From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Jan 15 02:09:09 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id CAA05782; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 02:09:09 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 02:09:09 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199901150709.CAA05782@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #1 TELECOM Digest Fri, 15 Jan 99 02:08:00 EST Volume 19 : Issue 1 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Another Year of the Digest (TELECOM Digest Editor) Pacific Bell Plans to Boost Rollout of Digital Subscriber Lines (Tad Cook) Bell Atlantic Trying to Show It's Open to Competition (Greg Stahl) PBX at Home (Max Morris) Motorola Expands CDMA Users' Digital Roaming Capabilities (Monty Solomon) Ameritech's Call-Blocking Service Too Costly, Trade Group Says (Tad Cook) Book Review: "TCP/IP Network Administration", Craig Hunt (Rob Slade") Book Review: "The Internet Kids & Family Yellow Pages (Rob Slade) Book Review: "How to Access the Federal Government on Internet (Rob Slade) Book Review: "Harley Hahn's Internet & Web Yellow Pages (Rob Slade) Book Review: "The Internet Book", Douglas Comer (Rob Slade) Book Review: "Learning Perl", Randal L. Schwartz/T Christiansen(Rob Slade) Book Review: "The Internet Complete Reference", Harley Hahn (Rob Slade) 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: 847-675-3140 ** 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: editor@telecom-digest.org (Patrick Townson) Subject: Another Year of the Digest Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 10:00:00 CST Hello once again! Okay, I will admit that I have been lax in getting issues of the Digest out to you since before Christmas. I will *try* to increase production this year ahead of us, but with no promises right now as to how many issues will come out. I've got something else I am working on which for me holds a lot of excitement. I think I will soon be doing an 'internet radio' broadcast on a regular basis. For those of you not familiar with the concept, it works like this: If you have an audio/video player attached to your browser, you can view/listen to literally hundreds of television and radio stations which put their signal out on the net. In addition, there are numerous internet-only 'netcasters' who do not use the open airwaves as in traditional radio/television services. You simply use your browser to address their URL or home page, click on the 'listen live' icon, wait a few seconds for your Real Player to open and make a connection, then listen or watch the program/station. If you do not have a media player, any of them will gladly give you one for free. Many such services are listed on web pages in common, such as that of broadcast.com, which in addition to providing links to hundreds of others also provides its own content. Most of us would be hard-pressed to obtain time or space on the site of a commercial broadcaster, and even the internet-only netcasters are pretty much into it for the money. No money, no sponsor, no radio/TV program ... that simple. But there are exceptions, and I want to tell you about one of them today because I was thrilled to find them on the net. http://www.freespeech.org is a totally not-for-profit internet-only radio/television service which allows anyone to have space for free to present programs airing their views, their ideas, etc. All you need on your end is audio encoding software with an audio input on your computer. It helps of course to work hard at preparing a quality presentation, an interesting index.html on the front of it, and a modicum of decent recording equipment on your end. If you have video equipment, so much the better; you can use it also. It is all free of charge, but like yours truly they always are willing to accept contributions to help with their expenses. I am told it is run as a labor of love by one and a half people, which is a half of a person more than I have working on this Digest. Users are limited to 25 megs of space, which is really quite adequate to hold several thirty minute radio presentations or a couple of larger television presentations at a time, depending on how you put it together, etc. Your 'overhead' consists of using some of the space for an index.html and a short file (.ram) which is used to get the browser to open the media file (.rm) itself. A 43 minute test recording I made took about 5.5 megs for the .rm file. You prepare it all at your site then FTP it over to your directory on their site. You cannot get shell access at their site, just somewhat controlled FTP access to your own directory. Put your index.html, your assortment of .rm files with their associated .ram files over there and you are all set. **No commercial programming! No sponsors! No Visa/Mastercard! No spam! Just non-commercial free speech; all you want of it. You can ask for money for your efforts in a reasonable, non-offensive way.** It helps if your personal politics lean a bit to the left, Pacifica Radio style, like a college radio station, but they won't hold it against you if you don't keep your open mind so open that all your brains falls out. In the process of signing up for an account, they take great pains to point out that 'free speech', while theoretically free, isn't totally so. Regardless of what you think, for example, about the controversy surrounding copyright law; what you personally think about child porn having no free speech protection; what you personally feel should be allowed where lewd, crude and/or rude presentations are concerned on the net; they insist that participants on their 'television network' obey the law. They reserve the right to dump you if you become too much of a pain, if you cause legal problems or if you disrupt other programs being aired/produced, etc, which is how it should be. They *do* allow hate speech, but reserve the right to label it at such in their own master listing of program content. They are very anti- government and encourage programs on all sorts of relevant topics, as long as you don't break the law or encourage/aid/abet others in breaking it. I suppose you could probably put on a live sex act for others to watch (in the old CB Radio days, the guys would leave their microphones locked open while they were having sex so that everyone could hear the sounds, etc) but I suspect all it would do is get a few yawns from the 'been there, done it, seen it all' people who would tune it in. And if anything would mortify me more than being observed in such a posture, it would be knowing that my audience was bored with the presentation and tuning me out. So show some good taste and class, won't you? http://www.freespeech.org They bill themselves as Internet Television with programs produced by the people, 'because the people know better'. I think so too. Maybe I will see your program there, and I hope when I get mine up and running you will listen to it. You can tell them I referred you. Happy new year! PAT ------------------------------ Subject: Pacific Bell Plans to Boost Rollout of Digital Subscriber Lines Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 22:30:23 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) By George Avalos, Contra Costa Times, Walnut Creek, Calif. Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News Dec. 15--The race to quicken the pace of using the Internet will soon get a boost from Pacific Bell, which will dramatically expand availability of a fast online technology that can compete against lightning-quick cable modems, and may lower the price for the service. The telephone company disclosed Monday it intends to speed up deployment of its digital subscriber line, or DSL, product. The technology is able to juice up the performance of standard telephone lines and render them capable of transmitting computerized data at speeds much faster than conventional phone-based modems. "We're going to be launching some aggressive plans on DSL in the next couple of weeks to put it into most Bay Area communities," said Gary Rath, an area vice president for Pacific Bell. Pac Bell is installing DSL gear at dozens of central switching offices around the state. The company has deployed the DSL technology in 89 California central offices. That's about 14 percent of the 650 central offices statewide. Pacific Bell also has installed DSL equipment at 24 of the company's 86 switching centers, or 28 percent of the total in the region. DSL, under Pacific Bell's current plans, would be installed in dozens more switching offices in California. Some industry insiders familiar with the plans have speculated the number of DSL-equipped switching offices will top 200 by the end of 1999. The phone company, though, wouldn't provide precise figures. "People are clamoring for high-speed Internet access," said John Britton, Pacific Bell spokesman. "California is probably where people want this technology more than anyplace else." California is the state where 35 percent of the nation's Internet traffic begins and terminates, some industry insiders estimate. The phone company may have little choice but to move quickly to broaden its DSL customer base before people who want fast access to the Internet migrate to alternative products. A rival technology that uses a cable TV system to connect customers to the Internet is gaining subscribers rapidly. The cable-based service may get a boost next year when cable modems are more readily available in retail outlets. And analysts believe cable modems can transmit data more quickly than DSL networks. What's more, the Bay Area's cable modem service, Home, charges less -- about $40 a month -- to subscribe than Pacific Bell's least-expensive DSL option. Getting the DSL technology and an Internet connection costs at least $89 a month. But Pacific Bell is readying a counterattack on pricing, according to some previous comments made to analysts by the top executive at Pacific Bell's parent, SBC Communications Inc. Analysts have suggested that Pacific Bell's current DSL prices are too high for consumers. SBC boss Edward Whitacre said recently that he could foresee DSL pricing dropping as low as $50 to $60 a month for the slowest version of the service. That would put the cost more in the price range of mainstream digital consumers. Pacific Bell executives believe the back-and-forth battle over fast online access means consumers can come out winners. "I think 1999 will be the year of a memorable leap forward in the delivery of data communications to the home," Pac Bell's Rath said. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 00:24:29 -0500 (EST) From: Greg Stahl Subject: Bell Atlantic Trying to Show It's Open to Competition I just read an interesting piece in the 7 Jan 99 issues of Edupage stating that Bell Atlantic has developed a system to allow its "New York customers to change local phone providers easily and quickly". Has anyone heard anything about this ?? Thanks, Greg 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 "Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end" -Spock ------------------------------ From: Max Morris Subject: PBX at Home Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 01:06:32 -0800 Patrick and others at Telecom Digest, I wonder if you'd be able to help with this question? I've searched through your archives some but haven't been successful in finding an answer. I know this is sort of a loop around / DISA function, but cheap and easy for the home (though still with passcode capability!). I'd really appreciate a recommendation. Thanks very much!!! -Max Morris > From: Toby Nixon > Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 1999 10:37 AM > To: Max Morris > Subject: RE: PBX at home > > I have definitely seen mention of devices that allow you to call in on one > line, enter a password, and be connected to a second line, for much less > than a PBX. I've seen these mentioned on comp.dcom.telecom. I don't > remember what they were called, though. I've done some quick poking around > and haven't turned up anything, but I think if you posted a message to > that newsgroup, or gave a call to Patrick Townson (847-727-5427) or Mike > Sandman (630-980-7710), you'd turn up something. > > -- Toby > > -----Original Message----- > From: Max Morris > Sent: Tuesday, January 5, 1999 10:42 PM > To: Toby Nixon > Subject: PBX at home > > Hi Toby, > > I wonder if you could do me a favor and give me some advice. > > I'm looking to buy something that will give me the following > functionality. I have two telephone lines at home, say A and B. I have > very cheap international rates at home through MCI (10 cents per minute to > the UK, anytime) on line B. I would like to be able to call inbound on > line A from work or my cell phone (a cheap local call), enter some > security code, get dialtone on line B, and place an outbound international > call to the UK getting the cheap rate and costing work or me on the cell > phone little to nothing. > > I've looked around and can't find anything simple that will do this. I > know a PBX or key system should be able to do this, but that seems like > overkill to have in my home. Can you think of something on the cheaper > side that can do this for me? Pointers to useful web sites would be great > if you can't think of a specific product. > Thanks very much! > -Max [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There are 'WATS extenders' still being sold by a few companies but their usefulness versus their danger is questionable considering how inexpensive long distance rates have become in recent years and how much hacking and phreaking is done on the phone network with the likelyhood that sooner or later -- and probably sooner -- someone is going to dial that number, hear dial tone as an answer and set about breaking your passcode. It is always risky business leaving a dial tone where others can find it. You can get software for your computer which will answer one line and allow it to be linked to another line without actually letting you (or any unauthorized others) hear dial tone. It just takes the incoming line off hook and sits there in dead silence. Once you have entered your password and given it the full ten or more digit number you wish to call, it looks through its database to see if such a call is auth- orized and then puts it through on a second line, making a bridge to the first line only when it hears a voice on the second line. You could write the database of authorized numbers to exclude everything but the one single number you call in the UK. When you entered that one number, it would find it to be authorized, dial it and patch the lines together. Anyone else entering an 'unauthorized number' (in this example, every number in the world except the one you call) would find themselves sitting in silence for a few seconds and then abruptly disconnected. Or you might try a service like 'My Line' from Call America. It is a dedicated 800 number both for incoming and outgoing calls. People can dial it and reach you, but you can also dial it, enter your pass- code and make outgoing calls, including international calls. Get the details on this from jbucking@callamerica.com I've had a My Line account for several years now and love it. PAT] ------------------------------ Reply-To: Monty Solomon From: Monty Solomon Subject: Motorola Expands CDMA Users' Digital Roaming Capabilities Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 15:50:02 -0500 Motorola Expands CDMA Users' Digital Roaming Capabilities Via Service Option Negotiation January 6, 1999 12:46 PM EST ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, Ill.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Jan. 6, 1999-- Digital Cellular Operators Can Offer More Flexible Service to Customers Of Enhanced Variable Rate Coder Networks Motorola, Inc.'s Network Solutions Sector (NSS) announced today it is offering its CDMA (Code Division Multiple Access) operators the ability to expand their customers' digital cellular roaming capabilities with the introduction of enhanced system software. With Motorola NSS' Service Option Negotiation solution, customers who currently enjoy the benefits of state-of-the-art 8K EVRC (Enhanced Variable Rate Coder) call quality can now take their digital features with them when they roam throughout Motorola NSS-based networks. Operators with CDMA equipment supplied by Motorola NSS, or by a combination of Motorola and other vendors, can take advantage of this solution to provide their EVRC customers seamless digital coverage throughout all of their markets. To date, Motorola NSS is the only cellular network vendor to offer Service Option Negotiation to address the EVRC roaming issue. Service Option Negotiation, an industry standard protocol, sets up the commands by which a cellular base station communicates with the cellular handsets throughout a system. When a caller enters into a network's coverage area, the cellular handset must "speak the same language" as the network in question. In the cellular industry, the most recent advance in digital voice encoder technology is EVRC, a feature which provides landline-quality voice transmission, superior capacity gains and complete background noise suppression. But until now, customers on EVRC networks have been unable to take advantage of these features when roaming outside of their home system and into incompatible digital networks - networks which do not incorporate EVRC vocoders. Lack of Service Option Negotiation causes EVRC digital calls to be converted to analog systems or dropped entirely because the handsets do not speak the same language as the non-EVRC network. Motorola NSS' solution requires no hardware upgrades to the CDMA network or software upgrades to customers' digital cellular handsets. Additionally, it provides a graceful migration path both to future vocoder technologies and to next generation digital standards. The solution is commercially available today. Operators can receive the Service Option Negotiation with Motorola NSS' standard CDMA software offering. "As the leader in value-based software development, we strive to provide cellular operators and service providers with software that increases their revenue base by augmenting their customers' minutes-of-use," said John Cipolla, vice president and general manager of Motorola NSS' CDMA Systems Division. "We are enthusiastic about our interoperability solutions, such as Service Option Negotiation, and hope other infrastructure vendors will take a similar approach." In a report issued last month by the Cahners In-Stat Group, a leading wireless industry research and consulting firm, Motorola NSS was cited as the leading international provider of commercial CDMA digital cellular networks. The analysis of cellular, PCS and wireless local loop markets shows Motorola NSS with a total of 31 commercial system awards internationally. Others include Lucent with 17 awards; Qualcomm, 16; Nortel, 10; and Samsung, four. Motorola NSS combines the operations of the former cellular infrastructure group and iDEN organizations and is responsible for manufacturing, sales and integration of Motorola's cellular infrastructure and iDEN cellular/two-way radio products. NSS is a multi-billion dollar business with more than 16,000 employees. Headquartered in Arlington Heights, Illinois, NSS has major engineering, marketing and manufacturing facilities in northern Illinois, Texas, Arizona, Florida, the United Kingdom, Israel, Brazil, China/Hong Kong, Singapore and Japan. Motorola, Inc. is a global leader in advanced electronic systems and services. Sales in 1997 were $29.8 billion. For further information on Motorola, please visit the web site at http://www.motorola.com/. ------------------------------ Subject: Ameritech's Call-Blocking Service Too Costly, Trade Group Says Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 22:30:25 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Ameritech's New Call-Blocking Service Is Too Costly, Trade Group Says By Doug Sword, The Indianapolis Star and News Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News Jan. 5--If you've ever wondered what it would be worth to rid yourself of pesky, dinner-interrupting telemarketers, Ameritech has the answer: $3.95 a month. Beginning today, Ameritech will roll out its new Privacy Manager service in three Indiana cities -- Indianapolis, Gary and Hammond. While the service costs $3.95 a month, it requires Caller ID with Name to work, which costs an extra $9.50 a month. That's too much, says a telemarketing group, arguing that consumers can get pretty much the same result by being firm with telemarketers and asking to be removed from calling lists. Unlike any other privacy-protection service, such as Caller ID, Privacy Manager will identify 100 percent of callers, says Curt Witte, Ameritech's vice president for customer applications. That offers customers a degree of control over their phone line they've never had before, he said. This is how it works: Privacy Manager kicks in when a call shows up as "blocked," "private," "out of area," "unavailable" or "unknown" on a Caller ID display. Ameritech's research shows that calls from telemarketers generate a large majority of these kinds of messages, Witte said. Before connecting the call, Privacy Manager kicks in and asks the caller to give his or her name. In initial testing, seven out of 10 of these callers simply hung up, Witte said. "The beauty is that your phone doesn't even ring," he said. If the caller does identify himself or herself, the consumer's phone rings and a recording of the name is played. If the consumer presses "1" on the touch-tone phone the call is put through and pressing "2" rejects the call. Pressing "3" activates a message that informs the caller that telemarketing calls are not accepted at this residence and asks that the consumer's name be added to the telemarketer's "do not call" list. That's a legally binding request, Ameritech points out. Federal law prohibits telemarketers from calling someone who's made such a request for 10 years. Consumers can make the same legally binding requests themselves without paying $13.45 a month for Caller ID and Privacy Manager, says Chet Dalzell, spokesman for the Direct Marketing Association, a telemarketing industry trade group. "Generally, any consumer who does not want to receive telemarketing calls at home has choices," he said. Telling each telemarketer who calls to remove your name from a calling list is one way to do it. Anyone wishing to be removed from the calling lists of all Direct Marketing Association members need only send a letter with their name, address and phone number to Telephone Preference Service, Direct Marketing Association, P.O. Box 9014, Farmingdale, NY 11735-9014. Some customers love to buy the latest telephone technology and Privacy Manager "is a feature that some people will find handy," said Jerry Polk, utility policy analyst for Citizens Action Coalition. But Privacy Manager raises the question of "Where does it end?" he said. Local phone companies came up with Caller ID, then they sold a product to telemarketers that blocked Caller ID, Polk said. Now Ameritech has come up with a new feature that thwarts the Caller ID block. Ameritech plans to follow Privacy Manager's introduction with an advertising campaign beginning Jan. 18. The ads will feature peaceful home scenes, asking the viewer if it's worth interrupting a family's time together with calls from telemarketers. One of the ads targets Ameritech's rivals, long-distance companies, as a prime source of intrusive telemarketing calls. The technology that allows an answering system to interact with both a caller and a customer is new and exclusive to Ameritech. The Chicago-based company is negotiating with other telephone companies to sell them a license to use the technology. Ameritech rolled the product out first in Chicago and Detroit last September, followed by Cleveland and Columbus, Ohio. The trio of Indiana cities where Privacy Manager becomes available today represents the third wave of the product's rollout. Ameritech will offer the product in stages through next year in the remainder of its five-state Midwestern territory. Privacy Manager, like Caller ID and call-waiting, falls into a category of products that aren't regulated by Indiana. Ameritech critics claim that the cost of adding such products to a phone line is only a small fraction of what the company charges for them. Critics also point to the huge profits these unregulated products generate as a major reason Ameritech has reported record profits in each of the last five years. ------------------------------ From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 08:13:34 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "TCP/IP Network Administration", Craig Hunt Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKTCPADM.RVW 981025 "TCP/IP Network Administration", Craig Hunt, 1998, 1-56592-322-7, U$32.95/C$46.95 %A Craig Hunt %C 103 Morris Street, Suite A, Sebastopol, CA 95472 %D 1998 %G 1-56592-322-7 %I O'Reilly & Associates, Inc. %O U$32.95/C$46.95 800-998-9938 fax: 707-829-0104 nuts@ora.com %P 630 p. %T "TCP/IP Network Administration, second edition" The growth of the Internet, in terms of the number of computers connected, has been doubling each year for at least the last fifteen. This means that in this coming year about thirty million computers will get connected, and in the year following, approximately sixty million. This growth cannot continue indefinitely. One constraint is the number of computers in the world, and another is the limit on the number of numeric Internet IP addresses available, although IPv6 may soon extend that a fair ways. One of the most important limiting factors, however, is the availability of knowledge about the connection and configuration of computers to the Internet. Hunt, with his initial release of this book, went a fair way to removing this last as a barrier. His test is now the standard text for those running ISPs (Internet Service Providers), intranets, and corporate connections to the Internet. If you are a UNIX system manager, this book is a thorough guide to configuring an Internet connection. (Even if you are not on the Internet, it is an excellent overview of the requirements for using TCP/IP to network your own machines.) For some, the guide may be on the technical side--but then, network administration is a formidably technical task. In spite of the nature of the topic, Hunt has done a superlative job in ensuring that the content is not only clear, but readable as well. The first three chapters discuss the concepts behind TCP/IP, routing, and the domain name and name service. The next six cover the basics of connections and configuration. Chapter ten provides information on sendmail. This is likely separated from details on the primary network services in chapter thirteen due to the broader nature of sendmail's functions. There are also chapters on troubleshooting, security. Appendices cover additional topics such as serial link interfaces and dynamic configuration. If you are not working in UNIX, many of the low level specifics will not be of much use. Many of the items, however, can either be used as rough outlines, or adapted to non-UNIX systems. Many programs may be different, but a lot of the structure, data and concepts will be the same. For those charged with the practical details of bringing a system into the Internet, this book is uniquely helpful. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1994, 1998 BKTCPADM.RVW 981025 rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@sprint.ca robertslade@usa.net p1@canada.com Find virus and book info at http://www.victoria.tc.ca/techrev/rms.html Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses, 0-387-94663-2 (800-SPRINGER) ------------------------------ From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 19:12:52 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "The Internet Kids & Family Yellow Pages Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKINKDYP.RVW 981025 "The Internet Kids & Family Yellow Pages/Golden Directory", Jean Armour Polly, 1997, 0-07-882340-4, U$19.99 %A Jean Armour Polly mom@netmom.com %C 300 Water Street, Whitby, Ontario L1N 9B6 %D 1997 %G 0-07-882340-4 %I McGraw-Hill Ryerson/Osborne %O U$19.99 905-430-5000 fax: 905-430-5020 %P 576 p. %T "The Internet Kids & Family Yellow Pages/Golden Directory second edition" A great many of the child or educationally oriented books on the Internet have lists of resources, but this addition has considerably more range, or at least size, than most of the others. As with various titles in the "yellow pages" ("Golden Directory" outside of the US) series, the collection is a massive one, even though it couldn't be exhaustive. For kids, with incessant demands for information on every topic under the sun, massive is what you want. (It even has a listing for Alta Vista, Digital's "mother of all" search engines.) The main bulk of the book lies in the listings. Rather ironically, in attempting to provide a sufficient number of subject headings, the author/editor may have gone a little overboard. There is, for example, a section on the United States, including subsections on both the federal government and politics, but there is also a main subject listing for U.S. Presidents and First Ladies. Then again, there isn't a history subsection under United States, but there are subsections for U.S. History and U.S. History-Civil War under the main History subject. The index is reasonable, though not exhaustive, and should make up for shortcomings in the organizational structure. There is also an introduction with a few useful tips that unfortunately seem to get lost in a fair amount of verbiage. A concluding section seems to have sometimes questionable answers to parent's questions, and some parenting related sites. The sites are well chosen. There is a wide range of both topics and levels. (A helpful feature for a future edition might be the inclusion of indicators for grade and age suitability.) Occasionally the descriptions contain erroneous or misleading "facts": this is possibly due to taking the claims listed in those sites at face value without checking. