step 1: I am powerless over the marketplace...) Thus, the marketplace will continue to treat them as is necessary to promote and protect business interests, in much the same manner as domain names and trademarks. Can you buy a number? Legally, no, not since April '97 (there goes the head-up-its-butt FCC again.) But not since prohibition has there been such an active marketplace. Buying numbers (and therefore, alas, selling) is done every day. It's how the companies with such wonderful vanity collections as AT&T, MCI, and Sprint got them -- and continue to get them. It's also how carriers resolve subscriber conflicts when carriers screw up, which they do all the time. And of course, it's how the rest of the business world gets the numbers it needs to promote and protect its interests, as corporate (large and small) accountability dictates. Judith Oppenheimer, Publisher ICB TOLL FREE NEWS News & Information Source for Service Providers, & Commercial Users, of Toll Free Service 15-day, no-obligation FREE trial: http://icbtollfree.com ------------------------------ From: Tim Gorman Subject: Re: Ok, What Exactly are the Benefits of Local Competition? Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 13:22:46 -0500 Nick Marino wrote in TELECOM Digest V18 #79: > I've been saying for years that the local loop infrastructure should > have been broken out of the Bell monopolies. There's no other way to > wrest control and enhance competition in the local loop. The local > loop needs to belong either to the government or to a > newly-created company. The half-assed solution enacted by Congress > is definitely not working. How does breaking the local loop infrastructure out and making it into a governmental monopoly or private monopoly provide *any* kind of enhanced competition in the local loop? True competition in the local loop requires investment and creativeness to increase productivity and lower cost. This provides *true* cost savings to the consumer. There is nothing in this proposal which even approaches this. What you and most of the long distance companies today are promoting is marketing and advertising competition. This provides no real benefit to the typical average consumer. All it provides is an incentive to provide lower margins to high volume customers and higher margins to low volume customers. You will wind up with several psuedo-competitors whose pricing plans track each other ala AT&T, MCI, and Sprint and their long-distance pricing. This will absolutely not provide any incentive for lowering costs on a long term basis in the infrastructure itself. The Telecom Act recognized this by pointing out that resale was to only be an interim situation and that facility based competition was to be the true boon to the consumer. If you want to promote competition then figure out how to promote facility based competition rather than marketing and advertising competition. Get away from the easy way out of blaming this on the RBOC's and find a true solution. Tim Gorman SWBT ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 May 98 14:32:06 CDT From: Dean Foreman Reply-To: Subject: Re: Ok, What Exactly are the Benefits of Local Competition > Could someone explain it to me? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Would you like a two-word answer > to the question 'what are the benefits of local competition?' or a > more detailed answer? The two word version is 'none, really' ... "None" really isn't a useful answer. To understand from where benefits may come, you need to understand where things stand today. Let's begin with a quiz. Suppose you lease a car from General Motors, and you use that car to travel to the bank, to Walmart, and to your grandmother's house. Can you imagine any scenario where GM should recover a part of the car's price through a direct charge to Walmart or to your bank? Furthermore, would it make sense for that direct charge to differ according to where you drive? To a consumer, this compensation scheme seems ridiculous, but this is analogous to the manner by which your local telephone company must price services to cover its costs of doing business. Telecommunications is fraught with artificial distinctions between local and toll, intrastate and interstate, business and residential, interLATA and intraLATA. Limited forms of "competition" have been exploiting these artificial distinctions under existing rules and regulations, and the legislation enacted by Congress in 1996 was designed to provide a basis for meaningful competition to develop while preserving affordable rates. Where does the money to support local service costs come from today? Here are the direct sources: part comes from your monthly bill and any related telecommunications services you purchase; part comes from your long distance carrier for "access" to originate and terminate your toll calls; and, part may come one of several from direct support programs (these are changing as we speak, but each is funded indirectly by consumers). There also is a myriad of indirect sources. For example, the price of single-line business service often is twice that of residential service even though the cost is the same or lower. The price for service in high-cost rural areas often is the same or lower than it is in urban areas even though the rural cost may be multiples of that in the urban area. And the prices for certain services, such as Caller ID, far exceed their underlying costs. Thus, you have implicit support flowing across customer classes, geographic areas, and services. All this is so that your regulated monthly local service rate can remain at about the same price as a large pizza with toppings. Bon appetit. As you can see, regulated prices are designed so that local telephone companies can recover their costs in the *aggregate*, but there may be a low probability that a given residential customer covers his or her individual cost of service in given month. If you were an entrant, how would you invest? To your question, given a starting point of existing telephone prices and regulation, the primary benefits of competition -- efficient incentives for innovation, investment, variety, and quality, downward pressure on costs and prices -- are long-term ones. There truly is no free lunch. Those who tout an ability to provide quick results often are just exploiting the artificial definitions discussed above. Some consumers will pay more under competition as prices better reflect their costs, while others will pay far less depending on what they purchase. Enhanced features like Caller ID may be available for pennies instead of dollars in the not-so-distant future, and your long distance rates eventually should decline as well. If you do not value any of these services, you may pay more in the short-run as a result of local competition. In this case, all parties (incumbents, new entrants, and regulators alike) have an interest in making sure that your local service remains affordable. The opinions expressed here are my own. Dean Foreman dean.foreman@telops.gte.com ------------------------------ From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Subject: Re: Ok, What Exactly are the Benefits of Local Competition? Date: 27 May 1998 11:39:03 GMT Organization: Excelsior Computer Services >> Now, with all those problems are more, exactly what are the benefits >> I'm supposed to get as a result of "competition"? > The way Congress enacted it and the Bells abused it, nothing. The > entrenched Bell monopolies still control just about everything. Best > you can hope for is to squeeze some savings out of the 20% (maximum) > discount CLECs get for re-selling local access, but the CLECs won't As I understand it, "competition" is merely the right to buy retail instead of wholesale. Of course it's bad for the consumer. But it's good for the retailer. Joel (joel@exc.com) ------------------------------ From: Mark Atwood Subject: Re: Ok, What Exactly are the Benefits of Local Competition? Date: 27 May 1998 10:10:20 -0400 Organization: Ampersand, Inc. Sanjay Parekh writes: > Man, isn't this the truth. People in the northeast hate NYNEX like > something wicked. Dunno what it is. Maybe its those northern winters that > make 'em so bitter. We're learning to hate BellAtlantic in it's place. Mark Atwood | Thank you gentlemen, you are everything we have come to mra@pobox.com | expect from years of government training. -- MIB Zed ------------------------------ From: Michael Bryant Subject: Re: Ok, What Exactly are the Benefits of Local Competition? Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 09:34:41 -0400 The 1996 Telecom Act was supposed to open the doors to a flood of competition. But thus far, very little competion has matured. The telephone industry requires a significant amount of capital investment and there is no overnight return on investment. The natural competitor to the RBOC's are the CATV companies. This is because they have plant well into most residential neighborhoods. CLECs are only interested in business services. Why haven't the CATV companies been more serious competitiors? Many of the CATV operators that have provided competition have done so mainly in Mulitple Dwelling Units (MDUs), where the density provides better opportunities. Beyond this a few of the CATV operators are proceeding rapidly, while other are comtemplating what to do. The real issue: The cost of the local loop. BellSouth charges in Palm Beach, Florida $10.05 for a flat rate residential line. Nynex in Buffalo charges $25.53 flat rate. Most CATV companies figure that they need to price their services 15% to 20% lower than the incumbent RBOC. Twenty percent of BellSouth's rate would be $8.04. Of course, there are other charges on top of this, the $3.50 Acess Charge, taxes, features, intra-lata toll, inside wiring maintaince,etc. But the end result is that it is very hard to recoup the significant investments needed to provide the service. A central office costs millions, the box required at the side of a customers home is depending on the manufacturer, quantities, etc. $500.00. So it is a bit difficult to establish a business plan that makes it attractive to compete. Most agree that the local loop is subisidized. Many in the industry believe that the RBOCs use access charges from the inter-exchange carriers and business service revenues to subsidize the residential services. Thus many states are now looking into this very matter and a few either have or are attempting to raise the residential local loop rates to their real cost. Thus it would make it easier to compete against them. At the same time it appears that they will be required to simultaneously lower other rates, for example the per minute fees charged to the interexchange carriers. So long distance would likely be lowered while your local service would be higher. It gets even more complicated than this, but it all seems a bit crazy doesn't it? Michael Bryant Adelphia Communications Email: mbryant@adelphia.net ------------------------------ From: Martin Baines Subject: Re: Ok, What Exactly are the Benefits of Local Competition? Organization: Compaq Computer Corporation Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 08:35:52 GMT There is another approach which seems to have worked pretty well in the UK -- arrange the regulation to encourage competition in faclities. I.e. encourage other companies to build their own local loops. In the UK CableCo (interestingly originally often owned by RBOCs who argued against local competition in the US) were given longish (order 10 to 15 years) monopolies on entertainment services on condition they also provided a telephony local loop. The result is most urban areas now have competition on who will sell you the wire to connect to your premises. In major urban centres (e.g. the City of London) there are sometimes up to 5 companies who will sell you local loop. There are also a number of other companies offering local loop competition through other technologies (e.g. Ionica and Scottish Telecom with Microwave). Surely this is what competition should really be like -- new investment being encouraged, rather than spliting up the existing local loop into tiny components each of which have to be priced separately. From an outside purspective the US approach to local competition seems to actively discourage new investment: Why should I bother installing new fibre/coax/microwave when I can bulk buy off the existing LEC and make arbitrage profits for minimum risk? If I am an ILEC, why should I bother building better infrastructure if my competitors can get instant access to it for no up-front outlay? Martin ------------------------------ From: smsmith@pobox.com (Steve Smith) Subject: Re: Ok, What Exactly are the Benefits of Local Competition? Date: 27 May 1998 02:34:53 GMT On 24 May 1998 16:46:20 GMT, lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson) wrote: > Now, with all those problems are more, exactly what are the benefits > I'm supposed to get as a result of "competition"? They better be > substantial to make up for all of the above. > Could someone explain it to me? For one, you get something Bell Atlantic calls "date due parity", which basically means that they cannot install certain types of services into a business location faster than the local competition can. What this means, is that if Bell Atlantic could technically install an auxillary ISDN line for your company in two days, but the local competition could not do it for 25 days, then Bell Atlantic (pick your own local RBOC) can't do it before 25 days either, to ensure fair competition. What this means to me is I have to wait longer to get lines turned up for customers, that's all. It's a pain in the rear end. :\ Steve ------------------------------ From: rstrobel@infotime.com (Rick Strobel) Subject: Re: Ok, What Exactly are the Benefits of Local Competition? Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 07:00:19 GMT Organization: InfoTime, Inc. > Now, with all those problems are more, exactly what are the benefits > I'm supposed to get as a result of "competition"? They better be > substantial to make up for all of the above. The biggest benefit of competition? Two words: number portability. Last year I moved my five year old small business to another part of town. I really disliked the idea of changing my phone numbers. When I talked to the local Bell reps they tell me how I can keep the old number working for a short period of time while my customers learn my new number. I don't want to change my number, and I won't go into all the business reasons, marketing reasons, etc. why. I could keep my old numbers if I stayed with the Bell company. However, it would cost a fortune in installation and foreign exchange per minute fees. By use of the three CLECs in my area, and I'm in Louisville, KY -- an urban area of about 1.2 million, I can keep my old numbers. 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 | | ------------------------------ From: Steven Michelson Subject: Re: Ok, What Exactly are the Benefits of Local Competition? Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 09:01:25 -0400 Organization: AT&T Sanjay Parekh wrote in message ... > Now I know your saying, "But I don't want to use my cable company as > my telephone provider, they suck." And in the case of some cable > companies, I'd agree with you. But you also have to understand that the > cable companies haven't ever provided lifeline services and are just > starting to learn their weaknesses and your comparing them to RBOCs that > have been doing lifeline for a long time. To which I would ask, "Do I want to risk my lifeline service with a company that is not yet able to provide the reliability I require?" followed by "When that company is able to provide service to the same level of reliability I require, will their prices really be much different?" To which I would answer "no" to the first question, and "I doubt it" to the second. Steve ------------------------------ From: Eric Ewanco (spam-bait address) Subject: Re: Ok, What Exactly are the Benefits of Local Competition? Date: 26 May 1998 15:24:47 -0400 Organization: 3Com [this post represents strictly my own opinions] I can't say that I always agree with Pat on the [de]merits of deregulation. He does though bring up some salient points, and I have seen enough of the disadvantages to have caused me to groan with fearful expectation when I learned that, guess what, they're deregulating electric service in New England to introduce competition. Think what we have to look forward to -- fly-by-night scam artists offering electricity. Slamming of your electric service. Cramming of your electric bill. Incomprehensible electric bills. Costs per kwH that vary by time of day. Scores of additional telemarketers trying to seduce you to switch electric providers. Psychic hotlines that will switch your electric service over. Sigh. ObTelcom: Someone posted the following: "Under the [Illinois Commerce Commission]'s ruling, phone numbers will be assigned to phone companies in blocks of 1,000, rather than 10,000, and phone companies will be required to prove that they have used up 75 percent of the numbers already given to them before they can request new numbers. These measures will conserve millions of phone numbers for future use." Left unaddressed is exactly how calls will be routed since present switches are not capable of handling a granularity lower than 10,000? Aren't they requiring something which is technically impossible with present technology? Eric Ewanco eje @ world.std.com http://www.wp.com/Eric_Ewanco Framingham, MA; USA [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: 800 numbers are capable of being sorted down to the seventh digit of the number and