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996, 1998 BKINKDYP.RVW 981025 rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@sprint.ca robertslade@usa.net p1@canada.com Find virus and book info at http://www.victoria.tc.ca/techrev/rms.html Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses, 0-387-94663-2 (800-SPRINGER) ------------------------------ From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 21:00:17 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "How to Access the Federal Government on Internet Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKHAFGOI.RVW 981025 "How to Access the Federal Government on the Internet 1998", Bruce Maxwell, 1997, 1-56802-295-6, U$28.95 %A Bruce Maxwell bmaxwell@mindspring.com %C 1414 22nd Street N.W., Washington, DC 20037 %D 199 %G 1-56802-295-6 %I Congressional Quarterly Inc. %O U$28.95 800-638-1710 fax 202-887-6706 bookhelp@cq.com %P 282 p. %S Washington Online %T "How to Access the Federal Government on the Internet 1998" For those interested in (the U.S.) government, and access to its information, Maxwell has provided a very useful compendium of addresses. As he admits, this is not an exhaustive list to U.S. federal government systems available through the Internet, but it definitely gives a good, broad starting field. University and other sites with a specialized interest in the government are listed, although strictly political organizations are rare. For example, the "Queer Resources Directory" is included, but the Electronic Frontier Foundation is not. The reader is expected to be reasonably familiar with the Internet use: the information given in the introduction is intended only to help keep the listings brief. (One addition to the introduction is a section on the reliability, or lack thereof, of Internet data. The piece notes that not all discrepancies are due to propagandists: source material providers have been known to release multiple versions of the same document.) The site descriptions do note the type of access method (increasingly, of course, this is the World Wide Web). General instructional material has been removed, helping to reduce the size of the book, and limit it to the reference information itself. All of that would be extremely valuable for those interested in government and access to information, but since the feds have fingers in just about every pie, there is much more. The various departments provide information on access to information, agriculture, arts and museums, business, children and families, defense, computers, demographics, education, emergency response, energy, environment, foreign affairs, medicine, history, employment, law, technology, space, and transportation. Government sites often provide the most informative content to be found in the net. Maxwell has added to this with a very useful index: I didn't really expect to find anything under computer viruses but was pleasantly surprised to note an entry for the NIST Computer Security Resource Clearinghouse and the CIAC (Computer Incident Advisory Capability) site. (Which points out the fast changing nature of the net: since the book was published NIST has, alas, virtually eliminated its role in this area.) For the avid U.S. government watcher, an essential. For the serious Internet information gatherer, regardless of nationality, a very useful resource. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1995, 1996, 1998 BKHAFGOI.RVW 981025 rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@sprint.ca robertslade@usa.net p1@canada.com Find virus and book info at http://www.victoria.tc.ca/techrev/rms.html Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses, 0-387-94663-2 (800-SPRINGER) ------------------------------ From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 08:06:34 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "Harley Hahn's Internet & Web Yellow Pages Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKINTYLP.RVW 981025 "Harley Hahn's Internet & Web Yellow Pages/Golden Directory", Harley Hahn, 1997, 0-07-882300-5, C$42.95 %A Harley Hahn %C 2600 Tenth St., Berkeley, CA 94710 %D 1997 %G 0-07-882300-5 %I Osborne McGraw-Hill %O C$42.95 800-227-0900 1-800-2-MCGRAW FAX: 1-717-794-2080 %P 904 p. + CD-ROM %T "Harley Hahn's Internet & Web Yellow Pages/Golden Directory 1997 Edition" An Internet "Yellow Pages" is no less ambitious a project than a "White Pages," probably more so. The pace of change on the Internet is rapid, and ill-suited to the long lead times of book publishing. In addition, the volume and range of information on the net is staggering. Nevertheless, even the very brief "catalogues" found in introductory guides tend to be a lot of fun and serendipitously useful. This is fun. There are addresses for famous people, programming resources, UFO theorists, software utilities, government information and all the various and varied topics of the net. There are cartoons and graphics included; about four per page; which seem to take the place of the advertising in a regular yellow pages directory. This is somewhat useful. For Internet resource people, this is a lot faster than "grep"ing the active-groups and list-of-lists files when the persistent "What can you do on the Internet?" question pops up. The closest competition, "New Riders' Official Internet Yellow Pages" (cf BKNRYLPG.RVW) is more formal but actually contains fewer listings, and is not as likely to find information on what you are looking for. This needs work. The entries lean heavily on Web pages and are light on mailing lists. The large format and 900 pages of listings look impressive until you see the amount of white space and number of cartoons. (The white space ["yellow" space?] *does* make the layout attractive and easy to read.) The subject categories could stand some input from a "real world" document such as a real yellow pages directory or the Sears list of subject headings. The index is vital, and needs the most work of all in order to make this a major reference work. I also note still more degradation in the quality of the information in this edition. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1994-1998 BKINTYLP.RVW 981025 rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@sprint.ca robertslade@usa.net p1@canada.com Find virus and book info at http://www.victoria.tc.ca/techrev/rms.html Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses, 0-387-94663-2 (800-SPRINGER) ------------------------------ From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 13:48:09 -0800 Subject: Book Reivew: "The Internet Book", Douglas Comer Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKINTBOK.RVW 981025 "The Internet Book", Douglas Comer, 1997, 0-13-890161-9 %A Douglas Comer dec@purdue.edu %C 113 Sylvan Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632 %D 1997 %G 0-13-890161-9 %I Prentice Hall %O (515) 284-6751 FAX (515) 284-2607 %P 327 p. %T "The Internet Book: Everything You Need to Know About Computer Networking and How the Internet Works, second edition" It is difficult to find books which give some background to the Internet. Most guides assume that readers are either already thoroughly familiar with computer communications, or are uninterested. The history of the Internet often vaguely mentions military or government projects without giving much idea of the problems which needed solving. Given the growth in computer networking, a reference is needed which lies between non-explanations ("This computer is connected to that computer and they talk to each other") and the TCP/IP programming manuals. This book fills a lot of those gaps. After an initial introduction to the current state of the Internet, chapters two through six give a very simple introduction to data communications and the need therefor. Those who have any kind of technical communications background may find the explanations a touch simplistic. On the other hand, I have frequently found that, even among the computer elite, telecommunications is a specialty and mystery area. With such rapid Internet growth, and for those who need some level of explanation without getting beyond their technical depth, this is likely to be very useful. It's easily readable. (It's also accurate.) Chapters seven to ten explain the drive for, and growth of, the Internet including excellent explanations of "why". The basic underlying concepts of the Internet protocols are covered in chapters eleven to seventeen, before nine chapters describe the primary application level tools of the system. These sections are written at a conceptual level, dealing with what the various tools can do, rather than the minutiae of what button to push to get a specific program to do it. This approach ensures that the book will be relevant in all situations, and will not go out of date quickly. A concluding chapter ties it all together with a look at both the benefits and some of the problems of the vast "digital library." This is an important addition to the library of Internet references. I heartily recommend it to those involved in network training, both as a resource, and as insurance that you truly understand what you are teaching. To date, the primary source material for the study of the development of the Internet, aside from the RFCs (Requests For Comments) themselves, has been the "Internet System Handbook" (cf. BKINTSYS.RVW), but it tends to be written at a technical or academic level. For those at the non-technical level who are wondering what the heck the Internet is (and one of Comer's anecdotes points out the hilarious misconceptions that are abroad), and what it all means, this is your book. (Once again, I must declare a bias in regard to this book. I am mentioned in the acknowledgements, although my "contribution" to the book was simply to review an early draft of the first edition. An excerpt from my review of the first edition also appears in the cover blurbs. Nonetheless, I can honestly say that I have not found any other book that explains the concepts and principles behind the Internet as well as this one. With the passing of the years some of my "top four" Internet picks; "The Internet Navigator" [cf. BKINTNAV.RVW], "Finding it on the Internet" [cf. BKFNDINT.RVW], and "Zen and the Art of the Internet" [cf. BKZENINT.RVW]; have become, while still valuable, less immediately relevant. This text is still, and perhaps increasingly, important.) copyright Robert M. Slade, 1994, 1998 BKINTBOK.RVW 981025 rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@sprint.ca robertslade@usa.net p1@canada.com Find virus and book info at http://www.victoria.tc.ca/techrev/rms.html Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses, 0-387-94663-2 (800-SPRINGER) ------------------------------ From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1999 10:12:45 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "Learning Perl", Randal L. Schwartz/Tom Christiansen Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKLRNPRL.RVW 981024 "Learning Perl", Randal L. Schwartz/Tom Christiansen, 1997, 1-56592-284-0, U$29.95/C$42.95 %A Randal L. Schwartz %A Tom Christiansen %C 103 Morris Street, Suite A, Sebastopol, CA 95472 %D 1997 %G 1-56592-284-0 %I O'Reilly & Associates, Inc. %O U$29.95/C$42.95 800-998-9938 fax: 707-829-0104 nuts@ora.com %P 302 p. %T "Learning Perl, second edition" One of the advantages of the Apple II computer (Yes, son, I *am* old enough to remember that. Now put that lollipop down and listen) was the Applesoft tutorial on the BASIC computer language. With a steady pace, interesting examples, some wit, and a reasonable curriculum, it taught tens, perhaps even hundreds of thousands of people, how to program. It taught them BASIC, of course, which was a fatal flaw, but you can't have everything. The loss of the tutorial book, in the IIg and Mac lines, was a regrettable happening. "Learning Perl" may not take its place entirely, but it comes close. The humour is definitely there, starting even before the book does, in the foreword. Sometimes it is devious and subtle, as in the program which asks for "any last request" ... and then discards the input before informing the hapless user that the request cannot be performed. The pacing is realistic, as are the examples, although perhaps a bit slow to come to something useful, or likely to grab immediate attention. However, this book is not going to make many converts from the non- programming crowd. While chapter one is a very careful, step-by-step, approach to input and output, with some manipulations of text for error checking, chapter two immediately plunges into scalar variable and all operators, while three deals with arrays. Not that the sections are written poorly, by any means, but they would be a tad intimidating for the novice. Other topics covered include control structures, hashes, basic I/O, regular expressions, functions, miscellaneous control structures, filehandles and file tests, formats, directory access, file and directory manipulation, process management, other data transformation, system database access, user database manipulation, converting other languages to Perl, and CGI programming. For those who are truly keen to learn Perl (such as the legions of Webmasters needing to collect and manipulate data from forms) this is a good introduction. There are questions at the end of each chapter, and an appendix with the answers. Appendix B lists libraries and modules, C gives a brief introduction to networking topics in Perl, and D covers other topics. The foreword promotes Perl as a general purpose computer language. If that is so, then it is a very complex tool and one cannot expect much of a tutorial. On the other hand, references to Perl tend to stress its capacity for building "quick and dirty" tools for text manipulation, primarily mail. If this is so, then some simple but real-life examples, such as a rot13 reader or a program to extract articles from electronic digests, would have improved the work. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1993, 1998 BKLRNPRL.RVW 981024 rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@sprint.ca robertslade@usa.net p1@canada.com Find virus and book info at http://www.victoria.tc.ca/techrev/rms.html Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses, 0-387-94663-2 (800-SPRINGER) ------------------------------ From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 11:43:25 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "The Internet Complete Reference", Harley Hahn Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKINCORF.RVW 981024 "The Internet Complete Reference", Harley Hahn, 1996, 0-07-882138-X, U$32.95/C$47.95 %A Harley Hahn %C 300 Water Street, Whitby, Ontario, L1N 9B6 %C 2600 Tenth St., Berkeley, CA 94710 %D 1996 %G 0-07-882138-X %I Osborne/McGraw-Hill %O U$32.95/C$47.95, 905-430-5000/800-227-0900/800-2MCGRAW %P 802 p. %T "The Internet Complete Reference, second edition" You have to warm to the enthusiasm of a book which says that the Internet is more impressive than the pyramids, more beautiful than Michelangelo's "David" and more important than the inventions of the industrial revolution. In the first paragraph of the Introduction. Those of us who are barraged with calls for "point-and-click- everything" can be equally heartened by the statement that the Internet is not for dummies, though not only for nerds: "It is for those people who are willing to think and to learn." Having said that, this guide is particularly suited to the new user unsure of what to use the Internet for. The material is of limited technical depth, and is delivered with humour which lightens the tone. Unfortunately, this edition has started down the slippery slope of sarcasm that has limited other works. Topics covered in the book include a conceptual background to the Internet, an overview of applications, as well as the hardware, software, and service requirements for connecting to the net. In this, and in later chapters discussing specific applications, the author recommends some study of the UNIX operating system and its tools. In this day of graphical interfaces it may be felt that UNIX is redundant, but an understanding of the system can go a long way to explaining seeming oddities in net behaviour. As well, many people still access the net through community based systems that rely on text based tools such as pine and lynx. Discussion of mail involves email addressing (with perhaps a little too much coverage of sending mail to other networks), email concepts, and the pine mail agent. (Oddly, the chapter on mailing lists comes near the end of the book.) The World Wide Web has chapters on background, graphical browsing, advanced topics, and lynx. There are solid explanations of Usenet, gopher, ftp, telnet, talk, IRC (Internet Relay Chat), and MUDs (Multiple User Domains). Those who know what they want from the Internet may wish to look at more specific and detailed works. Too, this volume does tend to emphasize Unix and the Unix applications. (Hahn does not neglect chances to promote his other books, particularly those on UNIX.) Still, this primer does cover much ground that a lot of the newer Internet guides neglect. Worth considering for the beginning browser. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1994, 1998 BKINCORF.RVW 981024 rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@sprint.ca robertslade@usa.net p1@canada.com Find virus and book info at http://www.victoria.tc.ca/techrev/rms.html Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses, 0-387-94663-2 (800-SPRINGER) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #1 **************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Jan 27 19:17:40 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id TAA00772; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 19:17:40 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 19:17:40 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199901280017.TAA00772@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #2 TELECOM Digest Wed, 27 Jan 99 19:16:00 EST Volume 19 : Issue 2 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Cook on U.S. Government Giving IANA Contract to ICANN (Ronda Hauben) Re: Cook on U.S. Government Giving IANA Contract to ICANN (Ronda Hauben) Video Over ISDN (Joachim Weber) Telemarketing by Playing Recordings (Michael A. Covington) 1+ Long Distance (Keith Michaels) Surprising Number of Consumers Ignore Long-Distance Discounts (Tad Cook) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * 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: 847-675-3140 ** 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: Ronda Hauben Subject: Cook on U.S. Government Giving IANA Contract to ICANN Date: 26 Jan 1999 23:50:15 GMT Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC Following is a report by Gordon Cook sent to the IFWP list which is helpful in understanding some of what has been happening with the behind the scenes maneuvers of the U.S. government to transfer Internet assets from the public to the private sector. My comments on this will follow in the next message. From: Gordon Cook Subject: [ifwp] what ICANN is up to: the financial arrangements for paying IANA salaries; why the NIST solicitation for ICANN contracts is illegal and can be stopped with an ORSC protest letter; why its a waste of board member's time to talk to mail lists; conversations with esther dyson and mike roberts and others For the past 48 hours I have done nothing but research and write the following. Keeping IANA Paychecks Coming The process last summer of setting up newco (IANA) essentially ran out of time. Details like the coming October 1 unemployment of the IANA staff, including Jon Postel, went into the month of September unsettled. They did so presumably because the parties putting things together assumed that Magaziner would have no choice but to bless ICANN on October 1 and hand over keys to the kingdom to them as well as money for them to start doing their work. When it became clear that this likely would not happen, something had to be done about the paychecks of IANA employees. Mike Roberts on behalf of ICANN made a deal with USC and ISI whereby they (ISI) would enter a transition agreement with ICANN so that ICANN would pay the salaries of the IANA employees (six people) effective October 1. (Where ICANN gets the money is anyone's guess - likely from GIP - ie IBM.) Thus Mike Roberts found himself in a situation where he had to scurry at the end of September to file ICANN's incorporation papers so that as of October 1st ICANN would exist as a legal entity and be able to sign an agreement with ISI whereby the IANA employees remained legally ISI/USC employees with full benefits (health care etc). This was conditional on ICANN sending ISI a monthly check to cover the cost of their benefits through Dec 31, 1998. IANA expenses for office support, network connectivity etc would be paid from the DARPA Teranode network contract with ISI through 12/31/98. When they realized that 12/31/98 would come and go without a legally constituted and functional ICANN to take responsibility for the IANA employees, the December 24 agreement mentioned in the NIST solicitation in the January 6 Commerce Business Daily was struck to handle both functions. It supposedly is nothing more than a continuation of the agreements that were reached last summer with ICANN to continue to pay salaries and Terranode to cover network and other expenses. Solicitation Number 52SBNT9C1020 from NIST is to formalize these informal agreements by giving ICANN a NIST contract by which they will be responsible for paying for the IANA functions. ON Going Mechanics such as NIST Contract Versus NTIA MOU of 11/25/98 The on going needs which, like it or not, ICANN is now legally constituted to fill create a situation where it becomes very difficult for Becky Burr on the one hand and Elliot Maxwell to hold ICANN's feet to the fire on the issues of its unaccountable bylaws and openness. The reason why is that ICANN knows that IANA salaries must be paid and that other parts of the Magaziner constructed house of cards like the requirement for NSI to develop a shared database by April 1, 1999 with specs subject to review by an ICANN (NewCo) appointed review panel. (If memory serves me correctly Becky gave ICANN permission to appoint such a panel of experts.) The problem is that with each step of the way and each action or approval granted ICANN purely for administrative reasons, NTIA is in effect tacitly recognizing and transferring authority to IANA. The intent of the 11/25/98 MOU may have been good, but the fact of the matter however is that it looks like IANA can erode the good intent by simply out waiting NTIA. I suspect that legal action will be required to VOID the sole source solicitation or to sue the US Gov't and the ICANN board before we will see any change in ICANN's behavior. Given the direction of events ICANN will either open up its operations to public scrutiny or it will find itself in court. IOdesign is likely to sue again and given the course of events, we'd welcome that. To be meaningful the NTIA needs to revisit the ICANN MoU and spell out milestones and due dates for deliverables. If Becky and Elliot do not do this we may begin to wonder whether they mean for the MOU to be taken seriously. Lack of Trust, Suspicion and Paranoia Reaching new Highs I have seen a credible assertion that claims IANA staff are being restricted in technical communications they can have with with NSI. I have reached the appropriate people at NSI who have assured me that as far as they can tell all necessary channels of technical communication are fully open with IANA and with everyone else for that matter. I also reached Mike Roberts on his cell phone. Mike, in the middle of a business meeting, graciously took a very few minutes to hear my concerns. Mike said that he could unequivocally assure me that neither he, nor Esther, nor the ICANN board, nor any ICANN lawyers had placed any restrictions on the IANA staff. He added that he believed that it was only rumor and said that if there were any shred of truth to it would be Ron Ohlander, the ISI administrator who would know. (Legally ISI still is the employer of the IANA staff, so if any orders were given Ohlander would be in a posityion to know. I have a call into him but suspect that he will be unreachable before tomorrow.) On balance, I suspect - given that I have reached directly or indirectly virtually everyone involved - that the rumor was likely based on a misunderstanding and has no real substance. The probing however proved to be a useful exercise, because time and time again I was told that the amount of fear, distrust, and paranoia on the part of all was running extremely high. I conclude that two things are at fault. One ICANN's continued insistence on closed board meetings and secrecy, and two that the actions of the MIGHTY Five taken with Sims Cochetti and Magaziner to form ICANN last summer were deeply flawed ICANN Policy as a Destroyer of Trust I have documented elsewhere the widespread disgust with the ICANN Policy of closed board meetings Dave Farber - however well intentioned he may have been is one of the creators of this mess. On Monday, perhaps like the Sorcerer's apprentice horrified by what had transpired Dave stuck his neck out on the IFWP list and said: It is time to raise the issue yet again of the distressing fact that the Board meetings of ICANN are closed. Many moons ago several of us strongly suggested that it would be appropriate for the ICANN Board to operate under the same set of rules that US Federal Advisory Boards operate under as well as NotForProfit Boards like EFF and ISOC. Namely all meetings are open to the public to attend and listen. Often observers do not have the right to talk except for a set aside period during the meeting when 5 minute positions can be requested. The Board has the right to convene in Executive Session but in all cases the subjects that can be discussed at exec session are limited, sometimes by law and more often by good faith and the fear of law. I strongly suggest that this be the principle that ICANN adopt rapidly. Why am I bringing this up. I was told that the ICANN Board meeting in Singapore is closed and that there will be a open "meeting" the day before. That is not the same thing. Open meetings are a good way to gather opinions and an OPEN BOARD meeting is a necessary way to insure openness and the respect of the community WHICH THE ICANN BOARD MUST SERVE. (caps intentional). If there is a reason why this is not appropriate for ICANN but is for the others , I think the ICANN Board owes it to the community to tell us now those reasons in detail.[End quote of Farber message.] Esther Dyson chose to answer not Farber but Jeff Williams saying: Yes. It is in our bylaws and in all the public statements we have made. Basically, we could have had "open" board meetings with executive sessions that were closed, but we figured (the Initial Board voted) that this (below) is the best way to do it. Dave Farber to his great cerdit came back and wrote to the IFWP list: "Esther, There is no real problem scheduling an Exec Session for a Board meeting. The PITAC and all other federal Advisory Boards do that ALL the time. An open NON-Board meeting is not an OPEN BOARD Meeting. The public has a right to see how the issues are handled etc in such an organization and the best way to ensure that is to have OPEN Board meetings. Sorry, Dave" Farber made a third comment about how the logistics of such could be handled. Esther answered *NONE* of Farber's three comments. Unfortunately no list members spoke up on Farber's behalf. This morning however Esther Dyson did call me from the airport. We had an extremely useful 10 minute conversation before she had to run for her plane. She did not say it was off record. At the end I asked if there was anything off record, adding that I felt what she said needed to be accurate and wanted to try to ensure that. "Well why not send it to me before you put it out?" I hesitantly said yes and asked what kind of turn around I would get. 36 hours (she would be on net when she got the chance) was the reply as she dashed off. This leaves me with an unpleasant problem. I am going ahead with my notes on the call. I believe I can be quite accurate. If I am not I invite Esther to send me corrections of or do the correcting herself. Time here is important and her information, while not a huge surprise, is very helpful in understanding the dynamics of what is happening. Now for the details of the conversation: Dyson: I understand and am sympathetic to Dave Farber's call for open Board meetings. But you have got to understand that half our board is not American and they think the US federal open meetings law is something they should not have to subject themselves to. These are business people who don't have their board meetings in public. When they were invited to be on the ICANN board, they could read in the ICANN by laws that ICANN board meetings would be closed. This was something they felt comfortable with. COOK: But if you are saying that after Farber's posting you polled the board again and the board is STILL voting to keep board meetings closed, then some of the American members must also be voting despite the flack you are getting to keep the meetings closed? Dyson: Yes. Now when we get members, if the members vote for open board meetings, we will have to have open board meetings. So stick with us a while and the board meetings will eventually become open. You must understand: These are business people. Corporate boards don't have public board meetings. Cook: But this *IS* the internet for heaven sakes ....internet business is done in the open. Dyson: That's what the mail lists claim. But the mail lists are a self selected minority of the people that we must serve. Those not on the mail lists are quite happy with what we are doing. [Cook: I believe this to be almost a verbatim quote of Esther's words.] I have a thick skin so I am willing to subject myself to abuse. But why should the board members be forced to waste their time listening to and dealing with the wild accusations that abound on these lists? Cook: Agreed that it can get quite abusive, but the abuse comes with the territory. What if IFWP were run on a server where civil discourse rules apply and are ENFORCED! Dyson: Sounds attractive. Cook: I am very hopeful that this will happen. Please join us there. Talk to us. With substance. With fair answers to questions designed to establish some common values and build some trust. Dyson: perhaps. Let me consider it. Cook: please do. Let me just say that the board suffers from the same disease that NSI management did in assuming that Internet mail lists are an irritant.....something that doesn't matter. I was told that twice last year by Don Telage as I tried to explain that NSI's refusal to allow any NSI employee had help to cement hatred of NSI on the network. Perhaps the show down with Becky last September, gave NSI second thoughts because NSI has changed its policy. Sounds like the board is going to have to learn the same lesson that NSI learned. Dyson: I hear what you are saying but unfortunately there's not time to respond....gotta run, bye. Jock Gill (holder of the first major internet policy position in the clinton administyration) wrote me privately a day ago and captured the essense of what Esther was saying. (Used with Jock's permission). The issue, I think, is that the good folks you (Gordon) inquired about come from, for the most part, old industrial/educational hierarchies which are famous for being autocratic, top down, feudal fiefdoms with all the management style that implies. As well as no requirements to run open meeting in a democratic way -- they do not come from the world of elected public servants who assume such rules. Thus why would we expect them to act in any way other than what they have been successful at? New tricks for old dogs? Not too likely. Let's not ask for miracles. Who on the board in question really understands the concept of stupid networks and smart edges and the new management paradigm it is enabling? Who on the board understands management by dialogue, not monologue? What Then is the Solution? Although I haven't asked Dave Farber directly, I suspect and certainly *HOPE* that he is horrified by what he and the remainder of the Mighty Five have done. Lets assume Esther gave a fair rendition of what the reasons are for ICANN's silence in front of the rest of the Internet. Farber, Cerf, Roberts, Landweber and Bradner are smart enough to know that in working with Sims and Cochetti and Magaziner in the summer and in agreeing to create a board of business people who knew nothing about the internet they were creating a potential monster - certainly that they were creating an entity that in being haughty and closed to the open discussion culture of the net would be asking for recrimination and conflict. Because they acted as a cabal to provide adult supervision to the Internet, they may well now have created an entity that will be still born because it simply cannot get enough trust from anyone involved to do its job. Dave Farber is to be commended for speaking out on Monday. But with no one crawling out on the limb behind him he has fallen silent. I hope he spoke out because he is looking at what he helped to create and is horrified by what he sees. It seems that the best way for Dave to show that he was serious is to keep up the pressure.. IF THE MIGHTY FIVE JUST MADE AN HONEST MISTAKE LAST SEPTEMBER NOW IS THE TIME FOR THEM TO SHOW THAT SUCH IS THE CASE. The NIST Solicitation on Behalf of NTIA Meanwhile we must ask what Becky Burr is doing with NTIA solicitation on behalf of ICANN? I spoke late Tuesday afternoon to Teresa Reefe, contracts specialist at NIST. COOK: Why to NIST? Why not NTIA? Reefe: because while NTIA has a grants and cooperative agreements office, it does not have a contracts office and this is a contract with ICANN. COOK: who decided it would be a contract and on what grounds? Reefe: I'd like to know that myself. it was our lawyers downtown. they just delivered intrustions out here. When NTIA does a contract they have to use our office (Nist) COOK: Does the FAR apply? Reefe: yes COOK: the CBD said Nist intends to award a sole source contract to ICANN for operation of the Internet Assigned Numbers authority. What is meant by "operation"....?? How is the IANA defined? Are we talking about paying the salries of Joyce reynolds bill manning and others? Reefe: don't know.... that will be part of the solicitation being prepared. Cook: Ahh....solici ------------------------------ From: Ronda Hauben Subject: Re: Cook on U.S. Government Giving IANA Contract to ICANN Date: 26 Jan 1999 23:51:28 GMT Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC Thanks to Gordon Cook for his recent report on what is happening with the NIST annoucement for giving the IANA contract to ICANN. However, I want to add some aspects that Gordon left out in this situation. The problem to me is *not* that the NTIA or NIST is sole sourcing this contract. The problem is 1) That it is holding IANA hostage to an illegitimate and secretly contrived plan to give away very lucrative assets to a private sector entity. These assets will give great power over the Internet and all who use it to those who grab control over this entity. 2) That IANA is too important a part of the Internet to be held hostage in this way. It isn't that some other private sector business entity should get control of IANA through competitive contract solicitations, but rather that a U.S. government entity that is appropriate, like DARPA, should continue to administer the contract with IANA and pay the salaries of those who work for IANA while there be a genuine discussion and examination of how to create a protected environment for IANA to function that includes the public interest being dominant, not commercial objectives. 3) That the U.S. public and folks all over the world have contributed to the funding of the Internet and of its development and achievements. These folks should not be disenfranchised by this power play of the U.S. government holding the paychecks of IANA folks hostage to their trying to pass enormously valuable and power giving assets to some private entities. 4) I didn't notice the U.S. government having any problem paying for the big bills that it has taken to build the Internet (for the U.S. share of the bills), and the public interest needs to be protected now and the Internet needs a way to scale and to continue to serve as a unique new medium of worldwide communication. Therefore the U.S. government should stop hassling the IANA folks and should make sure that their pay checks are paid by the U.S. government. 5) For a long range solution, the administrative fees for IP numbers shouldn't be going for profits for various entities, but if needed could pay the what are minimal costs for IANA folks salaries. 6) The fruit of a poison tree is poison. The longer this power play by the U.S. govenrment goes on, the worse the situation will get. There is the need for an investigation into how this all happened and a plan for making the needed changes so that the public interest is dominant in what is happening, not someone's idea of how to convert the Internet into a plaything for marketeers. 7) When Ira Magaziner called me this summer he said there were 2 problems the U.S. government was trying to solve. a) the problem with trademarks and domain names b) the problem of international pressure for participation in what happens with the Internet. (I don't have my notes now from talking with him, but I will try to find them to see more specifically what he said.) However, subsequent to talking with him, I have seen the minutes from the Federal Network Advisory Committee meeting in 1996 where the U.S. government talked about the need to protect American commercial interests with regard to the Internet and began a process of encouraging the Internet Society and it seems others like the European Union, WIPO etc to figure out how to take over IANA. Though there are minutes of this meeting, there is no real indication of the discussion that went on to make this decision. Nor is there any indication that there was any concern for or interest by any of those present in what the public interest is in regard to the present and future of the Internet and how this would be represented in plans for giving away public assets and control over IANA to some private sector corporation. This meeting in 1996 is exactly the kind of situation that computer pioneers like Norbert Wiener and others like C.P. Snow warned against happening at the 1961 conference they held on Scientists and Decision Making at MIT. They described how there would be government decisions that had to be made regarding the future of the computer and it was very important that these decisions *not* be made by a few people in secret, but that they be the subject of broad discussion and debate. They pointed out that when such important decisions were made by a few people they would more likely be bad decisions, while the broader discussion by large numbers of people made it more likely that such decisions would be good decisions. The decision to transfer IANA and other key and controlling functions of the Internet and the assets involved with these functions to a private sector entity is a bad decision. These are functions that need to be carried out in service of the public and they require public protection of the assets and the power so that it can be used for the cooperative purposes, not for some private purpose. The Internet is too important to be playing such power games with. It is good that Jim Fleming uncovered what is happening with the NIST giving ICANN a control to run IANA. But how to get the problem of what is happening out to as many people as possible is what seems to be needed and it would be good to have whatever help the press or people in the U.S. or around the world, or online or off line can give, as possible. In his talk at the MIT conference, C.P. Snow proposed the importance of as many people as possible knowing what was going on and being involved in the discussion of what should happen. This is what is needed now, and any help making that happen would seem to be of value. Thus what Cook describes is a power play using IANA and the Internet and its users as pawns. The 1961 meeting at MIT that predicted just such actions would happen and discussed how to deal with them is descrived in: Chapter 6 of Netizens "Cybernetics, Time-sharing, Human-computer Symbiosis and Online Communities" The chapter is online at http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook Ronda ronda@panix.com. ------------------------------ From: Joachim Weber Subject: Video Over ISDN Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 22:36:09 +0000 Organization: Aachen University of Technology / Rechnerbetrieb Informatik Hello, Is there anybody who can give some hints to me about how to transmit video (avi) via ISDN using a protocol named H.320 (H.221). I am using MS Visual C++ V6 and MS Direct Draws (6.0) Multimedia Facilities to display videos in windows applications. As this works rather good, my next task is to transmit audio and video data over ISDN. I am wondering wether there is a SDK or a driver which can help me in fulfilling the indicated task. Please note that this has nothing to do with internet. It is just about connecting a computer with an isdn card to a phone capable of receiving audio and video data in H.221 Hope someone knows something useful. Please let me know. Best Regards, Joachim Weber ------------------------------ From: Michael A. Covington Subject: Telemarketing by Playing Recordings Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 09:31:21 -0500 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises I was under the impression that telemarketing machines that dialed you and played a recording, with no human operator, had been banned. Just now I got a call from one, an outfit called VPT that sells pagers. The only identifying information given was the 800 number, 1-800-388-2161, repeated many times. The Caller ID said only "out of area." Am I right that they're breaking some regulation? Is anyone here acquainted with them? Michael A. Covington / AI Center / The University of Georgia http://www.ai.uga.edu/~mc http://www.mindspring.com/~covington <>< ------------------------------ From: keith.r.michaels@boeing.com (Keith Michaels) Subject: 1+ Long Distance Organization: The Boeing Company Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 18:51:26 GMT Why do I have to choose a 1+ long distance carrier? Why can't I just use 1010+ numbers exclusively and forget about paying AT&T or MCI their minimum monthly. As far as I'm concerned, 1+ dialing offers NO advantage. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Actually, you don't have to pick a 1+ carrier. Most telcos will let you default your long distance calls to carrier 'none'. Then dialing 1+ anything except 800/888/877 gets you a recorded message that your call cannot be completed as dialed. Ditto attempts to call '00', the long distance operator. But you do wind up dialing more digits, and asd Tad Cook points out in the next message a smart consumer can get much better deals. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Surprising Number of Consumers Ignore Long-Distance Discounts Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 20:42:39 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Surprising Number of Consumers Ignore Long-Distance Discounts By Jennifer Files, The Dallas Morning News Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News Jan. 26--Deborah Perl said no to every discount long-distance offer that came her way. The telemarketing tactics bothered her so much, she hardly thought about the deals she passed up. Like about half of U.S. customers, Ms. Perl, a pharmaceutical saleswoman in Dallas, stuck with her phone company's "basic" rates. While she frequently saw ads for dime-a-minute long-distance, her calls with AT&T cost up to 30 cents a minute. "As opposed to wanting to be the most educated consumer I could be, I was more concerned that the phone companies were bothering me," she said after checking last month's phone bill. Minutes later, she called AT&T. "I said, `OK, I just looked at my phone bill. I'm an idiot. We have to do something about this."' AT&T suggested a calling plan that Ms. Perl expects will cut her monthly long-distance bills by about $30. A surprising number of people pay too much for long-distance, simply because they never asked for a better deal. Only 36 percent of Americans subscribe to a discount program, according to a recent survey by Yankee Group, a technology consulting firm. "They're everybody. They're in every socioeconomic group," Yankee analyst Fred Voit said of the customers who don't use discount plans. "It's not just people who don't make long-distance phone calls. We have people who make long-distance phone calls who spend a lot of money." Basic-rate customers span all age groups and income levels. Among people who are drawn to technology, 45 percent of those surveyed said they use calling plans, compared with 31 percent of people who don't buy high-tech products until they become commonplace. Yankee says some people probably subscribe to discount plans but don't remember signing up for them. MCI WorldCom and other companies say relatively few of their subscribers pay their highest rates, because most customers choose them to get a break on their rates. AT&T, however, says 60 percent of its customers pay basic rates. "People get so confortable with what they've always done, they don't see any reason for change, and meanwhile they're paying more than they have to," said Nilda Weglarz, a spokeswoman for the nation's largest long-distance provider. "Any AT&T customer who makes long-distance calls should be on a calling plan." AT&T says a substantial number of its subscribers make no long-distance calls. More frequent callers do tend to use calling plans, cutting rates to 15 cents a minute or less. In 1992, 72 percent of residential calling minutes were charged at basic rates. As more callers have switched to calling plans, that's fallen to 25 percent of minutes. Asked why the company doesn't simply lower its rates for other customers, Ms. Weglarz said, "Our research has shown that there is a certain percentage of consumers who do not want to participate in a calling plan for whatever reason they may have. They are simply not interested." Ms. Weglarz says her relatives roll their eyes when she tries to get them to call the phone company and ask for lower rates. "I'm talking about my own family who are college-educated people and I'm saying, `What plan are you on?' and they say, `What?"' But why wouldn't people be interested in saving money? "I believe it falls in the camp of too many options," said Renee Fraser, a consumer psychologist who heads Fraser/Huff advertising in Santa Monica, Calif. AT&T alone offers an array of calling plans that many customers would find confusing. One plan, pitched on television by Mad About You star Paul Reiser, bills calls at 15 cents a minute, all the time. Another plan charges 10 cents a minute, plus a $4.95 monthly fee, with a special promotional rate of 5 cents for weekend calls if customers ask for it. (According to AT&T's Internet site, after a customer has been on the plan for six months, calls on Saturdays will cost 10 cents a minute. Sunday rates are scheduled to rise to 10 cents a minute in mid-November.) Customers can often get lower rates by signing up and receiving bills over the Internet. Other plans offer frequent-flier miles or cash for signing up. Dialing 10-10 and a three-digit code at the beginning of a call saves money sometimes but can cost more on other calls. Monthly fees and fluctuating rates make comparisons difficult. And while there always seems to be a better deal out there, there are plenty of bad ones. "People fail to take action because they believe they have little hope of finding a better solution," Ms. Fraser said. Like Ms. Perl, many customers don't realize that they're paying more than necessary. Others say they believe the savings aren't worth the risk of signing up with a bad plan. And many customers prefer the predictability of the basic service they've always had with AT&T. "There's a bit of loyalty. They've always been here and always provided good service," said one lifelong AT&T customer, who asked not to be identified by name. Winston Brown, a retired technical salesman in Dallas, never thought to check his long-distance rates until he noticed high fees for vacation calls he'd made with his telephone credit card. When he called AT&T to ask about the charges, he realized he'd been overpaying for years. "I felt like I was being ripped off. They must have six plans they can put you on, but you'd never know it," Mr. Brown said. After analyzing his calling patterns and checking with other phone companies, he switched to a plan offered by MCI WorldCom. The Public Utility Commission of Texas compares rates for several Texas phone companies at its Internet site, www.puc.state.tx.us/rates/trates.htm. More help is available from the Telecommunications Research & Action Center, a nonprofit group, at www.trac.org. But customers don't need to be Internet-savvy to find a lower rate, said Leslie Kjellstrand, spokeswoman for the Public Utility Commission. "All you have to do is pick up the phone and say, `What can you do for me?"' ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #2 **************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Jan 27 20:17:43 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id UAA03920; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 20:17:43 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 20:17:43 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199901280117.UAA03920@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #3 TELECOM Digest Wed, 27 Jan 99 20:18:00 EST Volume 19 : Issue 3 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson The End of Morse Code? (Danny Burstein) Book Review: "DNS and BIND", Paul Albitz/Cricket Liu (Rob Slade) Pac*Bell ADSL Bandwidth Fraud? (Robert L. McMillin) Book Review: "Just Java", Peter van der Linden (Rob Slade) Waiting For Windows Refund Day (Monty Solomon) A Cell of Your Own? Who Needs a Payphone? (Tad Cook) Why Don't CLID Boxes Do This ... (phs3) 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: 847-675-3140 ** 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 Jan 1999 22:11:55 EST From: Danny Burstein Subject: The End of Morse Code? (fwd) Nice writeup ... ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 15:48:44 -0800 (PST) From: Jay D. Dyson To: Defcon Stuff Subject: The End of Morse Code? -----BEGIN FORWARDED ARTICLE----- The Economist, Jan. 23, 1999 SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ... --- ... .-. .. .--. (SOS, RIP) Morse code is being replaced by a new satellite-based system for sending distress calls at sea. Its dots and dashes have had a good run for their money "Calling all. This is our last cry before our eternal silence." Surprisingly this message, which flashed over the airwaves in the dots and dashes of Morse code on January 31st 1997, was not a desperate transmission by a radio operator on a sinking ship. Rather, it was a message signalling the end of the use of Morse code for distress calls in French waters. Since 1992 countries around the world have been decommissioning their Morse equipment with similar (if less poetic) sign-offs, as the world's shipping switches over to a new satellite- based arrangement, the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System. The final deadline for the switch-over to GMDSS is February 1st, a date that is widely seen as the end of an era. For although dots and dashes will not die out altogether -- they will, for example, continue to be used by amateur radio operators, spies, and some members of the armed forces -- the switch to GMDSS marks the end of the last significant international use of Morse. The code has, however, had a good history. From its origins in 1832, when an American inventor called Samuel Morse first started scribbling in his notebook, it grew to become the global standard for sending messages along wires and, later, over the airwaves. Morse code was, in effect, the network protocol for the world's first Internet: the international telegraph network, whose cables trussed up the globe in the second half of the 19th century. The mother of all networks: Appropriately for a technology commonly associated with radio operators on sinking ships, the idea of Morse code is said to have occurred to Samuel Morse while he was on board a ship crossing the Atlantic. At the time Morse was a painter and occasional inventor, but when another of the ship's passengers informed him of recent advances in electrical theory, Morse was suddenly taken with the idea of building an electric telegraph. Other inventors had been trying to do just that for the best part of a century. Morse succeeded and is now remembered as "the father of the telegraph" partly thanks to his singlemindedness -- it was 12 years, for example, before he secured money from Congress to build his first telegraph line -- but also for technical reasons. Compared with rival electric telegraph designs, such as the needle telegraph developed by William Cooke and Charles Wheatstone in Britain, Morse's design was very simple: it required little more than a "key" (essentially, a spring-loaded switch) to send messages, a clicking "sounder" to receive them, and a wire to link the two. But although Morse's hardware was simple, there was a catch: in order to use his equipment, operators had to learn the special code of dots and dashes that still bears his name. Originally, Morse had not intended to use combinations of dots and dashes to represent individual letters. His first code, sketched in his notebook during that transatlantic voyage, used dots and dashes to represent the digits 0 to 9. Morse's idea was that messages would consist of strings of numbers corresponding to words and phrases in a special numbered dictionary. But Morse later abandoned this scheme and, with the help of an associate, Alfred Vail, devised the Morse alphabet, which could be used to spell out messages a letter at a time in dots and dashes. At first, the need to learn this complicated-looking code made Morse's telegraph seem impossibly tricky compared with other, more user-friendly designs. Cooke's and Wheatstone's telegraph, for example, used five needles to pick out letters on a diamond-shaped grid. But although this meant that anyone could use it, it also required five wires between telegraph stations. Morse's telegraph needed only one. And some people, it soon transpired, had a natural facility for Morse code. As electric telegraphy took off in the early 1850s, the Morse telegraph quickly became dominant. It was adopted as the European standard in 1851, allowing direct connections between the telegraph networks of different countries. (Britain chose not to participate, sticking with needle telegraphs for a few more years.) By this time Morse code had been revised to allow for accents and other foreign characters, resulting in a split between American and International Morse that continues to this day. On international submarine cables, left and right swings of a light-beam reflected from a tiny rotating mirror were used to represent dots and dashes. Meanwhile a distinct telegraphic subculture was emerging, with its own customs and vocabulary, and a hierarchy based on the speed at which operators could send and receive Morse code. First-class operators, who could send and receive at speeds of up to 45 words a minute, handled press traffic, securing the best-paid jobs in big cities. At the bottom of the pile were slow, inexperienced rural operators, many of whom worked the wires as part-timers. As their Morse code improved, however, rural operators found that their new-found skill was a passport to better pay in a city job. Telegraphers soon swelled the ranks of the emerging middle classes. Telegraphy was also deemed suitable work for women. By 1870, a third of the operators in the Western Union office in New York, the largest telegraph office in America, were female. Just as skilled operators found that they could recognise each other over the wires from their style of Morse code, many operators claimed to be able to recognise women operators. Inevitably, romances were initiated over the wires -- just as they are today by e-mail. There were even a handful of weddings by telegraph. In a dramatic ceremony in 1871, Morse himself said goodbye to the global community of telegraphers he had brought into being. After a lavish banquet and many adulatory speeches, Morse sat down behind an operator's table and, placing his finger on a key connected to every telegraph wire in America, tapped out his