passed accordingly to the carrier which handles it. I assume they will do the same for local calls: just take a dip in the database for everything and decide on that basis what actual wire pair to attach it to. Of course now and then the database is out of order or difficult to reach in which case 800 number calls may get stalled or not processed for a few minutes at a time, so I guess that is what will happen on local calls also. I got a notice in the mail the other day saying that NICOR (Northern Illinois Gas Corporation) now has 'competition' if you could call it that. Same gas pipe runs to the building; same gas meter on the side of the building, so where does the 'competition' enter the picture? Well, if you return the postcard they enclosed, the 'competition' will pump gas from their facilities into the NICOR main pipelines on your behalf. The competition will come out to read your meter, and bill you. You'll still be getting NICOR gas I assume, but the competition will in effect be replacing the gas you withdrew from the pipe with gas of their own, wherever their entry into the system is located. The thing which bothers me about competition in natural gas and electricity is what happens if the competition places an inferior product in the pipeline or on the electrical grid? As the gas travels through the pipes and co-mingles with the gas from the other company, suppose one is a better grade and the other is a lesser grade? For all intents and purposes all customers of both gas companies get the mixture. Suppose your company pumps some sort of inferior, explosion prone substance down the line through the pipes-in-common and I get the 'benefit' of your product via an explosion in my furnace? Who can prove where it came from? Ditto with electric utility competitors all loading the same grid and handing it out all over, or those places where by law the established utility is required to 'buy back' the excess electricity generated by some company/institution which generates its own but has leftover energy. Is all electricity the same? Do you want to risk a hassle with the electrical distribution in your community or the gas distribution because a competitor is out there pumping his supply into the common grid or the common pipelines? If all gas is the 'same' and all electrical power is the 'same', then fine I guess ... but is it? With telecom at least, although it is the only utility service which takes two or more subscribers to cooperate in using it (what I do with my electric or gas supply has no bearing on what you do with yours, unlike the telephone where what you choose to put on your line definitly can affect my ability to communicate with you), at least with telco each subscriber has an individual pair of wires going back to the source. With gas, water and electric everyone shares the same supply lines; as they run down the street we each just tap in and take what is there. Any comments? PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Ok, What Exactly are the Benefits of Local Competition? From: fgoldstein@bbn.NO$LUNCHMEAT.com (Fred R. Goldstein) Organization: GTE Internetworking - BBN Technologies Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 20:08:57 GMT In article , lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com says: > With the changes in the telephone industry over the recent years, I as > a consumer have seen my costs go up, and my total overall quality of > service go down, all of which because of competition. Fraud artists > have taken full advantage of the changes with slamming long distance > and adding false charges of "telecom services" to local bills. Pay > phones shot up to 35c, and pay phone long distance charges are absurd. > I, as many people, will have to dial ten digits for every call. > Now, with all those problems are more, exactly what are the benefits > I'm supposed to get as a result of "competition"? They better be > substantial to make up for all of the above. > Could someone explain it to me? What a troll, including the moderator's impertinent comments. Or let's reword it and go along with Pat's pro-monopoly position. Why do we need two supermarkets in town, if just the Higgly-Wiggly will sell me both bread and milk? Why do we need Ford and Chrysler if GM can make the cars? Didn't everyone have a swell life back in 1980s eastern Europe back when there were monopolies? Don't Indonesians love Suharto's family monopolies? Telephone service was competitive for a while, but AT&T agreed to accept government regulation (pretty much a guarantee of profit) in return for the right to squash competition, under the "natural monopoly" doctrine. Since then, progress in the telephone industry has been measured in 20-year cycles, at best, while the computer industry has shortened product life cycles below two years. They're not entirely comparable, but the type of thinking that leads to fast computer products doesn't show up in most telephone companies. Competition means that somebody else can demonstrate what a phone company can be, rather than what the embedded monopoly is. Now in practice, there is scant competition today. We have the misguided notion of "resale CLECs", as if a dealer were a competitor for its manufacturer. That's where AT&T and MCI wasted their residential efforts. There are CLECs offering local service to business services large enough to warrant bringing a fiber optic cable to -- starting from zip, it's hard to justify the cost of running wire to lots of little guys, in hope many will sign up. There are CLECs offering local service via microwave radio (Winstar comes to mind) instead of hard loops. There are plenty of CLECs offering number-aggregation service to ISPs -- with an ILEC, you get one local calling area (number) on a physical line, and have to run lots of foreign exchange numbers to be local to a large area when local calling radii are small. Aggregators (like Focal in Chicago or GlobalNAPs in Boston) provide many local numbers, rated to different places, on one facility group, so an ISP can be local to all of the suburbs. That's an innovation that many Internet users benefit from. The problems caused by local competition are those caused by improper, insufficient planning, and that great American pastime of ignoring reality in favor of convenient myths. So CLECs have been granted whole prefix codes in order to have a few aggregatable local numbers. That's a conceptually-easy fix: Give a tenth of a prefix (1000 numbers) at a time per CLEC, plus allow number portability so CLECs can get *new* as well as moved numbers from the existing ILEC prefix codes. Since those two fixes weren't done first, prefix codes are being grabbed by the thousands, forcing area codes to exhaust prematurely. The CLECs and the notion of "competition" didn't cause that; a misguided implementation did. Competition is the strength of the American economy. Demonopolization isn't always easy, but it's usually a necessity, and should be handled as a good thing, not as a pain to dealt with haphazardly, causing worse consequences. 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. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But Fred, to use your Piggly Wiggly example, what happens if PW decides it is really too expensive and risky to order bread, milk and balogna from the supplier on thier own in the hopes they might get a few customers? They order some bread, milk and balogna for the big prison in town -- their one large institutional account which is paying them well for it -- but they don't want to risk stocking up on all that stuff in the hopes the people living in town will come to shop with them. What they decide to do is get the government to force the Safeway store nearby to sell them bread, milk and balogna only as they need it for customers who come to the PW store, and since they won't make any profit if they have to pay Safeway the same as other customers, the government tells Safeway to sell the stuff to PW at a twenty percent discount. That way, PW does not need to take any risks, but they can still receive a profit by selling the stuff for a few cents less than what Safeway charges retail. And if Safeware tries to lower its rates to be equal to or less than PW's, why that would be considered predatory, and a judge would have to stop them from doing it. Furthermore, PW says the cost of actually building a store is going to very expensive; could the government please require Safeway to allow PW to co-locate right there in the meat department at Safeway. Our customers will use the same shopping carts, go around the store and get what they like, but pay us instead of Safeway, and in turn we will pay Safeway less a twenty percent discount. We will go around to Safeway's large commercial accounts of course (prisons, schools, the large military base in town) and not only will we order direct from the supplier for them, we'll even push the shopping carts around the store ourselves and personally deliver to them, cutting Safeway out of the picture entirely. In your opinion Fred, would Safeway have any legitimate complaints? It is not quite a question of 'if there is one doing it, why have two?' Instead it is a question of if number one is doing relatively okay under some controls placed on it, should number two (or three or four) be able to come into the picture free of the same regulations and require number one to essentially take all their risk for them while dipping into number one's profits? Think how much simpler all this would have been starting way back in the early 1980's if the judge had said to the would-be competitors, "You want to start a competing phone company? Fine ... do that ... go spend the next several years building infrastructure, raise the capital you need, make a few business decisions and take a few risks in the process, wire people's houses, install instruments, and get everything in place. Then, come back and see me. I'll order Bell to provide you with sufficient interconnection, non-discriminatory administrative services and number assignments, etc ... either you will then be subject to the same rules and requirements as Bell, or maybe after a few years to allow you to make a decent headway into the business I'll also release them from the rules they have to follow. I'll let you (the competitor) make the decision on whether to keep government regulation on all of you, or none of you." You see Fred, maybe it was some sour grapes the judge bought at the Safeway which caused him to have amnesia -- a temporary memory loss. Somewhere along the line he forgot about the hundred years or so of effort Bell had put into making the national network what it was. Regardless of saying there were guarenteed returns for their invest- ment or not, there was still a lot of sweat, labor, risk, and sacri- fice involved in creating the Bell System. To date, the competitors have taken no risk at all, and been content with simply nibbling away at Bell's profits -- after 120 years of work in earning them. I don't care if your name is Bill Gates or Bell System, I still do not have the ethical or moral right to steal from you. Whether or not you have stolen from others is not pertinent. If you do not like Gates, then develop your own OS and peripherals. If you do not like Bell, then build your own telecom network. But quit trying to say the 'fair way' is to make them give up some of theirs to you. Or be intellectually honest enough to take a gun, point it at them and take what you want, referring to the act you committed by its proper name instead of asking the government to do the same thing while using other terms and phrases to pretend like it didn't happen. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 16:42:24 EDT From: Sherry Banks Subject: Missouri Users Group Starting I'm developing a list of Missouri users who are interested in sharing telecom info. If any TELECOM Digest reader is interested, please email me at: 2113908@mcimail.com Thanks, Sherry Banks ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 14:35:35 -0700 From: Daryl R. Gibson Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Not a Thing For the House of God > noticed him phoning busily on the altar. According to the diocese, > "Such a thing doesn't belong in the house of God". This reminds me of a few years ago. I was sitting in church when the voice pager went off on the belt of the man who was leading the hymn. (He was on the volunteer ambulance crew). He brought congregational singing to a halt, stuck the pager up to his ear, realized it wasn't for him, and started the crowd singing again. Of course, he later was forced from the ambulance crew as the result of a sex scandal, but that's another story ... Daryl "As you ramble through life, brother, no matter what your goal, keep your eye upon the doughnut, and not upon the hole" --Dr. Murray Banks, quoting a menu [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: How distasteful ... I am surprised the church didn't fire him after that episode and get someone else to handle the music, etc. If he was unable to risk missing an ambulance call then he should not have committed himself to some other project at the same time. Pagers and cellular phones have become such an intrusive part of our lives that many public assembly places ranging from churches to symphony halls to auditoriums where a lecture will be given have banned them. The Chicago Symphony Orchestra will not allow them in the hall during a concert. Neither will the Lyric Opera. Patrons are asked to check those devices with an attendent in the coat room on entry, **or have them completely turned off** while in the music area. Now, they do not go so far as to strip search thier patrons to find out if a beeper/cell phone is hidden away somewhere, but if one is seen being examined or listened to, etc during a performance then the patron will be approached by a security person and asked to leave the hall immediatly, frequently in humiliation as other patrons see his departure, walking with a staff member to the front door and out to the street. No refund on the ticket, either. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #80 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed May 27 23:01:31 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id XAA00938; Wed, 27 May 1998 23:01:31 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 23:01:31 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199805280301.XAA00938@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #81 TELECOM Digest Wed, 27 May 98 23:01:00 EDT Volume 18 : Issue 81 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Book Review: "Cookies", Simon St. Laurent (Rob Slade) BAMS Philly 00008 Digital Choice Billed For Free Airtime (Doug Reuben) Modern Phone Technology in the Movies (Hugh Pritchard) FCC Payphone Surcharge (73115.1041@compuserve.com) Re: Caller Pays to Call a Cellular Phone (Ron Schnell) Re: BA Gets PA Overlay(s)! (Hillary Gorman) Re: Ok, What Exactly are the Benefits of Local Competition? (Dave Stott) Re: Ok, What Exactly are the Benefits of Local Competition? (Tim Gorman) Re: Opponents of 847 Overlay File Against Ameritech (Bill Levant) Re: Opponents of 847 Overlay File Against Ameritech (Adam H. Kerman) 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 08:13:29 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "Cookies", Simon St. Laurent Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKCOOKIE.RVW 980320 "Cookies", Simon St. Laurent, 1998, 0-07-050498-9, U$34.95 %A Simon St. Laurent %C 300 Water Street, Whitby, Ontario L1N 9B6 %D 1998 %G 0-07-050498-9 %I McGraw-Hill Ryerson/Osborne %O U$34.95 800-565-5758 fax: 905-430-5020 louisea@McGrawHill.ca %P 361 p. %T "Cookies" I am probably more aware of cookies than most. I do allow cookies, but I get a warning each time somebody tries to set one on me. (For those who are aware of cookies, this fact alone will tell you that I do not spend a lot of time "surfing".) I know that you cannot download a number of things off the Microsoft Website without they feed you a cookie and you accept. I know that a large number of cookies are not being set by the pages I am looking at, but by servers listing banners on those pages. I know that PCWorld magazine holds the record as far as I am concerned: thirteen attempts to set a cookie on a single access to a single page. I know that Clinique gets a bonus, as far as I am concerned, for personalizing the page for the user without setting a cookie at all. So I was most interested to see this book. I approached it with some trepidation, I admit, since books on "new" and "hot" technologies do not have a good track record, particularly those with some link to business. However, what I found was a book with something for programmers, privacy advocates, and interested Internauts alike. Chapter one explains what cookies are, and why. It does this with a series of analogies of different types of activities (mostly, but not uniquely, commercial) that require some kind of memory through certain stages of the process. The structures of both the older version 0 Netscape and the newer RFC 2109 cookies are detailed in chapter two, along with special notes (Lynx deletes *all* cookies on exit) and tips (if you want to set an expiry date to maintain the cookie into the future, note that you must set the path). Chapter three provides the user with detailed, browser-by-browser information on how to manage cookies, including blocking options and storage methods. It also discusses proxy servers and add-in cookie blocking tools. However, St. Laurent's major concern is for the effective programming of cookies. Client-side programming, with JavaScript and VBScript, is covered in chapter four. Server-side cookie