final farewell to a standing ovation. By the time of his death in 1872, the world was well and truly wired: more than 650,000 miles of telegraph line and 30,000 miles of submarine cable were throbbing with Morse code; and 20,000 towns and villages were connected to the global network. Just as the Internet is today often called an "information superhighway", the telegraph was described in its day as an "instantaneous highway of thought". But by the 1890s the Morse telegraph's heyday as a cutting-edge technology was coming to an end, with the invention of the telephone and the rise of automatic telegraphs, precursors of the teleprinter, neither of which required specialist skills to operate. Morse code, however, was about to be given a new lease of life thanks to another new technology: wireless. Following the invention of radiotelegraphy by Guglielmo Marconi in 1896, its potential for use at sea quickly became apparent. For the first time, ships could communicate with each other, and with the shore, whatever the weather and even when out of visual range. In 1897 Marconi successfully sent Morse code messages between a shore station and an Italian warship 19km (12 miles) away. The first sea rescue after a distress call sent by radiotelegraph took place in 1899, when a lightship in the Dover Straits reported the grounding of Elbe, a steamship. Two years later, Marconi sent the first transatlantic radio signal: three dots, the letter "S" in Morse code. By 1910, Morse radio equipment was commonplace on ships. The sinking of the Titanic in 1912, however, highlighted the need for radio operators to listen at all times for distress signals. After the disaster it emerged that the liner Californian had been only a few miles away, and that hundreds of lives might have been saved had the Californian's radio operator been on duty and so able to receive the Titanic's "SOS" distress call. At the first International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), held in London in 1914, it was agreed that large vessels should maintain 24-hour radio watch. This rule has remained ever since, with subsequent SOLAS conventions gradually introducing new rules to keep pace with the development of technologies such as radiotelephony. The advent of satellite technology led the International Maritime Organisation to amend the SOLAS convention in 1988 to introduce GMDSS, an automated emergency communications system based on satellite and radio links. Optional since 1992, GMDSS equipment will be compulsory worldwide from February 1st on all ships that exceed 300 tonnes, carry 12 or more passengers, or travel in international waters. (Owners of smaller vessels can install the equipment if they wish.) Under GMDSS, anyone on board a ship in distress merely has to press a button to send a distress call containing the vessel's identification number and its precise location -- there is no need for a skilled Morse operator. And so, after nearly 170 years, Morse code will finally slip beneath the waves. Over and out: As communications protocols go, Morse has lasted a surprisingly long time - -- admittedly with a few tweaks here and there. So how might its modern descendant, the Internet Protocol (TCP/IP), fare in comparison? TCP/IP was devised in 1973 by Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf (a man with Morse-like stature in the Internet world who is often known as the "father of the Internet"). As with Morse code before it, TCP/IP is being improved to respond to new challenges and technologies. Its addressing system is now being overhauled to make room for billions of additional connections, to allow for the wireless devices expected to proliferate over coming years and to enable even household appliances to go online. Mr Cerf is also working on how to extend the Internet to such other places as the moon and Mars, since the time delays as radio signals travel through space make the current protocol unsuitable. Further improvements will follow: indeed, since it is spoken by computers, not humans, TCP/IP is easier to adapt than was Morse. Even so, in today's fast-changing computer world, it seems unlikely that TCP/IP will remain in continuous use for anything like as long as the century and a half managed by Morse code, its distant digital ancestor. - ----- END FORWARDED ARTICLE ----- [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My sincere thanks to Danny for sending along this really great bit of history for the Digest. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 14:43:27 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "DNS and BIND", Paul Albitz/Cricket Liu Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKDNSBND.RVW 981115 "DNS and BIND", Paul Albitz/Cricket Liu, 1998, 1-56592-512-2, U$32.95/C$46.95 %A Paul Albitz %A Cricket Liu %C 103 Morris Street, Suite A, Sebastopol, CA 95472 %D 1998 %G 1-56592-512-2 %I O'Reilly & Associates, Inc. %O U$32.95/C$46.95 800-998-9938 fax: 707-829-0104 nuts@ora.com %P 520 p. %T "DNS and BIND", 3rd ed. Of the millions of users on the Internet, almost all are blissfully unaware of the complexity and magnitude of the task of network routing. How does the network know where to deliver a piece of email? In fact, given the packet nature of all Internet traffic, how do telnet or ftp packets get, reliably and generally quickly, to their destination? Few even recognize the term DNS, the Domain Name Service, which handles the problem. Administrators may have used BIND, the Berkeley Internet Name Domain program, to manage DNS, but may not fully understand the importance, use or finer aspects of it. This book gives both background and operational details. Topics covered include background of the system, an explanation of the workings of DNS, how to get BIND and a domain name, setting up BIND, DNS and email, configuring hosts, maintaining BIND, modifying domains, creation of subdomains, advanced features and security, nslookup, BIND debugging messages, troubleshooting, the Resolver and Name Server Library routines, as well as miscellaneous other information. Given the nature of the network routing problem, a full understanding of DNS likely requires actual hands-on work. Albitz and Liu have, however, put together clear, straightforward, and sometimes even lighthearted text to make the learning process as painless as possible. The book also covers more advanced topics than straightforward routing administration. Bind 8.1.2 is the basic version for the book, but it also looks back to Bind 4.8.3 and 4.9.x because of the number of shipping products that may still be based on those. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1995, 1997, 1998 BKDNSBND.RVW 981115 rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@sprint.ca robertslade@usa.net p1@canada.com Find virus, book info http://victoria.tc.ca/int-grps/techrev/rms.htm Mirrored at http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~rslade/rms.htm Linked to bookstore at http://www97.pair.com/robslade/ Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses, 0-387-94663-2 (800-SPRINGER) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 06:53:10 -0800 From: Robert L. McMillin Organization: Syseca, Inc. Subject: Pac*Bell ADSL Bandwidth Fraud? Pac*Bell's ADSL offerings have been so far really exciting: quite inexpensive, and widely deployed (for an initial rollout). However, I just heard something from an ISP friend of mine that is making me really jittery about buying: according to him, Pac*Bell is concentrating their ADSL lines back at DS3 junctions, and rather heavily overloading these. This, obviously, is a bid to keep the price of ADSL down. However, some users are reporting speeds as low as 10 kb/s during peak usage times because of this. That is, you'd be better off using a conventional dial-up ISP with any flavor of analog modem. Has anyone else heard of this story? Robert L. McMillin | Not the voice of Syseca, Inc. | rlm@syseca-us.com Personal: rlm@helen.surfcty.com | rlm@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 09:07:45 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "Just Java", Peter van der Linden Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKJSJAVA.RVW 990108 "Just Java", Peter van der Linden, 1999, 0-13-010534-1, U$44.99/C$63.00 %A Peter van der Linden pvdl@best.com %C One Lake St., Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 %D 1998 %G 0-13-010534-1 %I Prentice Hall %O U$44.99/C$63.00 201-236-7139 fax: 201-236-7131 %P 776 p. + CD-ROM %S SunSoft Press Java Series %T "Just Java 1.2, fourth edition" Huh. Back to the original, and somewhat inaccurate, title. This book is a fairly clear introduction to Java. The material is accessible to the non-programmer, albeit with some dedication. The content is fast paced, so you may need to go over some sections several times. But it isn't *just* Java. Oh, no. The jokes start on the *dedication* page. I am saddened by the loss of the "World's Best" Rolls-Royce, the waterbomb-carrying paper airplane, and the amusing but painfully realistic look at getting connected to the Internet, but the table of easily misunderstood error messages and things learned on the Internet are still there. I guess as the book grows, something has to give. Chapter one looks at the what and why of Java. Chapter two goes a long way, although perhaps not all the way, to explaining object- oriented programming. (Chapter six adds to it.) This section is perhaps best appreciated by C programmers, although it does a fair amount of demystifying of object terminology. The structure of the book has been reorganized, making it less sectional. The chapters form a more standard, sequential tutorial on Java, covering the basics, keywords, types, names, arrays, operators. classes, statements, interfaces, packages, threads, applets, security, libraries, GUI, containers, the AWT (Abstract Window Toolkit), graphics, file I/O, and networking. But I must also talk about the CD-ROM. Generally I don't, since many authors simply throw on a few megs of shareware or RFCs, which may or may not have a bearing on the topic of the book. Not our Peter. First off, there is over 500 megabytes on the CD, filling it almost completely. The Java 1.2 JDK (Java Development Kit) wasn't ready in time for the book, but it has the older versions for WinNT/9x, Mac, Solaris, Linux, and so forth. (Don't have Linux? It's got that too.) Or, if you'd rather program in Perl, ada, Fortran, C, or Eiffel, it can help you too. Plus FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions lists), sample code, games, the paper airplane (animated), Sherlock Holmes stories, the Magna Carta, the Jargon File, and a new and different Rolls story. The directory structure may not be immediately obvious to all, but then, that's what grep is for. Also, the link to the book (the CD is navigable via browser) off the main page doesn't seem to work, but that's what the "Go" box is for. So, while it may or may not be the world's best tutorial on Java, it is definitely the most enjoyable. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 - 1999 BKJSJAVA.RVW 990108 rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@sprint.ca robertslade@usa.net p1@canada.com Find virus, book info http://victoria.tc.ca/int-grps/techrev/rms.htm Mirrored at http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~rslade/rms.htm Linked to bookstore at http://www97.pair.com/robslade/ Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses, 0-387-94663-2 (800-SPRINGER) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 13:39:13 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Waiting for Windows Refund Day http://www.wired.com/news/news/technology/story/17442.html Waiting for Windows Refund Day by Chris Oakes 2:10 p.m. 20.Jan.99.PST If you don't use Windows, why should you pay for it? That's the logic driving a group of Linux users who want to make good on a tiny clause built into the Windows end-user license. The clause offers a refund to PC owners who buy a computer preloaded with Windows 98, but don't use the operating system. If it gathers steam, their effort could lead to legal action requiring Microsoft and PC vendors to make it easier to opt out of using the Windows OS on their PCs. "I'm hoping in the long run we'll be able to pressure Microsoft to change their OEM contracts," said Matt Jensen a participant in the effort and webmaster for the Windows Refund Center. The site will coordinate and track efforts to obtain refunds from users' respective PC manufacturers. The movement ramped up Tuesday, and the grassroots group has set aside 15 February as Windows Refund Day when those seeking to uninstall Windows from their PCs will send out their letters. Jensen and others are contributing ideas to the Refund Center following the news of an Australian PC owner's effort to obtain a refund for his copy of Windows. Discussion of Geoffrey Bennett's saga began on Slashdot , a site popular with users of the alternative PC operating system Linux. Attorney Erwin Shustak, chief litigator of securities and corporate finance at the law firm Shustak, Jalil, & Heller, said Bennett's effort may not lead to immediate, dramatic consequences, but could give rise to an eventual class-action lawsuit. Microsoft and PC makers "had a contract that clearly said what [users] were entitled to do, and yet they didn't honor the contract," Shustak said of Bennett's story. "They made it extremely difficult for him to obtain what he was supposed to obtain. I believe it was an illusory clause; they had no procedure sent up to honor it." The Microsoft Windows End-User License Agreement, or EULA, that accompanies the IBM ThinkPad reads, "If you do not agree to the terms of this EULA, PC manufacturer and Microsoft are unwilling to license the software product to you. In such an event ... you should promptly contact PC manufacturer for instructions on a return of the unused product(s) for a refund." Microsoft could not immediately be reached for comment. Full story to follow. Copyright ) 1994-99 Wired Digital Inc. All rights reserved. ------------------------------ Subject: A Cell of Your Own? Who Needs a Pay Phone? Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 00:00:18 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) SANTA ANA, Calif. (AP) -- Some of the toughest new restrictions in California could be sounding last call for pay phones in neighborhoods where people need them most. This Orange County city this month joined a growing number of towns enacting ordinances threatening removal of thousands of streetside phones: nuisances to some people who have phones of their own; lifelines to people who can't afford one. "I wish they were all yanked out," said Debbie McEwen, who complains that the phone booth near her Santa Ana home is plagued by graffiti, cigarette butts and loiterers. "They're magnets. People hang out all day and all night." As cellular telephones become standard equipment for those who can afford them, pay phones continue to proliferate thanks to federal deregulation. But Santa Ana and other communities are beginning to see them as eyesores. Critics complain many newer pay phones are poorly maintained, and many people are put off by the ads they display. Santa Ana's measure has angered pay phone owners who say they will be forced to remove most of the city's 1,500 outdoor phones. Officials say the phones have spread so rapidly it's uncertain how many have been installed; many new ones lack the required permits. Statewide, the number of pay phones has increased by nearly 65,000 to about 265,000 since 1990, according to Public Utilities Commission figures. Practically all the new phones were installed by independent companies. Santa Ana's ordinance does not target specific phones for removal. It establishes strict rules the owners say will make it too costly to change and operate the phones. The ordinance limits the amount of exposed conduit connecting phone lines to booths and bans the use of exposed wires connecting a pay phone to overhead lines. Of the 300 phones Pacific Bell has in the city, about 210 would not comply with the new ordinance, Pacific Bell executive Tom Weber said. "It's not just my pay phones in Santa Ana I'm worried about. It's my 930 phones I have in Southern California," said owner Ken Scott, president of San Diego Pay Phone Owners Association. "If this takes off in other cities, it's going to be a mess out there, and it's a mess that doesn't need to happen." The owners have vowed to fight the proposed law, saying it punishes the entire industry for the sins of a few irresponsible operators. But reducing pay phones seems to be the trend across the country, the {Los Angeles Times} reported Monday. Some older ordinances were aimed at drug dealing and prostitution, but communities are increasingly focusing on aesthetics. -- In California, Huntington Park bans pay phones on private property in its business district, a law that is being challenged by the telephone industry; -- Preservationists in New York are fighting plans to add nearly 20,000 public phones across the city, fearful the booths will block views of historic landmarks; -- In downtown Perth Amboy, N.J., booths are prohibited within 600 feet of each other; -- Chicago officials have removed thousands of pay phones outside stores. Besides complaints from phone owners that Santa Ana's landmark law infringes on their rights, the prospect of removing booths has also sparked safety concerns. Community activists point out that one-third of all 911 calls in Santa Ana come from pay phones. Jack Elwir, owner of H&H Liquor Store on Civic Center Drive, said the three phones outside his businesses are used regularly by people making calls to family in Mexico. "A lot of customers don't have phones -- or even cars," he said. Until recently, Claudia Vasquez said the phone outside her home was her main link to friends and family because she didn't have the identification to get her own. She recently got the problem straightened out and had a line installed. "They can't remove the phones," Vasquez said. "People use them all the time." [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The two COCOTS of mine which readers will recall me discussing about a year ago when I had them put in for the benefit of the bus riders and had them programmed for extremely low and fair rates wound up getting vandalized so much that I was going to have them removed entirely, however the company which services them for me suggested a few improvements, including the latest vandal- proof technology. They put in two new phones which appear to be almost impossible to vandalize. They have some sort of heavy metal across the front, and a thing at the top where coins go in that prevent 'stuffing' the coin slot with string and other things designed to capture the coins people insert. When I started getting at least one complaint each day about the old phones, I called and asked them to find some solution. The new phones sort of look like the type of phone installed for prisoner use in jails, etc. Let's see these get vandalized! PAT] ------------------------------ From: p.h.s.3@watvm.uwaterloo.ca (phs3) Subject: Why Don't CLID Boxes do This ... Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 03:56:16 GMT Organization: Remove dots from userid portion to reply .. or do they? Since we got CLID, we find that we use it a lot as a telephone directory for numbers of folks for which we have a short-term need. For example, my daughter is off to a friend's house for the afternoon; in negotiating the visit, her parents have probably called our house, so their number is on the box. Far easier to scroll back to find it than to look it up. After the visit, we don't need the number for days/weeks/months/ever again, so we don't care. Now, that works fine. What happens, though, is that we wind up spending a certain amount of time "maintaining" the box -- deleting OUT OF AREA, PRIVATE CALL, and 'boring' numbers such as my office # when I call home (which appears as the office switchboard number, thus not even being useful if my wife didn't know my number by heart). If we don't do this, then numbers which we *do* want kept -- my sister-in-law's second line, neighbor's cell number, etc., scroll off and are lost. So...we would love a CLID box which allowed: - defining numbers as "nuisance" numbers, to be kept until reviewed, then deleted either immediately, the next time a call comes in, or just first when the box fills up; - the ability to "lock" numbers, much as my pager allows, so they won't scroll off; - a "delete duplicates", so the 15 calls back & forth about the visit to the friend's house don't waste space in the box. Anyone heard of such a beast? Or are CLID boxes such a commodity that features aren't worth the trouble? Yeah, we could do this with a PC, but we're not likely to put one at each phone ... Cheers, ..phsiii ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #3 **************************** Subject: TELECOM Digest V19_#4 TELECOM Digest Wed, 27 Jan 99 22:34:00 EST Volume 19 : Issue 4 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Book Review: "Internet Security", Meyers/Sheldon/Snyder (Rob Slade) Caller-ID and International Calls (John Cagnola) UCLA Short Course on "Communication Systems Using Digital Signal (Goodin) TV Site Reveals Personal Data (Monty Solomon) Book Review: "Stopping Spam", Alan Schwartz/Simson Garfinkel(Rob Slade) Keeping Tabs on Sex Offenders (Monty Solomon) Bell Canada Replaces Operators With U.S. Based Excell (David Leibold) Cell Phone Glitch Jams Thousands (Mike Pollock) Re: Book Review: "The Internet Complete Reference", H.Hahn (John R Levine) Re: Ameritech's New Call-Blocking Service Is Too Costly (Rick R. Cox) 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: 847-675-3140 ** 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: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 00:57:05 GMT Subject: Book Review: "Internet Security", Tim Meyers/Tom Sheldon/Joel Snyder Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKINSECR.RVW 981115 "Internet Security", Tim Meyers/Tom Sheldon/Joel Snyder, 1997, 1-56205-760-X, U$65.00/C$91.95/UK#61.49 %A Tim Meyers %A Tom Sheldon %A Joel Snyder %C 201 W. 103rd Street, Indianapolis, IN 46290 %D 1997 %G 1-56205-760-X %I Macmillan Computer Publishing (MCP) %O U$65.00/C$91.95/UK#61.49 800-858-7674 317-581-3743 info@mcp.com %P 916 p. + CD-ROM %T "Internet Security: Professional Reference", 2nd ed. "Internet" and "security" are two items of great interest, so I guess someone had to write this book. However, I wish it had been someone willing to put some thought into it. Internet security is a complex and many-facetted field, and the narrow views presented here don't come close to doing it justice. Part one is supposed to be about managing Internet security, but it mostly contains a grab bag of background information on the net, with fairly large gaps in the coverage. Chapter one looks at IP addressing and domains, with a mixed lot of UNIX commands related to the net. Some daemon processes are listed in chapter two, along with some discussion of writing your own with shell scripts or Perl, and twenty pages of program listings. A number of UUCP programs are overviewed in chapter three. Some UNIX, NT, and DOS auditing programs and utilities are listed in chapter four. Part two looks at access security. Sniffing and spoofing are reviewed in chapter five, but the sections on protection may be less than helpful. Chapter six is supposed to tell you how to build a firewall. It does list a large number of UNIX utilities related to the function, but this might have been more useful if there had first been even the most token attempt to explain what a firewall was, and the different types and functions. There is a basic explanation in chapter seven, but aimed primarily at evaluation of commercial firewall products. Chapter eight is a very detailed exploration of SATAN (Security Administrator Tool for Analyzing Networks), covering the basic concept of looking for your own holes, a number of tools that look for specific holes, detection tools to note probing attempts, and the operation of SATAN itself. There is a detailed description of Kerberos exchange messages in chapter nine. Part three purports to be about the security of messaging, but seems to be limited to encryption of content. Chapter ten gives the usual, banal introduction to encryption, using examples of old, outmoded substitution ciphers, and never realistically discussing algorithm or key strength, nor key management. Chapter eleven is a rewrite of the documentation for PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) 2.6.2. Part four lumps together four topics under the heading of "modern concerns." Some Windows NT security features are discussed in chapter twelve, but not in much detail. (In fact, the chapter is entitled "Windows NT Internet Security" but doesn't have much to say about the Internet at all.) Chapter thirteen looks at Java, but the security content seems to relate strictly to the bytecode verifier and the applet "sandbox," and doesn't have much detail on those topics. CGI (Common Gateway Interface) security for Web forms gets a very terse review in chapter fourteen. After all of the foregoing, I was pleasantly astounded to find that the virus information, in chapter fifteen, is quite good. The explanation of how viruses work is extremely thorough, and the description of the different types of antiviral software is solid. The recommendations for recovery are not quite as good (FDISK can create more trouble than the virus you are trying to get rid of) and the review of Windows NT is rather optimistic. There are rather massive holes in the coverage presented in this book. The heavy UNIX concentration is only one example, but there are whole subjects not even mentioned. On the other hand, great chunks of the material contained in these pages have only the most tenuous connection to either the Internet or security. While there are some good bits that might justify the purchase of this book for experts, by no means can it be recommended as a sole source, or even an introduction. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1998 BKINSECR.RVW 981115 rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@sprint.ca robertslade@usa.net p1@canada.com Find virus, book info http://victoria.tc.ca/int-grps/techrev/rms.htm Mirrored at http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~rslade/rms.htm Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses, 0-387-94663-2 (800-SPRINGER) ------------------------------ From: John.Cagnol@sophia.nospam.inria.fr Subject: Caller-id and International Calls Date: 27 Jan 1999 10:58:10 +0100 Organization: I.N.R.I.A Sophia-Antipolis (France) Hi, When I get an incoming international call, my phone company now displays "PRIVATE" on my caller-id instead of "OUT-OF-AREA" as they used to. They have been arguing, over the past month, that both "PRIVATE" and "OUT-OF-AREA" are normal behavior of the system, it just depends on the route of the call. I believed "OUT-OF-AREA" means "the network doesn't know the number" while "PRIVATE" means "the caller blocked his number so you're not going to get it". I am looking for any information to back up that belief. Is there any ITU recommendation describing what the telco should display on CID for international calls? Any help would be appreciated. John Cagnol Please remove .nospam out of my email address Usual disclaimer applies ------------------------------ From: Bill Goodin Subject: UCLA Short Course on "Communication Systems Using Digital Signal" Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 00:08:27 GMT On April 5-9, 1999, UCLA Extension will present the short course, "Communication Systems Using Digital Signal Processing", on the UCLA campus in Los Angeles. The instructors are Bernard Sklar, PhD, Communications Engineering Services, and frederick harris, MS, Professor, Electrical and Computer Engineering, San Diego State University. As part of the course materials, each participant receives a copy of the text, "Digital Communications: Fundamentals and Applications", by Bernard Sklar. This course provides comprehensive coverage of digital communications. It differs from other communications courses in its emphasis on applying modern digital signal processing techniques to the implementation of communication systems. This makes the course essential for practitioners in this rapidly changing field. Error-correction coding, spread spectrum techniques, and bandwidth-efficient signaling are all discussed in detail. Basic digital signaling methods and the newest modulation-with-memory techniques are described. Many traditional communication applications such as modulation/demod- ulation, channelization, channel equalization, synchronization, and frequency synthesis are being implemented with new digital signal processing techniques to achieve high performance. The course analyzes these techniques, including multirate filters, I-Q sampling, and conversion between I-Q and real signals. UCLA Extension has presented this highly successful short course since 1990. The course fee is $1595, which includes the text and extensive course notes. 