programming, and the pros and cons thereof, are discussed in chapter five. Chapter six demonstrates the use of cookies in combination with CGI (Common Gateway Interface) programming for more sophisticated activities. Netscape's Server Side JavaScript and Microsoft's Active Server Pages are covered separately in chapters seven and eight. "Pure" Java does not allow for cookie generation, but with the extensions to provide connections between Java and JavaScript an applet can now feed and check cookies, which chapter nine demonstrates. Chapter ten looks at Microsoft Site Server, which has perhaps the most effective, and potentially invasive, tools for collecting information about Web users through the use of cookies. St. Laurent explains the various information gathering activities, and also presents effective handling of both those who accept, and those who reject, cookies. Chapter eleven examines probable developments in cookies in the near future, and briefly looks at the question of identity information gathering by Web site owners. There is some small irony in the fact that St. Laurent expresses his own concern for balance in the overall presentation at the end of chapter ten. I am glad that he was worried about being biased in one direction or another: it has made for a rational and clear presentation of a topic which is currently rather overheated. The book fully appreciates both the needs and the concerns, and provides not only the facts, but a lucid and clear-sighted analysis of the real situation. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1998 BKCOOKIE.RVW 980320 ------------------------------ From: dsr1@interpage.net (Doug Reuben) Subject: BAMS Philly 00008 Digital Choice Being Billed For Free Airtime Date: 27 May 1998 04:36:29 GMT Organization: Interpage Network Services, Inc. / www.wirelessnotes.org We recently received our Bell Atlantic cellular bill for one of our Digital Choice accounts in the Philadelphia BAMS-B 00008 market. This system covers greater Philadelphia, south-central New Jersey, Delaware, and eastern PA. Digital Choice customers also have home rates apply in the coastal Jersey 00250 system as part of BAMS incentive to have people use (IMO somewhat flawed) CDMA cellular over analog. Another big incentive which BAMS throws in for its digital customers is unlimited weekend and generally off-peak airtime for one year for free, and then $10 per month for this option after the first year is over. After reviewing the bill, it appeared that for a third time in a row -- from the point at which we opened the account -- we were STILL being billed for all off peak and "included" home airtime calls, ie, those peak minutes which we supposedly get for free. In an effort to clear things up, I spoke to a number of reps and technicians at BAMS's Philadelphia support center, and each confirmed that this was indeed a known problem and that customers should call and request manual credits. The last person I spoke with (Ginelle) took care of the credits in a very expeditious manner, however, it is troubling that months after this plan has been offered they have still not corrected their billing problems. (These are for calls in the "traditional" home 00008 market, not even the expanded home market which covers the coastal Jersey 00250 system as well, where there are also billing problems with calls showing up -- and being billed -- as roam rather than home market calls.) I'd urge all Philadelphia and Coastal Jersey BAMS customers to carefully scrutinize their bills to ensure that they are paying the proper rate for weekend/off-peak and included minute calls until BAMS corrects these billing issues. (This post and updated SID list are also available at www.wirelessnotes.org) Regards, Doug Reuben / Interpage(TM) Network Services Inc. / www.interpage.net dsr1@NOSPAMinterpage.net +1 (510) 254 - 0133 HDQ(203) 966 - 7000 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 12:19 EDT From: Hugh Pritchard Organization: networkMCI Services, PCY Midrange Platform Support Subject: Modern Phone Technology in the Movies In the recent movie {Sliding Doors}, Gwyneth Paltrow does the British equivalent of *69 to call back someone who'd just called her cad of a boyfriend. Yes, it was the Other Girlfriend, to whom the two-timing boyfriend had been speaking as if to one of his male friends. Hugh Pritchard, Washington, DC ------------------------------ From: 73115.1041@NOSPAMcompuserve.com Subject: FCC Payphone Surcharge Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 16:12:21 GMT Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com I received a billing insert from Voicenet the other day. It says that effective April 15th, the FCC lowered the calling card surcharge from .35 to .30 per call. They state that if one has any questions about this, to call the FCC and give the FCC toll free number (1-888-225-5322). I found this rather interesting, as I thought the surcharge is/was .28 per call and has not changed. Many card vendors had rounded the surcharge up to .30, so it would appear that Voicenet is just bringing their surcharge in line with the rest of the industry. The wording of the insert makes it sound as if there was some recent FCC directive involved. Ken 73115.1041@compuserve.com ------------------------------ From: ronnie@twitch.mit.edu (Ron Schnell) Subject: Re: Caller Pays to Call a Cellular Phone Date: 27 May 1998 19:17:14 GMT Organization: MIT > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: On the other hand though, Eric, there > is rarely a week goes by that my cellphone does not ring with a > telemarketer who, calling at random via a predictive dialer wishes > to sell me something, or a wrong number. Cellular users get to pay > for those types of calls also. I think a far better solution would be > to require cellular companies to participate with landline telcos in > a settlements procedure much like the telcos use with each other and > with long distance carriers. PAT] I think that the best solution is what is going on here in Florida. Primeco started it, then Spring PCS followed, and now all of the cellular companies have it as a standard part of the service. If an incoming call is less than one minute in length, it is free. This takes care of all of the wrong numbers and telemarketers that call me. #Ron ronnie@space.mit.edu http://www.mailcall.net ------------------------------ From: hillary@hillary.net (Hillary Gorman) Subject: Re: BA Gets PA Overlay(s)! Date: 26 May 1998 13:38:47 GMT Organization: Debugging our net or deworming your pet... On 24 May 1998 16:41:18 GMT, wrote: >> May 21 - The Pennsylvania PUC announced today that both 215 and 610 >> would be overlaid --- each with a separate new code. > FWIW, I attended a Memorial Day BBQ this weekend, and this topic came up > in conversation. The plan went over like a lead balloon. No one likes > the idea of ten digit dialing. Yeah, well -- I wouldn't say I'm frothing at the mouth for ten digit dialing either, but it beats the alternatives. > Nobody saw any benefit or reason for additional local phone companies, > which is the reason for the overlays. (Finally the newspapers are > correctly blaming local competition for running out of phone numbers; > noting that each new company gets a whole 10,000 exchange even if it > only has a handful of customers.) Well, I was talking about this with my mom/dad/grandma/brother recently, and initially they were all for another split. I talked to them for about 30 minutes and turned them into raving pro-overlay fiends! Did you know that ten digit dialing is already working in Philadelphia? The 10 digit dialing is working, but IMO in a broken way -- it allows you to make a toll call using 10 digits. I can call a number way outside my local calling area without using a 1 first, simply because that number is in 215 or 610. I think that's pretty bogus. hillary gorman...........Official Token Female..........hillary@netaxs.com "So that's 2 T-1s and a newsfeed....would you like clues with that?" hillary@hillary.net: for debugging your net or deworming your pet Net Access...The NSP for ISPs....The NOC that rocks around the clock. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 08:07:12 -0700 From: Dave Stott Subject: Ok, What Exactly are the Benefits of Local Competition? In TELECOM Digest #78, Lee Winson (lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com) wrote: > Now, with all those problems are (sic) more, exactly what are the benefits > I'm supposed to get as a result of "competition"? They better be > substantial to make up for all of the above. How about things like cable modems, DSL, internet telephony, the entire WWW phenomenon, things like that? Seems that only months ago Pac*Bell and others were screaming about how bad internet connections were making it for the rest of the users. If they had gotten their way, most of us would still be trying to find alternative ways to get on the 'net from home. And Pac*Bell folks might well be sitting back congratulating themselves on the fact that they had 'saved' their customers from busy circuits. But instead, there are alternatives to the LECs for connecting to the 'net now. Cable companies, wireless companies and CLECs are out there trying to get people onto their systems. (Argue that CLECs are 'cherry-picking' all you like - it is a rational business plan that you go after high margin customers first, then move down to consumer groups. How many people flew anywhere for vacations thirty years ago? The airlines showed us that if business travelers were the only flyers, rates stayed high. When the airline business was deregulated we eventually saw fares drop so low that now we all fly.) We've lived with a telecom monopoly for nearly a hundred years - don't expect miracles overnight. In the long run we will see the changes that will make us wonder why there ever was a monopoly (because we'll forget about the technical reasons). Until then, read the trades and look closely at who is innovating and who is working hard to maintain the status quo. You'll see that the innovators are the small companies (as is always the case it seems) and the entrenched companies -- the big ones with the most money invested in their one-trick ponies -- are the ones trying to drag the whole thing out. As for things like the $.35 pay phones, wait around. Somebody is going to realize that higher prices mean fewer users (wow!! what a concept) and introduce DISCOUNT payphones. They will be neither as attractive or as 'feature rich' as the current crop (is that an oxymoron?) but they'll work, by God, and people will line up to save a few dimes. Then, interestingly enough, we'll see the prices on other phones start to drop. Hey, competition doesn't begin just because Congress says it does. It takes people with money and ideas to get the ball rolling. But when that ball gets rolling, I sure wouldn't want to be the guy standing in the way, trying to hold it back. Dave Stott [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My two COCOT-style phones still charge 25 cents per call as opposed to the Ameritech payphones close by which require 35 cents. They seem to be doing quite well at that rate; it is rare I see anyone down at the other end of the building using the Ameritech equipment. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Tim Gorman Subject: Re: Ok, What Exactly are the Benefits of Local Competition? Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 12:41:06 -0500 lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson) wrote in TELECOM Digest V18 #78: > Now, with all those problems are more, exactly what are the benefits > I'm supposed to get as a result of "competition"? They better be > substantial to make up for all of the above. > Could someone explain it to me? Somewhere along the road the concept of a "natural monopoly" fell out of favor with those making decisions in this country and we are all reaping the rewards. When was the last time a new railroad with new rights-of-way and rail lines started up in this country? When was the last time a new power company with new rights-of-way and new transmission plant started up in this country? How many new telephone companies ready and willing to serve *all* consumers have started up in the last two years? There are a couple of common threads among all of these. One is the high, high cost of investment in plant needed to make any of them work. The other is the relationship between concentrated long haul versus widely distributed short haul. There is no incentive in any of these markets to attract new competitors putting in new plant to raise productivity and lower cost for the majority of consumers. The investment is too high and the return too low to justify the investment. The proof of this is being seen today where competitors are now campaigning to *not* become facility based competitors but, instead, "reseller" competitors. The rallying cry is "Access to the embedded plant in the name of competition"! Forget the fact that the Telecom Act recognized resale as just an interim tactic to allow new competitors to get started. Forget the fact that AT&T, MCI, and Sprint are not "new competitors" and should be at the forefront of becoming facility based competitors. Just remember instead the lobbying cry of "Break up the RBOC's! Set up a nationalized company to wholesale existing plant to all of the resellers!" For over a hundred years the main goal was to provide adequate service to the majority at the lowest average cost. There was a huge edifice of tariffs and subsidies to accomplish this goal. The main goal today is to have the cost causer pay the cost so as to supposedly foster competition. All of the old edifice is being torn down and done away with. Where it will wind up is hard to predict but it is not unreasonable to expect that the telephone bill for the small user will go up. The question to be answered is "how much will it go up"? It is quite likely to be a significant amount. Btw, having to dial ten digits isn't really an artifact of competition. It is due to growth in the industry. The only impact competition might have had is on the gross timing of having to dial ten digits. Even there the impact is probably small. Tim Gorman ------------------------------ From: Bill Levant Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 18:25:57 EDT Subject: Re: Opponents of 847 File Against Ameritech > It is a shame that a metropolitan area like Chicago which is so well > geographically divisible cannot come up with an acceptable plan which > would inconvenience, and I use the term loosely, a limited, distinct > region only for a short period of time instead of inconveniencing > FOREVER AND EVER the nearly 8 million Chicagoans who used to call 312 > home. Uh, Mike ... get a grip. This isn't the end of the world. And besides, what do you think will happen when the area codes are split and re-split so many times that each area code is, oh, three city blocks wide? Right. As a practical matter, you will have mandatory ten (or eleven) digit dialing anyway, because the vast majority of your calls will be to other area codes. > Of course, the costs associated with changing stationery and > business cards are measurable, but I believe that a business located in a > telephone hotbed should welcome an area code split as a progressive measure. Huh???? Why should I consider it a badge of honor to have my telephone number changed AGAIN, just because a bunch of dinky little phone companies are hogging the available numbers? I think divestiture was among the dumbest ideas the baby lawyers at the Justice Department EVER came up with, and this is just another of the myriad examples of how divestiture has "improved" my telephone service. NOT. Maybe the Illinois Commerce Commission should simply order Ameritech to reduce the number of rate centers. That would free up a whole bunch of numbers without either a split OR an overlay. People have to stop thinking of area codes as such; nowadays, they're just part of your (ten digit) phone number. Bill ------------------------------ From: ahk@chinet.chinet.com (Adam H. Kerman) Subject: Re: Opponents of 847 Overlay File Against Ameritech Date: 26 May 1998 17:51:24 -0500 Organization: Chinet - Public Access In article , Michael Sarro wrote: > I have personally changed the phones numbers of most of my friends and > family over the past 10 years, since 708 introduction in 1989, and > feel sorry for the folks in Chicagoland who will now be inconvenienced > ad infinitum with mandatory 11 digit dialing. C'mon. Most of us are already dialing 11 digits for many, if not most local calls. Particularly those in 773 (outer Chicago) to call 312 (the Loop). > The recent 1996 splits of 708 and 312 into the five code area it is today was > one of the smoothest and most well informed splits that I have tracked. Thousands of subscribers along the 630/847 boundary were forced to take new seven-digit phone numbers with no transition period. The new boundaries were drawn along municipal boundaries and split numerous exchanges. Even with the boundaries in place, there's nothing to prevent a municipality from annexing into another area code. > Not to mention that everyone I know in the Chicago area was aware of it and > basically unaffected. Everyone was affected. Chicago has hundreds of suburbs. There are four area codes in the area near O'Hare Airport, and it's very confusing to try to figure out which area code is where. > Of course, the costs associated with changing stationary and business cards > are measurable, but I believe that a business located in a telephone hotbed > should welcome an area code split as a progressive measure. You are discounting the higher costs of updating customer and