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. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 13:41:14 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: TV Site Reveals Personal Data http://www.wired.com/news/news/technology/story/17437.html TV Site Reveals Personal Data by James Glave 12:05 p.m. 20.Jan.99.PST In an apparent online privacy snafu, approximately 600 Ohio residents found their personal information posted on the Web site of their local Fox television affiliate Wednesday. The names, home addresses, emails, and comments appeared in a publicly accessible text file on the Web site for WRGT Fox 45 until Wednesday morning. Station employees said it was the work of a cracker, but the individuals who claimed to have discovered the page attribute the mix-up to inept programming. "Fox's blatant incompetence in dealing with this matter reflects a media we've come to expect (especially Fox): sloppy, irresponsible, and arrogant," read an email sent to the 600 email addresses in the file from an organization calling itself Black Flag. In the email, Black Flag claimed to have discovered the file after examining a script on the site that processed the results of viewer feedback. The group said that the script spooled the submitted comments and personal data to a publicly accessible file. The script has since been removed. "We immediately informed Fox 45 of this gross violation of privacy through repeated faxes and messages," the message continued. "While they took the submission form down, the file remained for anyone with Internet access to see.... After repeatedly failing to make progress with Fox, we decided to email all the other people at risk." WRGT-TV promotions director Mike Hanson said he had not heard from Black Flag, or seen any faxes. He accused the group of cracking the site, stealing the data, and creating the page. "We feel like we got hit in the back of the head," said Hanson, who claimed that Black Flag had changed his password so that he could not access his site. "They come along and they mess with this info, and then they send a mass mailing, so here we are in this whirlwind." "There was no fax, no email, no person. No one has heard anything about it," Hanson said. Hanson said that he recently assumed authority over the site from the previous webmaster, who died. John Gwen of Modern Technologies, the site's current webmaster, could not be reached for comment. A search of the file by Wired News uncovered 657 individual email addresses. The page was removed from the site at about 9:25 a.m. PST. "It's the bad people who have privacy issues, and we didn't have a clue," said Hanson. Black Flag did not respond to emails from Wired News. "We are going to talk to our server [contact] and see what options we have to make sure this isn't going to happen in the future," Hanson said. "The average state of security at Web sites is appallingly low and people generally, even with a site with a privacy policy, have very little recourse," said Jason Catlett, a data privacy expert and CEO of Junkbusters. "A law, like most countries have, that would provide statutory damages of $100 to $500 would give sites a financial incentive to make sure they get it right," said Catlett. In December, the Web site for CBS SportsLine inadvertently exposed 9 megabytes worth of personal data from consumers who had entered contests on the site. "How many more times does this specific privacy violation have to occur before something is done to protect people?" asked Catlett. Copyright ) 1994-99 Wired Digital Inc. All rights reserved. ------------------------------ From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 11:44:23 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "Stopping Spam", Alan Schwartz/Simson Garfinkel Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKSTPSPM.RVW 981030 "Stopping Spam", Alan Schwartz/Simson Garfinkel, 1998, 1-56592-388-X, U$19.95/C$29.95 %A Alan Schwartz alansz@araw.mede.uic.edu %A Simson Garfinkel simsong@vineyard.net %C 103 Morris Street, Suite A, Sebastopol, CA 95472 %D 1998 %G 1-56592-388-X %I O'Reilly & Associates, Inc. %O U$19.95/C$29.95 800-998-9938 fax: 707-829-0104 nuts@ora.com %P 208 p. %T "Stopping Spam" Eternal vigilance is the price of junk free email. Therefore, readers expecting to find a quick fix for spam in this book are possibly going to be disappointed. Those who persevere, however, will find much useful material that is both interesting, and valuable in the fight against unsolicited and commercial mass mail bombing. Chapter one details the problem with a definition of spam, the functionally differing types of spam, the different intention of spam (including reputation attacks), and the reasons why spam should be combatted, rather than merely tolerated and deleted. A historical background to the situation is provided in chapter two. This includes mention of viral programs (plus a repetition of the myth that CHRISTMA EXEC caused a mass shutdown of VNET). the primary emphasis, though, is on the Green Card Lawyers, Cyberpromotions, and others of that ilk. (A warning against vigilante actions is also germane.) The current position is described very briefly in chapter three. Groups of spammers and spamming tools are noted. (Perhaps the authors do not want to give anyone ideas, but the technology section is very terse indeed.) In closing, a nightmare future spam scenario is provided. Chapter four provides a solid technical background for further discussion of spam, covering mail agents and the mail and news protocols. A number of steps that the average computer user can take are listed in chapter five. The range from hiding your identity or preventing address "harvesting" (not all the suggestions are convenient), to the more active detecting of spammers behind spoofing techniques, and reporting to authorities. Similar advice for newsgroups is given in chapter six, emphasizing specific programs like NoCeM. Chapter seven moves into larger areas of responsibility with advice on both policy and practical configuration settings to reduce both incoming and outgoing spam. The larger net community is addressed in chapter eight. An appendix lists a wide variety of resources, but the annotations may not always give you the complete picture. For example, the Spam Media Tracker Web site is listed, but at a relatively old address. This, of course, happens all the time on the net, but it is stranger that there is no mention of the spam-news mailing list, the original (and ongoing) source for the site. It would, or course, be prohibitive to identify all international agencies dealing with spam. However, do note that only US government offices are noted as departments to report to. While understandable, the tone of moral outrage that colours the initial chapters may not be as helpful as a calmer precis. As the book hits its stride, though, it provides a good deal of helpful and useful information. All ISPs (Internet Service Providers), corporate network administrators, and net help desks should have a copy of this reference handy. Any serious Internet user will also find it well worth the price. As the authors put it, in slightly different words, the only thing necessary for the triumph of spammers is that good users do nothing. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1998 BKSTPSPM.RVW 981030 rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@sprint.ca robertslade@usa.net p1@canada.com Find virus, book info http://victoria.tc.ca/int-grps/techrev/rms.html Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses, 0-387-94663-2 (800-SPRINGER) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 15:08:03 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Keeping Tabs on Sex Offenders http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/17345.html Keeping Tabs on Sex Offenders by Jill Priluck 2:00 p.m. 14.Jan.99.PST In a move that has raised more than a few eyebrows among civil libertarians, the state of Texas on Wednesday began allowing consumers to search its Web site to see if any convicted sex offenders live nearby. For the price of a bagel and coffee -- a mere US$3.15 -- the Texas Registered Sex Offender page allows users to search for sex offenders by ZIP code, name, sex, race, and date of birth. "The site makes the information more available so that people can know what sex offenders are in their neighborhoods," said Charlene Cain, program analyst for the Texas Department of Public Safety. The page, developed and maintained by Austin-based MicroAssist, now stores about 29,000 sex offender records compiled from police departments, sheriff's offices, and other law enforcement agencies. The new data supplements the more than 3 million criminal convictions that the site has made available since June 1998. Civil liberties advocates worry about the larger privacy implications of such registries. "Providing absolute publicity calls into question the attempts in Megan's Law to limit the dissemination of stigmatizing information," said Marc Rotenberg, director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center. "The offender becomes the scarlet letter of Hawthorne's New England." Megan's Law passed as part of the 1994 Crime Bill and requires states to enact regulations requiring violent sex offenders to register with law enforcement agencies. Local officials are permitted to alert communities if a registered sex offender is living in the neighborhood. The law is named for Megan Kanka, a 7-year-old New Jersey girl who was raped and killed in 1994 by a repeat sex offender living across the street. In August 1997, a federal appeals court upheld the law, arguing that it did not violate the double jeopardy clause, which says that a person cannot be punished more than once for the same crime. Unlike communication notification laws, which limit the dissemination of sex offender information, Rotenberg noted that online criminal records are borderless. "The geographic specificity that Megan's Law presupposes simply doesn't carry over to the interspecificity that the Internet makes possible," said Rotenberg. "The general argument is that this is a second punishment and is stigmatizing for people who have served time for a crime committed," he said. "There's a certain amount of vigilantism, when for example someone lists the wrong address." The database includes a caveat, warning that users should confirm any information with the Department of Public Safety. "The implications in Texas is that we're starting to catch up with the rest of the country by shredding the shroud of secrecy and giving families and citizens the option of finding out who's residing in their neighborhoods," said Andy Kahn of the Mayor's Crime Victims Office in Houston. According to Carol Dorris, staff attorney at the National Center for Victims of Crime, government bodies are increasingly publicizing information about criminals. "But whether somebody in London needs to know, I don't know," Dorris said. In Harris County, there was a 13 percent increase in adult sex offenders. The number of child molesters released in 1998 more than doubled. Copyright ) 1994-99 Wired Digital Inc. All rights reserved. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There are some sex offense cases involving children -- and older teens as well -- which are so horrible to contemplate that any efforts made to provide community notification should be welcomed. Megan is one such example, as was little Adam Walch in Florida several years ago; and who can forget the hideous event in Petaluma, California a few years ago involving the young lady whose body was mutilated? As an aside, in that case the City of Petaluma *nearly went bankrupt* in their expenditure of tax funds supporting the police in their efforts to apprehend and convict the man who was responsible for the ugly crime. The City of Petaluma authorities went way 'over budget' but said they would not stop until there was full and complete closure for the victim and her family, and the entire community supported the decision to borrow money to keep the city operating when it went in the red financially as a result. I guess Polly Klas is recovering, as best one might. God bless her and her family. Adam Walch's father started a national database for missing children, and Megan was the impetus for the controversial sex registry now implemented in every state. Do I support sex-offender databases which are open to public view? That's a tough call. I fully and completely support the internet and freedom of information. But I feel it should contain information only on serious crimes of a sexual nature and not every minor 'offense' which happens along. In some states, the law provides for registration upon conviction for such things as lewd conduct in a place where the offender(s) only real 'crime' was being indiscrete in their choice of location and/or proposed partner, etc. Listing that sort of 'crime' does nothing except appeal to the prurient interests of the person examining the database. Here in the Chicago area, both the City of Chicago and the County of Cook have their databases on the net for view, although the user has to jump through some hoops to get any information out of it. One has to first identify the ward/precinct in question, then go through *hundreds* (yes, that many!) of names trying to match them up with streets (and the number on the street is not given). Naturally when they started them up for public view, the newspapers gave it full coverage including the URL for each. No details of the crime are given. But why a sex offender database and not one for shoplifters, bank robbers and car thieves? Maybe all criminal records everywhere should be easily accessible, then we could toss out once and for all the idea that a penitentiary is a place to become penitent and that people do redeem themselves and change their lives for the better. Maybe it is because all of us at some time or another in our lives come to the kinds of acts which would cause one to be listed. I used to have a neighbor who was employed by the Cook County Department of Corrections. His days were spent sitting at an 'intake desk' at the jail processing in hundreds of new inmates daily. I once asked him, did you ever stop to think about how easy it would be to f--- up and find yourself seated on the wrong side of that desk you work at? His first response was a defensive one; he did not want to talk about it. Later he said to me, yeah, he had thought about it. I sit where I do and they sit where they do for one reason only, the grace of God. They got caught, I and many of my co-workers have not. That simple. So you support the idea of a sex offender database? Well, good. Maybe we will see you listed there some day when your filthy laundry gets hung out to dry. And don't say it can't happen to you; it can quite easily. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 11:34:12 EST From: David Leibold Subject: Bell Canada Replaces Operators With U.S. Based Excell {The Toronto Star} 16 January 1999 featured a story on Bell Canada's plans to scrap its own operator service and have the U.S. based Excell provide operator services in the future. Article can be found (at least for a short time) on the Star's website, www.thestar.ca, and specifically was found at: News Story: Last call for operators - January 16, 1999 http://www.thestar.ca/thestar/editorial/news/990116NEW02b_CI-BELL16.html ------------------------------ From: Mike Pollock Subject: Cell Phone Glitch Jams Thousands Date: Wed 27 Jan 1999 22:39:32 -0500 Maine man's cell phone jams tens of thousands of calls CRYSTAL RIVER, Fla. (AP) - When the mysterious white car with tinted windows and a small satellite dish on top pulled up to Calvin Simpson's motor home, the retired engineer was puzzled. ``I thought, ``What are those guys doing?' Then they came up to me, and I said, ``Uh-oh.' '' The men, engineers for GTE Wireless, had found their culprit, tracking a technological glitch to Simpson's cellular phone. For 10 days, Simpson unwittingly had been jamming cellular service for tens of thousands of customers in Citrus and Hernando counties. GTE Wireless customers in west Citrus and Hernando began having trouble with their phones on Jan. 4 - the same day Simpson brought his motor home to the Crystal Isle RV Resort for the winter from his home in South Portland, Maine. The glitch tied up GTE Wireless customer service representatives and confounded the engineers, who are still not entirely sure what caused the problem. Engineers think Simpson's phone was constantly transmitting signals to a ``set-up channel'' on a cellular phone tower behind Crystal River's City Hall. The channel is supposed to take signals and relay them to their destinations. Simpson's phone, however, sent signals to the channel even when he wasn't trying to make a call. Whenever his phone was on, the constant signal prevented any cellular phone user from making a call via that tower. Any GTE Wireless customer traveling through the Crystal River area in the 10-day period was likely affected. And if the Simpsons had taken a road trip with their cellular phone turned on, engineers think they would have temporarily blacked out any cellular phone tower along the way. GTE Wireless spent days in Crystal River trying to figure out what was causing the outage before tracking the faulty signal to Simpson's cellular phone. They used the same technology cellular phone companies use to track stolen cell phones. Once they found Simpson on Wednesday, they simply asked him to turn off his cell phone. Bingo. That did it. Like magic, GTE Wireless was back in service in Crystal River. ``When I pulled the plug, they had a big sigh of relief,'' Simpson said. The engineers who tracked him down got Simpson a new cell phone. The company plans to take Simpson's old, faulty phone apart in hopes of finding out exactly what it was that went wrong. Ron Proleika, a Tampa-based spokesman for GTE Wireless, said he plans to tell cellular industry trade magazines about the problem because he thinks the unusual defect may be the first of its kind. Proleika would not reveal just how many customers GTE Wireless has in the area, but estimated the number of people affected by the 10-day outage was in the ``tens of thousands.'' ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jan 1999 18:00:55 -0000 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Book Review: "The Internet Complete Reference", Harley Hahn Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > "The Internet Complete Reference", Harley Hahn, 1996, 0-07-882138-X, > U$32.95/C$47.95 FYI, this three-year-old book is now out of print. There's a new 1999 version, completely rewritten from scratch by my sister and others, that should be available in the next month or two. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl, Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail ------------------------------ From: Rick.R.Cox@ait4.ameritech.com (Rick Cox) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 10:28:50 -0500 Subject: Re: Ameritech's New Call-Blocking Service Is Too Costly I would like to relate my personal experience with this feature. While it's true that I am an Ameritech employee, I can say without reservation that I would pay full price for this feature anyway. I wouldn't mind if it cost less, but it's worth the current price. For years my household has been deluged with calls from telemarketers, companies doing surveys, etc. In all seriousness, we would be subjected to an average of ten calls per day. I have done the "Do not call here, take me off your list" routine several times. But there are hundreds of companies out there. Some want donations. Some want to sell me something. Some want my opinion. I don't want to talk to any of them. And the thought of having to individually tell each of them to leave me alone is daunting to say the least. Now I get, maybe, two calls per month from those people. My serenity has been restored. And I get Caller ID with Name as part of the package. I like this feature because it gives me peace and quiet. Also, with it I don't have to make dozens, if not hundreds of calls to stop all these companies (and their myriad divisions) from disturbing me. Just my 2 cents, Rick Cox Data Design Consultant Ameritech Team Data ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #4 **************************** From ptownson Fri Jan 29 18:34:12 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id SAA26732 for telecom-recent; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 18:34:12 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 18:34:12 -0500 (EST) From: TELECOM Digest Editor Message-Id: <199901292334.SAA26732@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: telecom-recent Subject: TELECOM Digest V19_#3 > TELECOM Digest Wed, 27 Jan 99 20:18:00 EST Volume 19 : Issue 3 > > Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson > > The End of Morse Code? (Danny Burstein) > Book Review: "DNS and BIND", Paul Albitz/Cricket Liu (Rob Slade) > Pac*Bell ADSL Bandwidth Fraud? (Robert L. McMillin) > Book Review: "Just Java", Peter van der Linden (Rob Slade) > Waiting For Windows Refund Day (Monty Solomon) > A Cell of Your Own? Who Needs a Payphone? (Tad Cook) > Why Don't CLID Boxes Do This ... (phs3) > > 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: 847-675-3140 > ** 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 Jan 1999 22:11:55 EST > From: Danny Burstein > Subject: The End of Morse Code? (fwd) > > Nice writeup ... > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 15:48:44 -0800 (PST) > From: Jay D. Dyson > To: Defcon Stuff > Subject: The End of Morse Code? > > -----BEGIN FORWARDED ARTICLE----- > > The Economist, Jan. 23, 1999 > SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY > > ... --- ... .-. .. .--. (SOS, RIP) > > Morse code is being replaced by a new satellite-based system for sending > distress calls at sea. Its dots and dashes have had a good run for their > money > > "Calling all. This is our last cry before our eternal silence." > > Surprisingly this message, which flashed over the airwaves in the dots > and dashes of Morse code on January 31st 1997, was not a desperate > transmission by a radio operator on a sinking ship. Rather, it was a > message signalling the end of the use of Morse code for distress calls > in French waters. Since 1992 countries around the world have been > decommissioning their Morse equipment with similar (if less poetic) > sign-offs, as the world's shipping switches over to a new satellite- > based arrangement, the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System. > The final deadline for the switch-over to GMDSS is February 1st, a > date that is widely seen as the end of an era. > > For although dots and dashes will not die out altogether -- they will, > for example, continue to be used by amateur radio operators, spies, > and some members of the armed forces -- the switch to GMDSS marks the > end of the last significant international use of Morse. The code has, > however, had a good history. From its origins in 1832, when an > American inventor called Samuel Morse first started scribbling in his > notebook, it grew to become the global standard for sending messages > along wires and, later, over the airwaves. Morse code was, in effect, > the network protocol for the world's first Internet: the international > telegraph network, whose cables trussed up the globe in the second > half of the 19th century. > > The mother of all networks: > > Appropriately for a technology commonly associated with radio operators on > sinking ships, the idea of Morse code is said to have occurred to Samuel > Morse while he was on board a ship crossing the Atlantic. At the time > Morse was a painter and occasional inventor, but when another of the > ship's passengers informed him of recent advances in electrical theory, > Morse was suddenly taken with the idea of building an electric telegraph. > > Other inventors had been trying to do just that for the best part of a > century. Morse succeeded and is now remembered as "the father of the > telegraph" partly thanks to his singlemindedness -- it was 12 years, for > example, before he secured money from Congress to build his first > telegraph line -- but also for technical reasons. Compared with rival > electric telegraph designs, such as the needle telegraph developed by > William Cooke and Charles Wheatstone in Britain, Morse's design was very > simple: it required little more than a "key" (essentially, a spring-loaded > switch) to send messages, a clicking "sounder" to receive them, and a wire > to link the two. But although Morse's hardware was simple, there was a > catch: in order to use his equipment, operators had to learn the special > code of dots and dashes that still bears his name. > > Originally, Morse had not intended to use combinations of dots and dashes > to represent individual letters. His first code, sketched in his notebook > during that transatlantic voyage, used dots and dashes to represent the > digits 0 to 9. Morse's idea was that messages would consist of strings of > numbers corresponding to words and phrases in a special numbered > dictionary. But Morse later abandoned this scheme and, with the help of > an associate, Alfred Vail, devised the Morse alphabet, which could be used > to spell out messages a letter at a time in dots and dashes. > > At first, the need to learn this complicated-looking code made Morse's > telegraph seem impossibly tricky compared with other, more user-friendly > designs. Cooke's and Wheatstone's telegraph, for example, used five > needles to pick out letters on a diamond-shaped grid. But although this > meant that anyone could use it, it also required five wires between > telegraph stations. Morse's telegraph needed only one. And some people, > it soon transpired, had a natural facility for Morse code. > > As electric telegraphy took off in the early 1850s, the Morse telegraph > quickly became dominant. It was adopted as the European standard in 1851, > allowing direct connections between the telegraph networks of different > countries. (Britain chose not to participate, sticking with needle > telegraphs for a few more years.) By this time Morse code had been revised > to allow for accents and other foreign characters, resulting in a split > between American and International Morse that continues to this day. On > international submarine cables, left and right swings of a light-beam > reflected from a tiny rotating mirror were used to represent dots and > dashes. > > Meanwhile a distinct telegraphic subculture was emerging, with its own > customs and vocabulary, and a hierarchy based on the speed at which > operators could send and receive Morse code. First-class operators, who > could send and receive at speeds of up to 45 words a minute, handled press > traffic, securing the best-paid jobs in big cities. At the bottom of the > pile were slow, inexperienced rural operators, many of whom worked the > wires as part-timers. As their Morse code improved, however, rural > operators found that their new-found skill was a passport to better pay in > a city job. Telegraphers soon swelled the ranks of the emerging middle > classes. > > Telegraphy was also deemed suitable work for women. By 1870, a third of > the operators in the Western Union office in New York, the largest > telegraph office in America, were female. Just as skilled operators found > that they could recognise each other over the wires from their style of > Morse code, many operators claimed to be able to recognise women > operators. Inevitably, romances were initiated over the wires -- just as > they are today by e-mail. There were even a handful of weddings by > telegraph. > > In a dramatic ceremony in 1871, Morse himself said goodbye to the global > community of telegraphers he had brought into being. After a lavish > banquet and many adulatory speeches, Morse sat down behind an operator's > table and, placing his finger on a key connected to every telegraph wire > in America, tapped out his final farewell to a standing ovation. By the > time of his death in 1872, the world was well and truly wired: more than > 650,000 miles of telegraph line and 30,000 miles of submarine cable were > throbbing with Morse code; and 20,000 towns and villages were connected to > the global network. Just as the Internet is today often called an > "information superhighway", the telegraph was described in its day as an > "instantaneous highway of thought". > > But by the 1890s the Morse telegraph's heyday as a cutting-edge technology > was coming to an end, with the invention of the telephone and the rise of > automatic telegraphs, precursors of the teleprinter, neither of which > required specialist skills to operate. Morse code, however, was about to > be given a new lease of life thanks to another new technology: wireless. > > Following the invention of radiotelegraphy by Guglielmo Marconi in 1896, > its potential for use at sea quickly became apparent. For the first time, > ships could communicate with each other, and with the shore, whatever the > weather and even when out of visual range. In 1897 Marconi successfully > sent Morse code messages between a shore station and an Italian warship > 19km (12 miles) away. The first sea rescue after a distress call sent by > radiotelegraph took place in 1899, when a lightship in the Dover Straits > reported the grounding of Elbe, a steamship. Two years later, Marconi > sent the first transatlantic radio signal: three dots, the letter "S" in > Morse code. By 1910, Morse radio equipment was commonplace on ships. > > The sinking of the Titanic in 1912, however, highlighted the need for > radio operators to listen at all times for distress signals. After the > disaster it emerged that the liner Californian had been only a few miles > away, and that hundreds of lives might have been saved had the > Californian's radio operator been on duty and so able to receive the > Titanic's "SOS" distress call. At the first International Convention for > Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), held in London in 1914, it was agreed that > large vessels should maintain 24-hour radio watch. > > This rule has remained ever since, with subsequent SOLAS conventions > gradually introducing new rules to keep pace with the development of > technologies such as radiotelephony. The advent of satellite technology > led the International Maritime Organisation to amend the SOLAS convention > in 1988 to introduce GMDSS, an automated emergency communications system > based on satellite and radio links. > > Optional since 1992, GMDSS equipment will be compulsory worldwide from > February 1st on all ships that exceed 300 tonnes, carry 12 or more > passengers, or travel in international waters. (Owners of smaller vessels > can install the equipment if they wish.) Under GMDSS, anyone on board a > ship in distress merely has to press a button to send a distress call > containing the vessel's identification number and its precise location -- > there is no need for a skilled Morse operator. And so, after nearly 170 > years, Morse code will finally slip beneath the waves. > > Over and out: > > As communications protocols go, Morse has lasted a surprisingly long time > - -- admittedly with a few tweaks here and there. So how might its modern > descendant, the Internet Protocol (TCP/IP), fare in comparison? TCP/IP > was devised in 1973 by Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf (a man with Morse-like > stature in the Internet world who is often known as the "father of the > Internet"). > > As with Morse code before it, TCP/IP is being improved to respond to new > challenges and technologies. Its addressing system is now being > overhauled to make room for billions of additional connections, to allow > for the wireless devices expected to proliferate over coming years and to > enable even household appliances to go online. Mr Cerf is also working on > how to extend the Internet to such other places as the moon and Mars, > since the time delays as radio signals travel through space make the > current protocol unsuitable. > > Further improvements will follow: indeed, since it is spoken by computers, > not humans, TCP/IP is easier to adapt than was Morse. Even so, in today's > fast-changing computer world, it seems unlikely that TCP/IP will remain in > continuous use for anything like as long as the century and a half managed > by Morse code, its distant digital ancestor. > > - ----- END FORWARDED ARTICLE ----- > > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My sincere thanks to Danny for sending > along this really great bit of history for the Digest. PAT] > > ------------------------------ > > From: Rob Slade > Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User > Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 14:43:27 -0800 > Subject: Book Review: "DNS and BIND", Paul Albitz/Cricket Liu > Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca > > BKDNSBND.RVW 981115 > > "DNS and BIND", Paul Albitz/Cricket Liu, 1998, 1-56592-512-2, > U$32.95/C$46.95 > %A Paul Albitz > %A Cricket Liu > %C 103 Morris Street, Suite A, Sebastopol, CA 95472 > %D 1998 > %G 1-56592-512-2 > %I O'Reilly & Associates, Inc. > %O U$32.95/C$46.95 800-998-9938 fax: 707-829-0104 nuts@ora.com > %P 520 p. > %T "DNS and BIND", 3rd ed. > > Of the millions of users on the Internet, almost all are blissfully > unaware of the complexity and magnitude of the task of network > routing. How does the network know where to deliver a piece of email? > In fact, given the packet nature of all Internet traffic, how do > telnet or ftp packets get, reliably and generally quickly, to their > destination? Few even recognize the term DNS, the Domain Name > Service, which handles the problem. Administrators may have used > BIND, the Berkeley Internet Name Domain program, to manage DNS, but > may not fully understand the importance, use or finer aspects of it. > This book gives both background and operational details. > > Topics covered include background of the system, an explanation of the > workings of DNS, how to get BIND and a domain name, setting up BIND, > DNS and email, configuring hosts, maintaining BIND, modifying domains, > creation of subdomains, advanced features and security, nslookup, BIND > debugging messages, troubleshooting, the Resolver and Name Server > Library routines, as well as miscellaneous other information. > > Given the nature of the network routing problem, a full understanding > of DNS likely requires actual hands-on work. Albitz and Liu have, > however, put together clear, straightforward, and sometimes even > lighthearted text to make the learning process as painless as > possible. The book also covers more advanced topics than > straightforward routing administration. Bind 8.1.2 is the basic > version for the book, but it also looks back to Bind 4.8.3 and 4.9.x > because of the number of shipping products that may still be based on > those. > > copyright Robert M. Slade, 1995, 1997, 1998 BKDNSBND.RVW 981115 > > rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@sprint.ca robertslade@usa.net p1@canada.com > Find virus, book info http://victoria.tc.ca/int-grps/techrev/rms.htm > Mirrored at http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~rslade/rms.htm > Linked to bookstore at http://www97.pair.com/robslade/ > Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses, 0-387-94663-2 (800-SPRINGER) > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 06:53:10 -0800 > From: Robert L. McMillin > Organization: Syseca, Inc. > Subject: Pac*Bell ADSL Bandwidth Fraud? > > Pac*Bell's ADSL offerings have been so far really exciting: quite > inexpensive, and widely deployed (for an initial rollout). However, I > just heard something from an ISP friend of mine that is making me > really jittery about buying: according to him, Pac*Bell is > concentrating their ADSL lines back at DS3 junctions, and rather > heavily overloading these. This, obviously, is a bid to keep the > price of ADSL down. However, some users are reporting speeds as low as > 10 kb/s during peak usage times because of this. That is, you'd be > better off using a conventional dial-up ISP with any flavor of analog > modem. > > Has anyone else heard of this story? > > Robert L. McMillin | Not the voice of Syseca, Inc. | rlm@syseca-us.com > Personal: rlm@helen.surfcty.com | rlm@netcom.com > > ------------------------------ > > From: Rob Slade > Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User > Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 09:07:45 -0800 > Subject: Book Review: "Just Java", Peter van der Linden > Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca > > BKJSJAVA.RVW 990108 > > "Just Java", Peter van der Linden, 1999, 0-13-010534-1, > U$44.99/C$63.00 > %A Peter van der Linden pvdl@best.com > %C One Lake St., Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 > %D 1998 > %G 0-13-010534-1 > %I Prentice Hall > %O U$44.99/C$63.00 201-236-7139 fax: 201-236-7131 > %P 776 p. + CD-ROM > %S SunSoft Press Java Series > %T "Just Java 1.2, fourth edition" > > Huh. Back to the original, and somewhat inaccurate, title. This book > is a fairly clear introduction to Java. The material is accessible to > the non-programmer, albeit with some dedication. The content is fast > paced, so you may need to go over some sections several times. But it > isn't *just* Java. Oh, no. The jokes start on the *dedication* page. > I am saddened by the loss of the "World's Best" Rolls-Royce, the > waterbomb-carrying paper airplane, and the amusing but painfully > realistic look at getting connected to the Internet, but the table of > easily misunderstood error messages and things learned on the Internet > are still there. I guess as the book grows, something has to give. > > Chapter one looks at the what and why of Java. Chapter two goes a > long way, although perhaps not all the way, to explaining object- > oriented programming. (Chapter six adds to it.) This section is > perhaps best appreciated by C programmers, although it does a fair > amount of demystifying of object terminology. The structure of the > book has been reorganized, making it less sectional. The chapters > form a more standard, sequential tutorial on Java, covering the > basics, keywords, types, names, arrays, operators. classes, > statements, interfaces, packages, threads, applets, security, > libraries, GUI, containers, the AWT (Abstract Window Toolkit), > graphics, file I/O, and networking. > > But I must also talk about the CD-ROM. Generally I don't, since many > authors simply throw on a few megs of shareware or RFCs, which may or > may not have a bearing on the topic of the book. Not our Peter. > First off, there is over 500 megabytes on the CD, filling it almost > completely. The Java 1.2 JDK (Java Development Kit) wasn't ready in > time for the book, but it has the older versions for WinNT/9x, Mac, > Solaris, Linux, and so forth. (Don't have Linux? It's got that too.) > Or, if you'd rather program in Perl, ada, Fortran, C, or Eiffel, it > can help you too. Plus FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions lists), > sample code, games, the paper airplane (animated), Sherlock Holmes > stories, the Magna Carta, the Jargon File, and a new and different > Rolls story. The directory structure may not be immediately obvious > to all, but then, that's what grep is for. Also, the link to the book > (the CD is navigable via browser) off the main page doesn't seem to > work, but that's what the "Go" box is for. > > So, while it may or may not be the world's best tutorial on Java, it > is definitely the most enjoyable. > > copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 - 1999 BKJSJAVA.RVW 990108 > > rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@sprint.ca robertslade@usa.net p1@canada.com > Find virus, book info http://victoria.tc.ca/int-grps/techrev/rms.htm > Mirrored at http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~rslade/rms.htm > Linked to bookstore at http://www97.pair.com/robslade/ > Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses, 0-387-94663-2 (800-SPRINGER) > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 13:39:13 -0500 > From: Monty Solomon > Subject: Waiting for Windows Refund Day > > http://www.wired.com/news/news/technology/story/17442.html > > Waiting for Windows Refund Day > by Chris Oakes > 2:10 p.m. 20.Jan.99.PST > > If you don't use Windows, why should you pay for it? > > That's the logic driving a group of Linux users who want to make good > on a tiny clause built into the Windows end-user license. The clause > offers a refund to PC owners who buy a computer preloaded with Windows > 98, but don't use the operating system. > > If it gathers steam, their effort could lead to legal action requiring > Microsoft and PC vendors to make it easier to opt out of using the > Windows OS on their PCs. > > "I'm hoping in the long run we'll be able to pressure Microsoft to > change their OEM contracts," said Matt Jensen a participant in the > effort and webmaster for the Windows Refund Center. The site will > coordinate and track efforts to obtain refunds from users' respective PC > manufacturers. > > The movement ramped up Tuesday, and the grassroots group has set aside > 15 February as Windows Refund Day when those seeking to uninstall > Windows from their PCs will send out their letters. > > Jensen and others are contributing ideas to the Refund Center following > the news of an Australian PC owner's effort to obtain a refund for his > copy of Windows. Discussion of Geoffrey Bennett's saga began on Slashdot > , a site popular with users of the alternative PC operating system > Linux. > > Attorney Erwin Shustak, chief litigator of securities and corporate > finance at the law firm Shustak, Jalil, & Heller, said Bennett's effort > may not lead to immediate, dramatic consequences, but could give rise to > an eventual class-action lawsuit. > > Microsoft and PC makers "had a contract that clearly said what [users] > were entitled to do, and yet they didn't honor the contract," Shustak > said of Bennett's story. "They made it extremely difficult for him to > obtain what he was supposed to obtain. I believe it was an illusory > clause; they had no procedure sent up to honor it." > > The Microsoft Windows End-User License Agreement, or EULA, that > accompanies the IBM ThinkPad reads, "If you do not agree to the terms of > this EULA, PC manufacturer and Microsoft are unwilling to license the > software product to you. In such an event ... you should promptly > contact PC manufacturer for instructions on a return of the unused > product(s) for a refund." > > Microsoft could not immediately be reached for comment. > > Full story to follow. > > Copyright ) 1994-99 Wired Digital Inc. All rights reserved. > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: A Cell of Your Own? Who Needs a Pay Phone? > Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 00:00:18 PST > From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) > > SANTA ANA, Calif. (AP) -- Some of the toughest new restrictions in > California could be sounding last call for pay phones in neighborhoods > where people need them most. > > This Orange County city this month joined a growing number of towns > enacting ordinances threatening removal of thousands of streetside > phones: nuisances to some people who have phones of their own; > lifelines to people who can't afford one. > > "I wish they were all yanked out," said Debbie McEwen, who complains > that the phone booth near her Santa Ana home is plagued by graffiti, > cigarette butts and loiterers. "They're magnets. People hang out all > day and all night." > > As cellular telephones become standard equipment for those who can > afford them, pay phones continue to proliferate thanks to federal > deregulation. > > But Santa Ana and other communities are beginning to see them as > eyesores. Critics complain many newer pay phones are poorly > maintained, and many people are put off by the ads they display. > > Santa Ana's measure has angered pay phone owners who say they will be > forced to remove most of the city's 1,500 outdoor phones. Officials > say the phones have spread so rapidly it's uncertain how many have > been installed; many new ones lack the required permits. > > Statewide, the number of pay phones has increased by nearly 65,000 to > about 265,000 since 1990, according to Public Utilities Commission > figures. Practically all the new phones were installed by independent > companies. > > Santa Ana's ordinance does not target specific phones for removal. It > establishes strict rules the owners say will make it too costly to > change and operate the phones. > > The ordinance limits the amount of exposed conduit connecting phone > lines to booths and bans the use of exposed wires connecting a pay > phone to overhead lines. > > Of the 300 phones Pacific Bell has in the city, about 210 would not > comply with the new ordinance, Pacific Bell executive Tom Weber said. > > "It's not just my pay phones in Santa Ana I'm worried about. It's my > 930 phones I have in Southern California," said owner Ken Scott, > president of San Diego Pay Phone Owners Association. "If this takes > off in other cities, it's going to be a mess out there, and it's a > mess that doesn't need to happen." > > The owners have vowed to fight the proposed law, saying it punishes the > entire industry for the sins of a few irresponsible operators. > > But reducing pay phones seems to be the trend across the country, the > {Los Angeles Times} reported Monday. Some older ordinances were aimed at > drug dealing and prostitution, but communities are increasingly > focusing on aesthetics. > > -- In California, Huntington Park bans pay phones on private property > in its business district, a law that is being challenged by the > telephone industry; > > -- Preservationists in New York are fighting plans to add nearly > 20,000 public phones across the city, fearful the booths will block > views of historic landmarks; > > -- In downtown Perth Amboy, N.J., booths are prohibited within 600 > feet of each other; > > -- Chicago officials have removed thousands of pay phones outside > stores. > > Besides complaints from phone owners that Santa Ana's landmark law > infringes on their rights, the prospect of removing booths has also > sparked safety concerns. > > Community activists point out that one-third of all 911 calls in Santa > Ana come from pay phones. > > Jack Elwir, owner of H&H Liquor Store on Civic Center Drive, said the > three phones outside his businesses are used regularly by people > making calls to family in Mexico. > > "A lot of customers don't have phones -- or even cars," he said. > > Until recently, Claudia Vasquez said the phone outside her home was > her main link to friends and family because she didn't have the > identification to get her own. She recently got the problem > straightened out and had a line installed. > > "They can't remove the phones," Vasquez said. "People use them all the > time." > > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The two COCOTS of mine which readers > will recall me discussing about a year ago when I had them put in for > the benefit of the bus riders and had them programmed for extremely > low and fair rates wound up getting vandalized so much that I was > going to have them removed entirely, however the company which services > them for me suggested a few improvements, including the latest vandal- > proof technology. They put in two new phones which appear to be almost > impossible to vandalize. They have some sort of heavy metal across the > front, and a thing at the top where coins go in that prevent 'stuffing' > the coin slot with string and other things designed to capture the > coins people insert. When I started getting at least one complaint > each day about the old phones, I called and asked them to find some > solution. The new phones sort of look like the type of phone installed > for prisoner use in jails, etc. Let's see these get vandalized! PAT] > > ------------------------------ > > From: p.h.s.3@watvm.uwaterloo.ca (phs3) > Subject: Why Don't CLID Boxes do This ... > Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 03:56:16 GMT > Organization: Remove dots from userid portion to reply > > .. or do they? > > Since we got CLID, we find that we use it a lot as a telephone > directory for numbers of folks for which we have a short-term need. > For example, my daughter is off to a friend's house for the afternoon; > in negotiating the visit, her parents have probably called our house, > so their number is on the box. Far easier to scroll back to find it > than to look it up. After the visit, we don't need the number for > days/weeks/months/ever again, so we don't care. > > Now, that works fine. What happens, though, is that we wind up > spending a certain amount of time "maintaining" the box -- deleting > OUT OF AREA, PRIVATE CALL, and 'boring' numbers such as my office # > when I call home (which appears as the office switchboard number, thus > not even being useful if my wife didn't know my number by heart). If > we don't do this, then numbers which we *do* want kept -- my > sister-in-law's second line, neighbor's cell number, etc., scroll off > and are lost. > > So...we would love a CLID box which allowed: > > - defining numbers as "nuisance" numbers, to be kept until reviewed, > then deleted either immediately, the next time a call comes in, or > just first when the box fills up; > > - the ability to "lock" numbers, much as my pager allows, so they > won't scroll off; > > - a "delete duplicates", so the 15 calls back & forth about the visit to the > friend's house don't waste space in the box. > > Anyone heard of such a beast? Or are CLID boxes such a commodity that > features aren't worth the trouble? Yeah, we could do this with a PC, > but we're not likely to put one at each phone ... > > Cheers, > > ..phsiii > > ------------------------------ > > End of TELECOM Digest V19 #3 > **************************** From mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu Mon Feb 1 15:52:38 1999 Received: from spnode03.tcs.tulane.edu (spnode03.tcs.tulane.edu [129.81.224.11]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA25178 for ; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 15:52:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (mcuccia@localhost) by spnode03.tcs.tulane.edu (8.8.5/8.8.4) with SMTP id OAA43098 for ; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 14:52:14 -0600 X-Authentication-Warning: spnode03.tcs.tulane.edu: mcuccia owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 14:52:14 -0600 (CST) From: Mark J Cuccia X-Sender: mcuccia@spnode03.tcs.tulane.edu Reply-To: Mark J Cuccia To: telecom-recent@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V19_#2 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII TELECOM Digest Wed, 27 Jan 99 19:16:00 EST Volume 19 : Issue 2 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Cook on U.S. Government Giving IANA Contract to ICANN (Ronda Hauben) Re: Cook on U.S. Government Giving IANA Contract to ICANN (Ronda Hauben) Video Over ISDN (Joachim Weber) Telemarketing by Playing Recordings (Michael A. Covington) 1+ Long Distance (Keith Michaels) Surprising Number of Consumers Ignore Long-Distance Discounts (Tad Cook) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * 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: 847-675-3140 ** 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: Ronda Hauben Subject: Cook on U.S. Government Giving IANA Contract to ICANN Date: 26 Jan 1999 23:50:15 GMT Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC Following is a report by Gordon Cook sent to the IFWP list which is helpful in understanding some of what has been happening with the behind the scenes maneuvers of the U.S. government to transfer Internet assets from the public to the private sector. My comments on this will follow in the next message. From: Gordon Cook Subject: [ifwp] what ICANN is up to: the financial arrangements for paying IANA salaries; why the NIST solicitation for ICANN contracts is illegal and can be stopped with an ORSC protest letter; why its a waste of board member's time to talk to mail lists; conversations with esther dyson and mike roberts and others For the past 48 hours I have done nothing but research and write the following. Keeping IANA Paychecks Coming The process last summer of setting up newco (IANA) essentially ran out of time. Details like the coming October 1 unemployment of the IANA staff, including Jon Postel, went into the month of September unsettled. They did so presumably because the parties putting things together assumed that Magaziner would have no choice but to bless ICANN on October 1 and hand over keys to the kingdom to them as well as money for them to start doing their work. When it became clear that this likely would not happen, something had to be done about the paychecks of IANA employees. Mike Roberts on behalf of ICANN made a deal with USC and ISI whereby they (ISI) would enter a transition agreement with ICANN so that ICANN would pay the salaries of the IANA employees (six people) effective October 1. (Where ICANN gets the money is anyone's guess - likely from GIP - ie IBM.) Thus Mike Roberts found himself in a situation where he had to scurry at the end of September to file ICANN's incorporation papers so that as of October 1st ICANN would exist as a legal entity and be able to sign an agreement with ISI whereby the IANA employees remained legally ISI/USC employees with full benefits (health care etc). This was conditional on ICANN sending ISI a monthly check to cover the cost of their benefits through Dec 31, 1998. IANA expenses for office support, network connectivity etc would be paid from the DARPA Teranode network contract with ISI through 12/31/98. When they realized that 12/31/98 would come and go without a legally constituted and functional ICANN to take responsibility for the IANA employees, the December 24 agreement mentioned in the NIST solicitation in the January 6 Commerce Business Daily was struck to handle both functions. It supposedly is nothing more than a continuation of the agreements that were reached last summer with ICANN to continue to pay salaries and Terranode to cover network and other expenses. Solicitation Number 52SBNT9C1020 from NIST is to formalize these informal agreements by giving ICANN a NIST contract by which they will be responsible for paying for the IANA functions. ON Going Mechanics such as NIST Contract Versus NTIA MOU of 11/25/98 The on going needs which, like it or not, ICANN is now legally constituted to fill create a situation where it becomes very difficult for Becky Burr on the one hand and Elliot Maxwell to hold ICANN's feet to the fire on the issues of its unaccountable bylaws and openness. The reason why is that ICANN knows that IANA salaries must be paid and that other parts of the Magaziner constructed house of cards like the requirement for NSI to develop a shared database by April 1, 1999 with specs subject to review by an ICANN (NewCo) appointed review panel. (If memory serves me correctly Becky gave ICANN permission to appoint such a panel of experts.) The problem is that with each step of the way and each action or approval granted ICANN purely for administrative reasons, NTIA is in effect tacitly recognizing and transferring authority to IANA. The intent of the 11/25/98 MOU may have been good, but the fact of the matter however is that it looks like IANA can erode the good intent by simply out waiting NTIA. I suspect that legal action will be required to VOID the sole source solicitation or to sue the US Gov't and the ICANN board before we will see any change in ICANN's behavior. Given the direction of events ICANN will either open up its operations to public scrutiny or it will find itself in court. IOdesign is likely to sue again and given the course of events, we'd welcome that. To be meaningful the NTIA needs to revisit the ICANN MoU and spell out milestones and due dates for deliverables. If Becky and Elliot do not do this we may begin to wonder whether they mean for the MOU to be taken seriously. Lack of Trust, Suspicion and Paranoia Reaching new Highs I have seen a credible assertion that claims IANA staff are being restricted in technical communications they can have with with NSI. I have reached the appropriate people at NSI who have assured me that as far as they can tell all necessary channels of technical communication are fully open with IANA and with everyone else for that matter. I also reached Mike Roberts on his cell phone. Mike, in the middle of a business meeting, graciously took a very few minutes to hear my concerns. Mike said that he could unequivocally assure me that neither he, nor Esther, nor the ICANN board, nor any ICANN lawyers had placed any restrictions on the IANA staff. He added that he believed that it was only rumor and said that if there were any shred of truth to it would be Ron Ohlander, the ISI administrator who would know. (Legally ISI still is the employer of the IANA staff, so if any orders were given Ohlander would be in a posityion to know. I have a call into him but suspect that he will be unreachable before tomorrow.) On balance, I suspect - given that I have reached directly or indirectly virtually everyone involved - that the rumor was likely based on a misunderstanding and has no real substance. The probing however proved to be a useful exercise, because time and time again I was told that the amount of fear, distrust, and paranoia on the part of all was running extremely high. I conclude that two things are at fault. One ICANN's continued insistence on closed board meetings and secrecy, and two that the actions of the MIGHTY Five taken with Sims Cochetti and Magaziner to form ICANN last summer were deeply flawed ICANN Policy as a Destroyer of Trust I have documented elsewhere the widespread disgust with the ICANN Policy of closed board meetings Dave Farber - however well intentioned he may have been is one of the creators of this mess. On Monday, perhaps like the Sorcerer's apprentice horrified by what had transpired Dave stuck his neck out on the IFWP list and said: It is time to raise the issue yet again of the distressing fact that the Board meetings of ICANN are closed. Many moons ago several of us strongly suggested that it would be appropriate for the ICANN Board to operate under the same set of rules that US Federal Advisory Boards operate under as well as NotForProfit Boards like EFF and ISOC. Namely all meetings are open to the public to attend and listen. Often observers do not have the right to talk except for a set aside period during the meeting when 5 minute positions can be requested. The Board has the right to convene in Executive Session but in all cases the subjects that can be discussed at exec session are limited, sometimes by law and more often by good faith and the fear of law. I strongly suggest that this be the principle that ICANN adopt rapidly. Why am I bringing this up. I was told that the ICANN Board meeting in Singapore is closed and that there will be a open "meeting" the day before. That is not the same thing. Open meetings are a good way to gather opinions and an OPEN BOARD meeting is a necessary way to insure openness and the respect of the community WHICH THE ICANN BOARD MUST SERVE. (caps intentional). If there is a reason why this is not appropriate for ICANN but is for the others , I think the ICANN Board owes it to the community to tell us now those reasons in detail.