vendor databases, updating end-user telephone equipment like PBX's and stored fax numbers and stored speed-dialing numbers, and the potential for error when updating toll- restriction tables. Even the phone companies make mistakes in those! But the highest cost of all is notifying customers and vendors over and over again, hoping that they'll get around to updating their databases so that they can continue to do business with you! > Sure there is the allegation that it is a hoax based on the archaic number > assignment policies of days gone-by (i.e. 10,000 numbers per carrier, even > tough all may not be in use), but I feel that it is still a positive sign of > an area's growth and the demands that business and its denizens are > placing on the resources. But, we've not seen a significant growth in population or telephone users. Just in the number of companies eligible to be assigned telephone prefixes. > Does anyone remember the phone books in Chicago for the suburbs in the > 70's? They were nicely divided into Near North, Far North, Northwest, > Near West, Far West, and South, and as far as I can tell from my > travels home over the years, most of these local divisions still fit. > Why not carve up the area based on these divisions and be done with it. The phone books are still published like that. Every local phone book contains all the free listing for the regional divisions you cited. Only the paid listings and community maps and information pages are different. And, Aurora has been split out of the Far West division. > Split 847 down the Des Plaines River to the Lake Co. border and then > break the line NW to Volo where Lake Zurich, Barrington, and Buffalo > Grove would stay 847. New code would be assigned to Near North and Far North. Actually, this was the recommended geographic split of NPA 847. > Lastly and most importantly the North / South division of CHicago has > existed since the 1800's, and I'm certain a line could be agreed on for a > split of 773, say at the Eisenhower Expressway. This would be lovely for the West Side, who consider themselves neither on the North nor South sides of the city. > 312 can also be divided, while I would agree that it is difficult and > pratically ridiculous given the small amount of real estate that it > currently covers; however, not without merit of consideration. > It's really not so difficult. You just pointed ou that it is! > If this is the prefered approach today, why didn't we just start this > madness in the 80's and leave the old boundries in place? If we'd known in 1985 what we know today, perhaps serious consideration would have been given to an overlay of 708 instead of a city/suburban split of 312. > Three area codes for one household, sounds pretty stupid to me. That's a red herring. We are running out of prefixes to assign, not numbers within a prefix. So, if a home or a small business needed additional lines, more than likely there would be available numbers from the prefix already in use. A customer takes a big chance if he doesn't insist on the same prefix for additional lines. Why? Many exchanges have more than one switch. If you have phone service from multiple switches, you can't use hunting and numerous other features taken for granted. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I happen to think 847 should be kept on the east side with the new code going to the northwest instead of the other way around as they were discussing (before deciding on the over- lay). Who was it decided Evanston/Skokie/Wilmette/up the north shore should have to take the new code instead of the people northwest? PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #81 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu May 28 21:21:44 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id VAA08705; Thu, 28 May 1998 21:21:44 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 21:21:44 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199805290121.VAA08705@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #82 TELECOM Digest Thu, 28 May 98 21:21:00 EDT Volume 18 : Issue 82 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Introduction to Microsoft Discussion Summary (TELECOM Digest Editor) Summary: "A Dark Day For Microsoft", Revisited Still (Joe A. Machado) Last Laugh! Janet on Duty at the Help Desk (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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: TELECOM Digest Editor (editor@telecom-digest.org) Subject: Introduction to Microsoft Discussion Summary Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 19:30:00 EDT Last week I commented here on the recent concerted actions of several attornies general from various states which were coordinated with federal action against Microsoft. I stated my belief that Microsoft and Bill Gates were being treated unfairly. There were, in response, slightly over a thousand replies in email over a three day period in which the vast majority of the respondents disagreed with my position and took, in many of the letters, considerable effort to point out what they believed to be errors in my thinking. *I did read all the letters* and selected quite a few of them to use in two issues of the Digest last week (issues 74 and 76). It was simply impossible to use them all. Had I attempted to do so, you would still be getting issue after issue of nothing but replies. I hope the ones I selected were representative of those of you who wrote in response. I am still getting responses: Usenet propgation being what it is, the original message and many of the replies are still making the rounds, and although the unused material was disgarded earlier this week, an additional 150 replies have arrived in the past few days. Again, I regret they won't be used. Joe Machado, a regular reader took the liberty of summarizing all the printed responses into a single very large document which he sent along to me to share with you. I am passing it along for you to use as a sort of 'cover sheet' for the entire thread in case you are saving it for future reference. It will also be in the Telecom Archives. No responses will be printed to Mr. Machado's summary, and I don't think he really wants to get any email on it either, but you can decide for yourself how to handle that. Again, my thanks to all who participated in the Microsoft discussion. PAT ------------------------------ From: Joe A. Machado Subject: Summary: "A Dark Day For Microsoft", Revisited Still Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 11:38:59 -0500 My name is Joe Machado, and I read issues #74 and #76, which pertained to opinions regarding Microsoft and a previous editorial. I think it is a sad day for everyone. In a positive note, the Jeffersonian idea that all citizens should be aware of the legal constraints which bind them is alive and well. However, the depth of understanding may be an issue. I am not expecting any email spams, rebuttals, or comments, so please confine any response to this forum, in light of the mature adults to which we all market ourselves to be. Enclosed is a summary of comments made in issues #74 and #76. It is interesting to analyze the comments regarding Microsoft. I was trying to gain an idea of the comment thrusts, quantify them, and then present the ideas in some sort of stochastic output for learning and research. But I gave that up; perhaps that would be a good project for another day. It seems that there are some deep seated ideas on the subject, and few other recent topics are able to bring out a range of passion and locked ideas as the Microsoft issue. I looked up the word "bigot" in the Merriam Webster dictionary at http://www.m-w.com/dictionary.htm and here is the definition: Main Entry: bigot Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t Function: noun Etymology: Middle French, hypocrite, bigot Date: 1661 : a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices - bigoted /-g&-t&d/ adjective - bigotedly adverb When Microsft is discussed it appears our ideas are strictly adhered to, even if that means defaming or attacking opposing opinions, or even shutting them completely from our consciousness and homes. So much for Memorial Day. Everyone is an expert, in law and in computing. It also appears that users have problems managing the technology and the problem is with the technology and not what the user may have done to it, or with it. Further, users will seek to purchase a PC from a vendor and demand that it be the way they want, with the software they choose. Moreover, buying a competitive computing device such as a McIntosh or a SUN workstation is not an option - it must be a PC and it must be the way they want. It cannot even be an IBM machine running OS/2 Warp! And that means the operating system and all that it can do must be custom tailored. It is the vendor who must configure the machine or deliver the