[End quote of Farber message.] Esther Dyson chose to answer not Farber but Jeff Williams saying: Yes. It is in our bylaws and in all the public statements we have made. Basically, we could have had "open" board meetings with executive sessions that were closed, but we figured (the Initial Board voted) that this (below) is the best way to do it. Dave Farber to his great cerdit came back and wrote to the IFWP list: "Esther, There is no real problem scheduling an Exec Session for a Board meeting. The PITAC and all other federal Advisory Boards do that ALL the time. An open NON-Board meeting is not an OPEN BOARD Meeting. The public has a right to see how the issues are handled etc in such an organization and the best way to ensure that is to have OPEN Board meetings. Sorry, Dave" Farber made a third comment about how the logistics of such could be handled. Esther answered *NONE* of Farber's three comments. Unfortunately no list members spoke up on Farber's behalf. This morning however Esther Dyson did call me from the airport. We had an extremely useful 10 minute conversation before she had to run for her plane. She did not say it was off record. At the end I asked if there was anything off record, adding that I felt what she said needed to be accurate and wanted to try to ensure that. "Well why not send it to me before you put it out?" I hesitantly said yes and asked what kind of turn around I would get. 36 hours (she would be on net when she got the chance) was the reply as she dashed off. This leaves me with an unpleasant problem. I am going ahead with my notes on the call. I believe I can be quite accurate. If I am not I invite Esther to send me corrections of or do the correcting herself. Time here is important and her information, while not a huge surprise, is very helpful in understanding the dynamics of what is happening. Now for the details of the conversation: Dyson: I understand and am sympathetic to Dave Farber's call for open Board meetings. But you have got to understand that half our board is not American and they think the US federal open meetings law is something they should not have to subject themselves to. These are business people who don't have their board meetings in public. When they were invited to be on the ICANN board, they could read in the ICANN by laws that ICANN board meetings would be closed. This was something they felt comfortable with. COOK: But if you are saying that after Farber's posting you polled the board again and the board is STILL voting to keep board meetings closed, then some of the American members must also be voting despite the flack you are getting to keep the meetings closed? Dyson: Yes. Now when we get members, if the members vote for open board meetings, we will have to have open board meetings. So stick with us a while and the board meetings will eventually become open. You must understand: These are business people. Corporate boards don't have public board meetings. Cook: But this *IS* the internet for heaven sakes ....internet business is done in the open. Dyson: That's what the mail lists claim. But the mail lists are a self selected minority of the people that we must serve. Those not on the mail lists are quite happy with what we are doing. [Cook: I believe this to be almost a verbatim quote of Esther's words.] I have a thick skin so I am willing to subject myself to abuse. But why should the board members be forced to waste their time listening to and dealing with the wild accusations that abound on these lists? Cook: Agreed that it can get quite abusive, but the abuse comes with the territory. What if IFWP were run on a server where civil discourse rules apply and are ENFORCED! Dyson: Sounds attractive. Cook: I am very hopeful that this will happen. Please join us there. Talk to us. With substance. With fair answers to questions designed to establish some common values and build some trust. Dyson: perhaps. Let me consider it. Cook: please do. Let me just say that the board suffers from the same disease that NSI management did in assuming that Internet mail lists are an irritant.....something that doesn't matter. I was told that twice last year by Don Telage as I tried to explain that NSI's refusal to allow any NSI employee had help to cement hatred of NSI on the network. Perhaps the show down with Becky last September, gave NSI second thoughts because NSI has changed its policy. Sounds like the board is going to have to learn the same lesson that NSI learned. Dyson: I hear what you are saying but unfortunately there's not time to respond....gotta run, bye. Jock Gill (holder of the first major internet policy position in the clinton administyration) wrote me privately a day ago and captured the essense of what Esther was saying. (Used with Jock's permission). The issue, I think, is that the good folks you (Gordon) inquired about come from, for the most part, old industrial/educational hierarchies which are famous for being autocratic, top down, feudal fiefdoms with all the management style that implies. As well as no requirements to run open meeting in a democratic way -- they do not come from the world of elected public servants who assume such rules. Thus why would we expect them to act in any way other than what they have been successful at? New tricks for old dogs? Not too likely. Let's not ask for miracles. Who on the board in question really understands the concept of stupid networks and smart edges and the new management paradigm it is enabling? Who on the board understands management by dialogue, not monologue? What Then is the Solution? Although I haven't asked Dave Farber directly, I suspect and certainly *HOPE* that he is horrified by what he and the remainder of the Mighty Five have done. Lets assume Esther gave a fair rendition of what the reasons are for ICANN's silence in front of the rest of the Internet. Farber, Cerf, Roberts, Landweber and Bradner are smart enough to know that in working with Sims and Cochetti and Magaziner in the summer and in agreeing to create a board of business people who knew nothing about the internet they were creating a potential monster - certainly that they were creating an entity that in being haughty and closed to the open discussion culture of the net would be asking for recrimination and conflict. Because they acted as a cabal to provide adult supervision to the Internet, they may well now have created an entity that will be still born because it simply cannot get enough trust from anyone involved to do its job. Dave Farber is to be commended for speaking out on Monday. But with no one crawling out on the limb behind him he has fallen silent. I hope he spoke out because he is looking at what he helped to create and is horrified by what he sees. It seems that the best way for Dave to show that he was serious is to keep up the pressure.. IF THE MIGHTY FIVE JUST MADE AN HONEST MISTAKE LAST SEPTEMBER NOW IS THE TIME FOR THEM TO SHOW THAT SUCH IS THE CASE. The NIST Solicitation on Behalf of NTIA Meanwhile we must ask what Becky Burr is doing with NTIA solicitation on behalf of ICANN? I spoke late Tuesday afternoon to Teresa Reefe, contracts specialist at NIST. COOK: Why to NIST? Why not NTIA? Reefe: because while NTIA has a grants and cooperative agreements office, it does not have a contracts office and this is a contract with ICANN. COOK: who decided it would be a contract and on what grounds? Reefe: I'd like to know that myself. it was our lawyers downtown. they just delivered intrustions out here. When NTIA does a contract they have to use our office (Nist) COOK: Does the FAR apply? Reefe: yes COOK: the CBD said Nist intends to award a sole source contract to ICANN for operation of the Internet Assigned Numbers authority. What is meant by "operation"....?? How is the IANA defined? Are we talking about paying the salries of Joyce reynolds bill manning and others? Reefe: don't know.... that will be part of the solicitation being prepared. Cook: Ahh....solici ------------------------------ From: Ronda Hauben Subject: Re: Cook on U.S. Government Giving IANA Contract to ICANN Date: 26 Jan 1999 23:51:28 GMT Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC Thanks to Gordon Cook for his recent report on what is happening with the NIST annoucement for giving the IANA contract to ICANN. However, I want to add some aspects that Gordon left out in this situation. The problem to me is *not* that the NTIA or NIST is sole sourcing this contract. The problem is 1) That it is holding IANA hostage to an illegitimate and secretly contrived plan to give away very lucrative assets to a private sector entity. These assets will give great power over the Internet and all who use it to those who grab control over this entity. 2) That IANA is too important a part of the Internet to be held hostage in this way. It isn't that some other private sector business entity should get control of IANA through competitive contract solicitations, but rather that a U.S. government entity that is appropriate, like DARPA, should continue to administer the contract with IANA and pay the salaries of those who work for IANA while there be a genuine discussion and examination of how to create a protected environment for IANA to function that includes the public interest being dominant, not commercial objectives. 3) That the U.S. public and folks all over the world have contributed to the funding of the Internet and of its development and achievements. These folks should not be disenfranchised by this power play of the U.S. government holding the paychecks of IANA folks hostage to their trying to pass enormously valuable and power giving assets to some private entities. 4) I didn't notice the U.S. government having any problem paying for the big bills that it has taken to build the Internet (for the U.S. share of the bills), and the public interest needs to be protected now and the Internet needs a way to scale and to continue to serve as a unique new medium of worldwide communication. Therefore the U.S. government should stop hassling the IANA folks and should make sure that their pay checks are paid by the U.S. government. 5) For a long range solution, the administrative fees for IP numbers shouldn't be going for profits for various entities, but if needed could pay the what are minimal costs for IANA folks salaries. 6) The fruit of a poison tree is poison. The longer this power play by the U.S. govenrment goes on, the worse the situation will get. There is the need for an investigation into how this all happened and a plan for making the needed changes so that the public interest is dominant in what is happening, not someone's idea of how to convert the Internet into a plaything for marketeers. 7) When Ira Magaziner called me this summer he said there were 2 problems the U.S. government was trying to solve. a) the problem with trademarks and domain names b) the problem of international pressure for participation in what happens with the Internet. (I don't have my notes now from talking with him, but I will try to find them to see more specifically what he said.) However, subsequent to talking with him, I have seen the minutes from the Federal Network Advisory Committee meeting in 1996 where the U.S. government talked about the need to protect American commercial interests with regard to the Internet and began a process of encouraging the Internet Society and it seems others like the European Union, WIPO etc to figure out how to take over IANA. Though there are minutes of this meeting, there is no real indication of the discussion that went on to make this decision. Nor is there any indication that there was any concern for or interest by any of those present in what the public interest is in regard to the present and future of the Internet and how this would be represented in plans for giving away public assets and control over IANA to some private sector corporation. This meeting in 1996 is exactly the kind of situation that computer pioneers like Norbert Wiener and others like C.P. Snow warned against happening at the 1961 conference they held on Scientists and Decision Making at MIT. They described how there would be government decisions that had to be made regarding the future of the computer and it was very important that these decisions *not* be made by a few people in secret, but that they be the subject of broad discussion and debate. They pointed out that when such important decisions were made by a few people they would more likely be bad decisions, while the broader discussion by large numbers of people made it more likely that such decisions would be good decisions. The decision to transfer IANA and other key and controlling functions of the Internet and the assets involved with these functions to a private sector entity is a bad decision. These are functions that need to be carried out in service of the public and they require public protection of the assets and the power so that it can be used for the cooperative purposes, not for some private purpose. The Internet is too important to be playing such power games with. It is good that Jim Fleming uncovered what is happening with the NIST giving ICANN a control to run IANA. But how to get the problem of what is happening out to as many people as possible is what seems to be needed and it would be good to have whatever help the press or people in the U.S. or around the world, or online or off line can give, as possible. In his talk at the MIT conference, C.P. Snow proposed the importance of as many people as possible knowing what was going on and being involved in the discussion of what should happen. This is what is needed now, and any help making that happen would seem to be of value. Thus what Cook describes is a power play using IANA and the Internet and its users as pawns. The 1961 meeting at MIT that predicted just such actions would happen and discussed how to deal with them is descrived in: Chapter 6 of Netizens "Cybernetics, Time-sharing, Human-computer Symbiosis and Online Communities" The chapter is online at http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook Ronda ronda@panix.com. ------------------------------ From: Joachim Weber Subject: Video Over ISDN Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 22:36:09 +0000 Organization: Aachen University of Technology / Rechnerbetrieb Informatik Hello, Is there anybody who can give some hints to me about how to transmit video (avi) via ISDN using a protocol named H.320 (H.221). I am using MS Visual C++ V6 and MS Direct Draws (6.0) Multimedia Facilities to display videos in windows applications. As this works rather good, my next task is to transmit audio and video data over ISDN. I am wondering wether there is a SDK or a driver which can help me in fulfilling the indicated task. Please note that this has nothing to do with internet. It is just about connecting a computer with an isdn card to a phone capable of receiving audio and video data in H.221 Hope someone knows something useful. Please let me know. Best Regards, Joachim Weber ------------------------------ From: Michael A. Covington Subject: Telemarketing by Playing Recordings Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 09:31:21 -0500 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises I was under the impression that telemarketing machines that dialed you and played a recording, with no human operator, had been banned. Just now I got a call from one, an outfit called VPT that sells pagers. The only identifying information given was the 800 number, 1-800-388-2161, repeated many times. The Caller ID said only "out of area." Am I right that they're breaking some regulation? Is anyone here acquainted with them? Michael A. Covington / AI Center / The University of Georgia http://www.ai.uga.edu/~mc http://www.mindspring.com/~covington <>< ------------------------------ From: keith.r.michaels@boeing.com (Keith Michaels) Subject: 1+ Long Distance Organization: The Boeing Company Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 18:51:26 GMT Why do I have to choose a 1+ long distance carrier? Why can't I just use 1010+ numbers exclusively and forget about paying AT&T or MCI their minimum monthly. As far as I'm concerned, 1+ dialing offers NO advantage. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Actually, you don't have to pick a 1+ carrier. Most telcos will let you default your long distance calls to carrier 'none'. Then dialing 1+ anything except 800/888/877 gets you a recorded message that your call cannot be completed as dialed. Ditto attempts to call '00', the long distance operator. But you do wind up dialing more digits, and asd Tad Cook points out in the next message a smart consumer can get much better deals. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Surprising Number of Consumers Ignore Long-Distance Discounts Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 20:42:39 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Surprising Number of Consumers Ignore Long-Distance Discounts By Jennifer Files, The Dallas Morning News Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News Jan. 26--Deborah Perl said no to every discount long-distance offer that came her way. The telemarketing tactics bothered her so much, she hardly thought about the deals she passed up. Like about half of U.S. customers, Ms. Perl, a pharmaceutical saleswoman in Dallas, stuck with her phone company's "basic" rates. While she frequently saw ads for dime-a-minute long-distance, her calls with AT&T cost up to 30 cents a minute. "As opposed to wanting to be the most educated consumer I could be, I was more concerned that the phone companies were bothering me," she said after checking last month's phone bill. Minutes later, she called AT&T. "I said, `OK, I just looked at my phone bill. I'm an idiot. We have to do something about this."' AT&T suggested a calling plan that Ms. Perl expects will cut her monthly long-distance bills by about $30. A surprising number of people pay too much for long-distance, simply because they never asked for a better deal. Only 36 percent of Americans subscribe to a discount program, according to a recent survey by Yankee Group, a technology consulting firm. "They're everybody. They're in every socioeconomic group," Yankee analyst Fred Voit said of the customers who don't use discount plans. "It's not just people who don't make long-distance phone calls. We have people who make long-distance phone calls who spend a lot of money." Basic-rate customers span all age groups and income levels. Among people who are drawn to technology, 45 percent of those surveyed said they use calling plans, compared with 31 percent of people who don't buy high-tech products until they become commonplace. Yankee says some people probably subscribe to discount plans but don't remember signing up for them. MCI WorldCom and other companies say relatively few of their subscribers pay their highest rates, because most customers choose them to get a break on their rates. AT&T, however, says 60 percent of its customers pay basic rates. "People get so confortable with what they've always done, they don't see any reason for change, and meanwhile they're paying more than they have to," said Nilda Weglarz, a spokeswoman for the nation's largest long-distance provider. "Any AT&T customer who makes long-distance calls should be on a calling plan." AT&T says a substantial number of its subscribers make no long-distance calls. More frequent callers do tend to use calling plans, cutting rates to 15 cents a minute or less. In 1992, 72 percent of residential calling minutes were charged at basic rates. As more callers have switched to calling plans, that's fallen to 25 percent of minutes. Asked why the company doesn't simply lower its rates for other customers, Ms. Weglarz said, "Our research has shown that there is a certain percentage of consumers who do not want to participate in a calling plan for whatever reason they may have. They are simply not interested." Ms. Weglarz says her relatives roll their eyes when she tries to get them to call the phone company and ask for lower rates. "I'm talking about my own family who are college-educated people and I'm saying, `What plan are you on?' and they say, `What?"' But why wouldn't people be interested in saving money? "I believe it falls in the camp of too many options," said Renee Fraser, a consumer psychologist who heads Fraser/Huff advertising in Santa Monica, Calif. AT&T alone offers an array of calling plans that many customers would find confusing. One plan, pitched on television by Mad About You star Paul Reiser, bills calls at 15 cents a minute, all the time. Another plan charges 10 cents a minute, plus a $4.95 monthly fee, with a special promotional rate of 5 cents for weekend calls if customers ask for it. (According to AT&T's Internet site, after a customer has been on the plan for six months, calls on Saturdays will cost 10 cents a minute. Sunday rates are scheduled to rise to 10 cents a minute in mid-November.) Customers can often get lower rates by signing up and receiving bills over the Internet. Other plans offer frequent-flier miles or cash for signing up. Dialing 10-10 and a three-digit code at the beginning of a call saves money sometimes but can cost more on other calls. Monthly fees and fluctuating rates make comparisons difficult. And while there always seems to be a better deal out there, there are plenty of bad ones. "People fail to take action because they believe they have little hope of finding a better solution," Ms. Fraser said. Like Ms. Perl, many customers don't realize that they're paying more than necessary. Others say they believe the savings aren't worth the risk of signing up with a bad plan. And many customers prefer the predictability of the basic service they've always had with AT&T. "There's a bit of loyalty. They've always been here and always provided good service," said one lifelong AT&T customer, who asked not to be identified by name. Winston Brown, a retired technical salesman in Dallas, never thought to check his long-distance rates until he noticed high fees for vacation calls he'd made with his telephone credit card. When he called AT&T to ask about the charges, he realized he'd been overpaying for years. "I felt like I was being ripped off. They must have six plans they can put you on, but you'd never know it," Mr. Brown said. After analyzing his calling patterns and checking with other phone companies, he switched to a plan offered by MCI WorldCom. The Public Utility Commission of Texas compares rates for several Texas phone companies at its Internet site, www.puc.state.tx.us/rates/trates.htm. More help is available from the Telecommunications Research & Action Center, a nonprofit group, at www.trac.org. But customers don't need to be Internet-savvy to find a lower rate, said Leslie Kjellstrand, spokeswoman for the Public Utility Commission. "All you have to do is pick up the phone and say, `What can you do for me?"' ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #2 **************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Feb 2 22:03:06 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id WAA12115; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 22:03:06 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 22:03:06 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199902030303.WAA12115@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #5 TELECOM Digest Tue, 2 Feb 99 22:03:00 EST Volume 19 : Issue 5 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson New Chat Feature For Digest/Archives Users (TELECOM Digest Editor) Book Review: "Naked In Cyberspace", Carole A. Lane (Rob Slade") Telecom Update (Canada) #167, January 25, 1999 (Angus TeleManagement) T1 Cabling Between Demarc and Equipment Rack ("Lex") Re: Telemarketing by Playing Recordings (John R. Levine) Re: Telemarketing by Playing Recordings (Larry Conzett) Re: Telemarketing by Playing Recordings (Plex Inphiniti) Re: Telemarketing by Playing Recordings (Linc Madison) Re: Telemarketing by Playing Recordings (Anthony Argyriou) 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: 847-675-3140 ** 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 (ptownson@telecom-digest.org) Subject: New Chat Feature For Digest/Archive Users Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 20:00:00 CST I want to announce a new feature for readers of the Digest, the comp.dcom.telecom* newsgroups, TELECOM_Digest_Online, and users of telecom-digest.org. A new IRC-style chat is now available for telecommunications discussion. The other 'webchat' feature I had available is still there also, but it is a webpage based chat as those of you who have used it know, and not the most popular kind of chat software. What I installed over the last weekend is a java-based IRC-style chat which functions on a more 'interactive' basis (each person sees what the other persons type immediatly) with a list of users on line, the ability to open private rooms, 'whisper' to other users, etc. In other words, an IRC arrangement. You do need to have a java-enabled browser to use this feature and if it detects that you are not java-enabled it will redirect you to the existing chat program, which is now known as 'chat-2' in the archives main menu. The IRC server is operated by xoom.com, and they have no compunction against loading their pages with commercial advertising, and when you first log in they invite you to establish a user account with them, which you are free to ignore. The chat will work with only a user name; no password or real name is needed. When using the chat, you are NOT transferred to xoom.com, and you ARE staying on telecom- digest.org; if you want to check out my source on that page you will see an 'applet' which works with xoom.com's cgi-bin. When you exit chat, there are two ways to do it: one, you can use the logout button provided on the chat window, and this very thoughtfully drops you into a window from xoom.com where you will need to *close that window* to get back to telecom (the 'back' button on your browser will not get you back to telecom. Two, you can just exit the page; when the chat decides you are not around any longer after five or ten minutes it will drop you anyway. Just remember that a 'clean' logout will get you to xoom.com and you don't need to do this unless you are really concerned about your screen name hanging around for a few minutes after you have departed. If you *are already a member of xoom.com* you can use your existing name there and password. Since user names and passwords are shared across all the xoom.com chat rooms (they have hundreds of them, I am just running this one from here rather than on their site) by signing up with them (then ignoring their mountains of spam which begins arriving almost immediatly) you can select an unused user name and password protect it for use on this telecom chat. For instance if you try logging in as townsonp1 which is my admin name for the room, you are told that name requires a password. So if by chance you happen to grow fond of my little telecom chat room and want to establish a user name that won't get misappropriated, sign up with xoom.com using that username, and henceforth when you login to my chat room here, you will find your username is also password protected. It was either accept the advertising which appears on the bottom of the chat window (not that offensive), accept having users dropped off at their site when they make a clean logout from chat, and having them control the passwords server-wide for all chat rooms (meaning you will find a great many common names for which 