machine raw for a user to configure easily. Additionally, the product offerings must include all available products from day one, because some users have preferences, which must be respected and adhered to. Further, competing products must be careful in how they infringe on territory held by a user's favorite programs. The mainstream media has done well with the coverage, given that everyone has an opinion. When the rest of society purchases home units then we will have more experts. Political issues were included in some comments, and the press conferences announcing some new DOJ activity mentioned. There were hints that the DOJ activity announcements against Microsft coincided with investigative announcements by Congressional leaders against the White House, but the DOJ activity gained the press and popular fever. I should note that logical analysis of the arguments regarding fallacies and foundations are not included herein. Here are the summaries, remember, no emails!!!!! From issue 74 =================== *) Microsoft should go under because they force hardware manufacturers to bundle Microsoft Apps. Microsoft Windows 98 will require a 300MHZ Intel processor and 256Megs of SDRAM to operate. *) Microsoft stole the GUI interface while Netscape invented the Web browser. The user could only discern that a W95 fix only disabled his WordPerfect. Monopolies are legal as long as the monopolizer does not muscle into other markets. Microsoft has required contracts, which do not allow bundling of Netscape. Bill Gates has set out to destroy Netscape. Navigator has always been a free download. When televisions are turned on and display the MSNBC channel, changing the channel would void the warranty. *) Pat is a Microsoft sympathizer because Microsoft has helped TELECOM Digest in the past. As SUN employee, the writer has found Microsoft engaging in anti-competitive practices in preloading of software deals with manufacturers. Consumers are stupid so they will use whatever browser comes with a system, so Microsoft should not include IE in a system because users will use it and not Netscape. The writer hates Bill Gates from a technology and moral viewpoint and respects Pat since college, but Pat should not use condescending tones when referring to Bill Gates, as well as users wanting Windows 98. *) Windows would not run on the Dr. DOS operating system because Microsoft made sure it failed on that OS. Microsoft stole STAC technology and it was proved in court. According to NT experts, NT workstation and Server are the same except for some registry settings, thus Microsoft is deceiving people and making profit. Given the STAC lawsuit, Microsoft will engage in shifty dealings. The writer is in the technology business, which will be affected by Microsoft, and Pat is engaging in wolfpack behavior by saying anything that supports Microsoft. The writer will accept discourse on this issue by email, which does not involve TELECOM Digest matters. *) The government forced cocaine to be removed from Coca Cola, so Bill Gates is supporting the government's case by using the Coca Cola example. *) Microsoft has engaged in antitrust behavior, which the courts must rule on. Microsoft has done everything legally to leverage their deal with IBM. Computer Shopper does not have ads from manufacturers, which have full color ad pages and sell hardware without Microsoft software loaded, only small mom and pop ads do. The writer would not feel sorry for Microsoft because PC vendors have made billions in profits, and Microsoft has as well, and made buyers pay for OS development. The writer wonders who will profit from all this. Further, the writer does not like Microsoft products and will not allow any Microsoft product in their house. Microsoft has made it difficult for users not to use Microsoft products. Microsoft should not be required to include a competitor's product but should instead sell its products at the same pricing structure. Undocumented OS calls should be prohibited and Microsoft should only make available standard issue software so that OEM's can modify the installation as they wish. The writer hopes Microsoft is sanctioned because of a Caldera lawsuit and for violating a Java deal with SUN. The writer would have bought an island, nuclear sub, SR71 and engaged in partying were they in Bill Gates shoes. *) Microsoft is the underdog and all the current legal activity is to defend the Netscape monopoly. *) Pat tells the truth in his Microsoft opinion. *) Pat did not work for STAC so he does not know what he is talking about. *) If Coke owned all machines in the world then they should have to sell Pepsi. The writer hopes that Windows 98 will not crash as often as Windows 95, and would have switched to Windows 98 long ago, but most programs are for Windows 95 since Microsoft gives out fee development packages to programmers. There are not many choices for the writer. *) Since Microsoft has about 90% of the Windows OS market, compelling users to buy their products in other areas is anti-competitive and an anti-trust violation. It is ignorant to consider Microsoft OS to be "spectacular" because Microsoft has built mediocre products. The writer has experienced General Protection Faults and the creation of 8.3 filenames is inexcusable. Windows 98 is just a long 8+3 filename system. The writer is not able to buy a system with Netscape loaded in it instead of Internet Explorer. Thus, the free market philosophy is not applicable. It is also a restraint of trade that Microsoft forced ISP's to put their listing in Internet Wizard, thus driving Netscape out of business. The writer states that Dell or Gateway are not able to sell users a system which they want. Thus, breaking up Microsoft is the only answer. Even though Microsoft published specs so that software manufacturers could develop products for Windows 95, when a products was built which competed with a Microsoft product such as Word, then that manufacturer did not receive secret Windows code. Only Microsoft Word engineers were given secret Windows code and that is why Microsoft build better integrated products, which is an unfair advantage. Microsoft should let users decide and give out its secret code. But since it will not divulge its secret codes, then it should be compelled to do so. The writer states that Microsoft should be broken up into divisions and that the coders for Internet Explorer receive the same specs as the Netscape developers. And Office development should be separate so that it can compete with other office suites. Microsoft mugs competitors. The Department of Justice is spineless. They should squash Microsoft so that all users can benefit from it, and not Microsoft's marketing. *) Netscape did not require anyone to include their browser with a new installation, and their browser was the best. Microsoft requires vendors to install their software. Id Microsoft does this, then Netscape should also be this freely available. A Microsoft Operating system is not the same as a Netscape browser. Hopefully Windows 98 will not be delayed but vendors should be free to install the software they want. The writer hopes the registry editor and system file editors are easy to understand so that 'command prompt' programmers will not be left behind. If Microsoft does not require vendors to install OPTIONAL modules then that will be good. *) Pat created a highly biased article. Microsoft has entered into near monopoly positions and forced vendors to distribute their OS, as well as forcing ISP's to prefer the IE browser. Microsoft did not initiate their actions until Netscape incorporated JAVA into their browser. Microsoft made their own JAVA and then made deals with HP to make a proprietary JAVA to work on printers. It was imperative for Microsoft to kill JAVA. This is limiting competition. Pat's criticism of the Justice Department is unwarranted. The writer has not seen any evidence that Netscape is being aided by DOJ in any alliance. The DOJ is doing what it is supposed to do. Pat's statements are unsubstantiated and slanderous. *) Microsoft met with Netscape to make an illegal deal where Netscape would stay out of the Windows market and Microsoft would stay out of everything else. Internal Microsoft memos and Marc Andreesen notes point to Microsoft conspiracies. Also, the writer has heard about how Microsoft has made threats to OEM's who change startup screens. Microsoft does not make superiors products at competitive prices so the writer does not have any sympathy. Microsoft has violated anti-trust law. Microsoft should have to provide documentation to its products so that third parties can provide competitive alternatives, the way IBM had to do, but they should not have to bundle Netscape. The writer concludes that Microsoft is smart and can therefore document their products if they had to. *) If people use the IE browser because it is