'a password is required to use this name' -- or -- buy the generic software from them, sell my own ads for the space at the bottom (or go without ads) and most important find someone willing to install it in their cgi-bin for me ... and I haven't the heart to ask lcs.mit.edu to do much more for me than they are already doing. I do not think a java-based chat running on their site for people to use, abuse and misuse is in their plans for this year. So, live with it. Unlike IRC, commands begin with an asterisk * with the exception of /help. I'll appreciate your feedback and I hope this chat program is more useful than the old one which is also still around. http://telecom-digest.org/chatroom.html http://hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/chatroom.html Same difference, only the first one is shorter, or just do http://telecom-digest.org and look the whole thing over if you have not been around in awhile. Cute bug: do NOT however try http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives which is also the same difference except to the new IRC-style chat. The room, you see, had to be registered with xoom.com, and if the software there gets a call for my IRC channel from anyone other than 'hyperarchive' it lets out a screech about 'an imposter has taken over this room!' It will run the room, but keeps insisting that whoever is running the room on their web page is not authorized to do so. This even happens if 'massis' makes the call. I am going to see if I can register it to *.lcs.mit.edu but I am not sure if I can. Anyway that was my project this past weekend. If someone wants to purchase the software and run it at their site for me thus avoiding the advertisments, etc please do. I will name the room after you. :) remember: http://telecom-digest.org/chatroom.html PAT ------------------------------ From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 08:24:00 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "Naked In Cyberspace", Carole A. Lane Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKNKDCSP.RVW 981122 "Naked In Cyberspace", Carole A. Lane, 1997, 0-910965-17-X, U$29.95 %A Carole A. Lane %C 462 Danbury Road, Wilton, CT 06897-2126 %D 1997 %G 0-910965-17-X %I Pemberton Press Books/Online Inc. %O U$29.95 800-248-8466 203-761-1466 fax: 203-761-1444 %O johnb@onlineinc.com www.onlineinc.com/pempress %P 544 p. %T "Naked In Cyberspace: How to Find Personal Information Online" Oh, go and stand over in the corner with Senator Exon. Those reading the title (and the promotional reviews in many magazines) might be forgiven for thinking this was an examination of the state of privacy or personal information online. Those who get to the subtitle will probably think that this will tell you how to find personal information on the net. The second group will be a lot closer than the first, but won't really be correct either. Part one is a kind of general introduction to the topic: basically it seems to be a kind of promotional brochure. Chapter one states that information can be valuable (surprise), that information can be accessed in various ways via computers (double surprise), and gives a kind of randomized table of contents for the book. One point to be made is that the text seems to hold "cyberspace" and "online" as synonymous with "involves a computer," since chapter two starts talking about searching databases by emphasizing the importance of the speed of your computer. It goes on to talk about CD-ROMs, give a minimalist description of boolean logic, pass briefly over the fact that computer databases may contain mistakes (many estimates suggest that a quarter to a third of all such records are in error), and finishes by extolling the virtues of information brokers. The author is obviously not comfortable with searching for information on the Internet: we are told of all kinds of trivial information (nothing important) that can be found on the net, but never how, in chapter three. Chapter four suggests that you can find information about people from proprietary databases, and finishes with a hard-hitting, in-depth investigation of Ross Perot -- using the information found on his promotional Web site! The obligation to talk about privacy is given a token nod in chapter five, which primarily emphasizes the fact that information obtainable via computer could be obtained other ways so don't gimme no grief about this book, OK? Part two looks at what you might use record searching for. Chapter six looks at finding people, but almost as soon as it starts it admits that the options in this category are too many, and that it can only give you a random, and extremely limited, sampling. Pre-employment screening is discussed in chapter seven, but almost none of it relates to computer accessible records at all. Recruiting is limited to searching online (and usually commercial) resume banks in chapter eight. The job related newsgroups aren't mentioned at all, and there is no talk of using topical searches to find specialist skills. Tenant screening is limited to credit referencing (which it doesn't tell you how to do) in chapter nine. Chapter ten lists some proprietary databases where you might be able to find out about assets, and has a much longer section dealing with assets that you won't be able to find. "Competitive Intelligence" (aka "industrial espionage"?) again has nothing to say about computers (and very little to say at all) in chapter eleven. (Appropriate number, don't you think?) There are some proprietary databases, and even some publicly available resources, in chapter twelve for finding experts in different fields, although, again, only a tiny sample. How to find rich people to hit up for charity is minuscule in chapter thirteen. The review of private investigation doesn't give you any resources beyond how to contact PI professional groups. Part three looks at types of personal records. These include chapters on biographies, general indices, telephone directories, staff and professional directories, mailing lists, news, photographic images, quotations, bank records, credit and financial records, consumer credit records, criminal justice records, motor vehicles, death, tax records, medical and insurance records, public records, adoption, celebrity, genealogical records, political records, and demographic records. Most of the information is contained in proprietary databases, and much of it is not available via computer at all, let alone online. The best chapter, in terms of comprehensive and useful guidance combined with accessible data, is on genealogy. The remainder of the book is essentially appendices, listing related books, periodicals, organizations, and databases. Basically, this work spends a lot of time suggesting that you *can* find information out about people, and doesn't put much effort into telling you how you can. There is a heavy reliance on commercial information services, and, as noted, not all of the information sources are available to you from home, let alone via the Internet. A great deal of data relating to the topics covered *can* be found on the Internet, but the author does not appear to be aware of that. If you want to set yourself up as an information broker, this text might get you started. The contact information for the various database sources is useful, although you can find the same at your local library. Which may be available online. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1998 BKNKDCSP.RVW 981122 rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@sprint.ca robertslade@usa.net p1@canada.com Find virus, book info http://victoria.tc.ca/int-grps/techrev/rms.htm Mirrored at http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~rslade/rms.htm Linked to bookstore at http://www97.pair.com/robslade/ Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses, 0-387-94663-2 (800-SPRINGER) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 11:46:29 -0500 From: Angus TeleManagement Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #167, January 25, 1999 ************************************************************ * * * TELECOM UPDATE * * Angus TeleManagement's Weekly Telecom Newsbulletin * * http://www.angustel.ca * * Number 167: January 25, 1999 * * * * Publication of Telecom Update is made possible by * * generous financial support from: * * * * AT&T Canada ............... http://www.attcanada.com/ * * Bell Canada ............... http://www.bell.ca/ * * Lucent Technologies ....... http://www.lucent.ca/ * * MetroNet Communications ... http://www.metronet.ca/ * * Sprint Canada ............. http://www.sprintcanada.ca/ * * Telus Communications....... http://www.telus.com/ * * TigerTel Services ......... http://www.citydial.com/ * * * ************************************************************ IN THIS ISSUE: ** Shareholders Approve BCT.Telus Merger ** PSINet Plans National Fiber Network ** Executive Shakeup at AT&T Canada ** Sprint Bundles LD and Internet ** International Licenses Issued ** Bell Offers to Change Operator Plan ** Cableco Internet Services Gain Ground ** Bell Proposes ADSL Compromise ** Cantel Extends "Local Calling" to Hong Kong ** CRTC Rejects Free Wireless Listing Trial ** InfoInterActive Patents Internet Call Waiting ** Comment Sought on New Affiliate Rules ** Telcos Need Not Provide Payphone Location List ** Oral Arguments in High-Cost Proceeding ** New-Media Final Arguments to Be Heard February 3 ** BC Tel Winback Promos: Win One, Lose One ** Access Telecom to Offer CPC Payphones ** NBTel Announces E-Commerce Products ** BCE Emergis Plans U.S. Acquisition ** Optel Hires Two Ex-Fonorola Execs ** Sprint Vs. Sprint ============================================================ SHAREHOLDERS APPROVE BCT.TELUS MERGER: On January 19, Telus shareholders voted 99.44% in favor of merger with BC Telecom. Two days later, the merger was approved by 99.99% of BC Telecom shareholders. The deal closes January 31. ** BC Telecom reports fourth quarter net earnings of $87.4 Million, a 23% increase from last year. Revenues rose 5.8% to $817 Million. PSINET PLANS NATIONAL FIBER NETWORK: Internet Service Provider PSINet says it will spend more than $100 Million to assemble a high-speed fiber network across Canada. On January 20, PSINet paid $12 Million for rights to a Vancouver-Seattle fiber link. EXECUTIVE SHAKEUP AT AT&T CANADA: Three senior executives left AT&T Canada last week: Carole Salomon, President, Residential Long Distance Services; Karen Jeisi, Senior VP, Law and External Relations; and Anil Amlani, Senior VP, Industrial Relations. SPRINT BUNDLES LD AND INTERNET: For $24.95 a month, Sprint Canada's new The Most Anytime plan offers residential customers Canadian long distance calling for 10 cents a minute anytime, and unlimited use of Sprint's Internet access service. INTERNATIONAL LICENSES ISSUED: The CRTC has already approved 78 international telecommunications licenses -- 48 Class A (providers which operate international facilities) and 35 Class B (no facilities). More approvals are expected shortly. http://www.crtc.gc.ca:80/eng/proc_rep/telecom/1999/8190/8190-99.htm BELL OFFERS TO CHANGE OPERATOR PLAN: Bell Canada says it will consider retaining majority ownership in the new company which is taking over its operator services business. The telco says that lower salary scales and a reduction in the number of call centers will be implemented gradually, not all at once. (See Telecom Update #166) CABLECO INTERNET SERVICES GAIN GROUND: The number of subscribers to Internet services offered by cablecos Shaw, Rogers, and Cogeco has roughly doubled since September. Most recent subscriber totals: Shaw, 81,000 (January 14); Rogers, 54,000 (December 31); Cogeco, 22,000 (January 15); Videotron, 8,500 (November 30). BELL PROPOSES ADSL COMPROMISE: Bell Canada is proposing to allow Internet Service Providers to share some of the facilities needed to provide ADSL, thus reducing the cost of providing the service to their customers. ** Some of the documents on the dispute can be found at http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/proc_rep/telecom/1998/8646/c51-01.html CANTEL EXTENDS "LOCAL CALLING" TO HONG KONG: Cantel AT&T Digital One Rate now includes calls to Hawaii, Alaska, and Hong Kong in its flat-rate long distance calling plans. CRTC REJECTS FREE WIRELESS LISTING TRIAL: The CRTC has turned down Bell Canada's plan to offer free white page listings to Bell Mobility subscribers. The telco described the plan as a market trial, but the CRTC said it was a promotion which discriminated against other wireless companies. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/telecom/order/199/o9933_.txt INFOINTERACTIVE PATENTS INTERNET CALL WAITING: Halifax-based InfoInterActive has been granted a Canadian patent for its Internet call waiting service. Several Canadian telcos offer a competing service developed by Northern Telecom. COMMENT SOUGHT ON NEW AFFILIATE RULES: In Public Notice 99-3, the CRTC asks whether it should establish new rules to restrict local service resale by Stentor company affiliates, or international resale by Teleglobe affiliates. To comment, notify the Commission by February 19. http://www.crtc.gc.ca:80/internet/1999/8045/03/pn99-03.htm TELCOS NEED NOT PROVIDE PAYPHONE LOCATION LIST: The CRTC has turned down an application by Canquest to require Stentor telcos to provide the locations of their card-reader equipped public telephones. http://www.crtc.gc.ca:80/internet/1999/8045/04/o99-0032.htm ORAL ARGUMENTS IN HIGH-COST PROCEEDING: On Monday, January 25, the CRTC begins hearing oral final arguments on how to ensure that telephone service in high-cost serving areas is available and affordable. http://www.crtc.gc.ca:80/eng/proc_rep/telecom/1997/part7/pn97 -42.html NEW-MEDIA FINAL ARGUMENTS TO BE HEARD FEBRUARY 3: The CRTC will begin hearing oral final arguments in the New-Media proceeding (Broadcasting PN 1998-82-1/Telecom PN 1998-20-1) in Hull on February 3. Comments in the proceeding are posted at http://www.crtc.gc.ca:80/eng/proc_br/notices/1998-82e.htm and http://www.newmedia-forum.net/news/. http://www.crtc.gc.ca:80/internet/1998/8045/p98-20-1.html#dir BC TEL WINBACK PROMOS: WIN ONE, LOSE ONE: The CRTC has approved one BC Tel promotion aiming to win local business customers back, and turned down another. The Commission reiterates that telcos must not approach individual customers with winback offers within three months of their move to a local competitor. http://www.crtc.gc.ca:80/internet/1999/8045/04/o99-0060.htm http://www.crtc.gc.ca:80/internet/1999/8045/04/o99-0034.htm ACCESS TELECOM TO OFFER CPC PAYPHONES: Montreal-based Access Telecom Technologies will market Canada Payphone payphones and Internet terminals in Quebec. NBTEL ANNOUNCES E-COMMERCE PRODUCTS: NBTel has announced two additions to its Intellis suite of e-commerce products. Merchant enables Web-based sales; Internet Contact Services lets call center agents and customers converse on the Web. BCE EMERGIS PLANS U.S. ACQUISITION: BCE Emergis, formerly Mpact Immedia, has received $49 Million in equity investment from parent Bell Canada and plans to use it to acquire a U.S. e-commerce company. OPTEL HIRES TWO EX-FONOROLA EXECS: Competitive Local Exchange Carrier Optel Communications has appointed Mac Bargout as Senior Vice-President of Engineering and Russ La Rose as Senior Vice-President of Network Operations. Both previously held similar posts at Fonorola. SPRINT VS. SPRINT: In the January issue of Telemanagement, Ian Angus investigates a new long distance calling plan and finds a familiar carrier behind it. Also in Telemanagement #161: ** Rob Slade's "Bookshelf" provides a guide to Internet guidebooks. ** Henry Dortmans offers 10 questions that will show whether your telecom operations are "billing-error prone." To subscribe to Telemanagement, call 1-800-263-4415, ext 225, or visit http://www.angustel.ca/teleman/tm.html. ============================================================ HOW TO SUBMIT ITEMS FOR TELECOM UPDATE E-MAIL: editors@angustel.ca FAX: 905-686-2655 MAIL: TELECOM UPDATE Angus TeleManagement Group 8 Old Kingston Road Ajax, Ontario Canada L1T 2Z7 =========================================================== HOW TO SUBSCRIBE (OR UNSUBSCRIBE) TELECOM UPDATE is provided in electronic form only. There are two formats available: 1. The fully-formatted edition is posted on the World Wide Web on the first business day of the week at http://www.angustel.ca/update/up.html 2. The e-mail edition is distributed free of charge. To subscribe, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should contain only the two words: subscribe update To stop receiving the e-mail edition, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should say only: unsubscribe update [Your e-mail address] COPYRIGHT AND DISCLAIMER: All contents copyright 1999 Angus TeleManagement Group Inc. All rights reserved. For further information, including permission to reprint or reproduce, please e-mail rosita@angustel.ca or phone 905-686-5050 ext 225. The information and data included has been obtained from sources which we believe to be reliable, but Angus TeleManagement makes no warranties or representations whatsoever regarding accuracy, completeness, or adequacy. Opinions expressed are based on interpretation of available information, and are subject to change. If expert advice on the subject matter is required, the services of a competent professional should be obtained. ------------------------------ From: Lex Subject: T1 Cabling Between Demarc and Equipment Rack Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 08:11:44 -0500 Organization: Netcom Canada I want to use patch panels and 25 pair cable to link our equipment racks with the TELCO demarc point. At present we just string a CAT5 cable from the demarc to the piece of equipment in question (~30-40 feet). Needless to say the under floor gets pretty messy with all the cables. So, the question is can I use CAT5 25 pair to link the 2 patch panels or do I have to use 25 pair individually shielded pairs to avoid cross talk between the receiving and transmitting pairs? Thank you in advance. lvonader@netcom.ca ------------------------------ Date: 02 Feb 1999 20:54:37 -0500 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Telemarketing by Playing Recordings Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > I was under the impression that telemarketing machines that dialed you > and played a recording, with no human operator, had been banned. You are correct, give or take exceptions for non-profits. If you can figure out who was responsible for the robo-call, under 47 USC 227 you can sue them for $500, possibly tripled to $1500. This is the same law that forbids junk faxes. 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: Larry Conzett Subject: Re: Telemarketing by Playing Recordings Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 04:43:16 GMT Organization: @Home Network "Michael A. Covington" wrote: > I was under the impression that telemarketing machines that dialed you > and played a recording, with no human operator, had been banned. I believe that is regulated on a state by state basis. In Tennessee, the TN Public Service Commission passed a state regulation over 10 years ago which requires that any company that wishes to use a mechanical device to announce information on a call made to you must first request your acceptance of that call by a person prior to allowing the device to announce its message. Busi- nesses breaking this regulation are subject to $500 per incident (phone call) fine. And they do prosecute when given enough information to investigate. This holds true even with automated announcers for volunteer fire member call outs, alarm company recordings or automated polling machines. It is broad enough to include "war dialers", as well, used by individuals, rather than companies. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Let me ask you how the Tennessee authorities expect an individual or business with a security alarm system installed in their home/business to possibly be able to request in advance of the police/fire/security alarm dispatch office permission to play the automated transmission announcing a fire or break-in at the premises, etc. At our bus station we have such a system from Ameritech Security Link. When the station is closed, the alarm is turned on. If someone breaks in or a fire starts, the system makes a call to the Ameritech dispatch office which in turn calls the police/fire department. If I or someone was here to first use the phone to 'request permission to play a recorded transmission' what need would I have for the alarm system? Are you certain in Tenessee that security alarms are not exempt from the requirement that a live person first get permission to play a message? What about an old person with one of those panic button things you can carry in your pocket within a range of a few hundred feet of the receiver which is hooked in the phone line? They have a heart attack and before they die they barely have time to reach in their pocket, grab the little device and press the button on it .. who is going to do their live talking for them? PAT] ------------------------------ From: plex_inphiniti@yahoo.com (Plex Inphiniti) Subject: Re: Telemarketing by Playing Recordings Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 00:29:34 GMT Organization: Frontier GlobalCenter Inc. On Tue, 26 Jan 1999 09:31:21 -0500, Michael A. Covington wrote: > I was under the impression that telemarketing machines that dialed you > and played a recording, with no human operator, had been banned. Just > now I got a call from one, an outfit called VPT that sells pagers. > The only identifying information given was the 800 number, > 1-800-388-2161, repeated many times. The Caller ID said only "out of > area." I was pretty sure those are illegal. They laws around it are I believe a human has to initiate the call and ask you personally if they can play a recording. I may be wrong. -= Plex Inphiniti =- ****plex_inphiniti@yahoo.com Email Address spam trapped. Remove **** for email reply. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 20:12:31 -0800 From: Telecom@LincMad.NOSPAM.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Telemarketing by Playing Recordings Organization: LincMad Consulting There is a California state law that forbids such calls, but, of course, it only applies if the origin is within California. I got a couple of such calls, from the same telemarketing outfit, at 2:45 a.m. on Thanksgiving Day, and then at 4:45 a.m. on a Sunday. Yes, that's a.m. as in "wee hours of the morning," between midnight and dawn. The telco was absolutely unhelpful in giving me any way to deal with the problem, other than trying very aggressively to sell me Caller ID service, which I am 99.9% sure would be of no help in identifying the caller. ** 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 delete the "NOSPAM" << ------------------------------ From: anthony@alphageo.com (Anthony Argyriou) Subject: Re: Telemarketing by Playing Recordings Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 08:08:38 GMT Organization: Alpha Geotechnical Reply-To: anthony@alphageo.com This is illegal in California, but I don't believe that it's illegal nationwide. California can't prosecute for calls which are legal in the state of origin. Anthony Argyriou ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #5 **************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Feb 2 22:53:48 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id WAA15098; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 22:53:48 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 22:53:48 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199902030353.WAA15098@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #6 TELECOM Digest Tue, 2 Feb 99 22:53:00 EST Volume 19 : Issue 6 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson The Web's Identity Crisis (Monty Solomon) Book Review: "TCP/IP Complete", Ed Taylor (Rob Slade) Re: Bell Canada Replaces Operators With U.S. Based Excell (Mark J. Cuccia) Star VM for Norstar (Jim) Does AT&T's Long Shadow Portend a Cable-Modem Monopoly? (Monty Solomon) Re: Ameritech's Call-Blocking Service Too Costly (Anthony S. Pelliccio) Re: Ameritech's Call-Blocking Service Too Costly (Ed Ellers) "Real" Telecommunication (oprempj@mail.ustrust.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: 847-675-3140 ** 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, 2 Feb 1999 03:45:13 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: The Web's Identity Crisis http://www.salonmagazine.com/21st/rose/1999/01/29straight2.html Intel's processor-I.D. gaffe shows how badly tech companies want to know who you are and where you live. BY SCOTT ROSENBERG | Who are you? (Yeah, you!) If you were reading this as a subscriber to a print magazine or a newspaper, I wouldn't need to ask that question: I'd know your name and where you live. I might even have your credit card number. Here on the Web, though, I truly don't know who you are. I can guess, and I can play some tricks with Internet addresses (IP numbers) and "cookies," and I can ask you to register to visit my site (with no assurance that the information you provide is accurate). But I can't honestly say I have any reliable information as to your identity. That ignorance stems from the architecture of the Internet itself, which was designed for openness, not security. If you keep this in mind as you follow the onslaught of Internet-news headlines, a lot of seemingly unrelated and confusing stories start to make a lot more sense. Consider this week's brouhaha over Intel's plan to build unique I.D. numbers into its next-generation Pentium III chip. Intel told the world that it aimed to enhance security for online transactions by giving Web users and merchants a trustworthy identity-verification system: Web sites and other Net-based software could query your processor to make sure you are who you say you are before providing access to, say, online account data or other "for your eyes only" information. Intel sells hardware, so Intel wants to build security into hardware. But the resulting scheme is phenomenally silly on the face of it: Who says I do all my Net-based work from a single computer? What if more than one person uses my computer? Aren't we moving away from the single-desktop-computer model toward a world of diverse Net-access devices, anyway? Isn't the point of Web-based businesses and services that you can access them from any available browser? What if I want to do my online banking from a public Net terminal in an airport or cafe? Privacy groups, which called for a boycott of the Pentium III under the banner "Big Brother Inside," raised other issues with Intel's numbering plan. If your processor cheerfully hands out your unique I.D. to any Web site that asks, those sites can begin to build a vast database of consumer information and behavior. The moment you provide Web merchants with your name and address to fulfill an order, they can link it to your processor I.D.; conceivably, groups of Web merchants could begin to pool their information and assemble the mother of all spam lists. While today's "cookie" files already give Web sites a chance to track you in limited ways, at least the files reside on your computer's hard drive and can be easily deleted (you can also set your browser to reject them). Intel's I.D. is indelible. Under public pressure, Intel quickly reversed course and declared that the I.D. system would be turned off by default on new computers -- you'd have to turn it on yourself for anyone to access your number. Unfortunately, such control is software-based, and thus bound to have holes that unscrupulous Web sites or creative hackers could exploit. The real problem with Intel's scheme goes beyond the technical details. The trouble is that Intel set out to design a scheme to defeat the anonymity that people take for granted on the Net -- without ever asking consumers whether they wanted it or liked it or would design it differently themselves. Intel isn't the only company or institution playing this game. A similar yearning to replace free-for-all online anonymity with controlled accountability lies behind such disparate phenomena as Microsoft's new software registration scheme and the Child Online Protection Act (COPA). Microsoft feels that, thanks to piracy, it's not making quite enough profits from sales of its Office software suite, so it has devised a new registration scheme for the software: Once you've paid your hundreds of dollars, if you wish to use your programs more than 50 times you will also have to obtain a code from Microsoft that is tied to the particular configuration of your computer's hardware. (For now the scheme will only be applied in certain foreign countries and for academic users in North America, but you can bet Microsoft would like to make it universal.) Like Intel's processor I.D., Microsoft's registration scheme aims to link your personal identity with your personal computer's identity; unlike Intel's plan, there isn't even a pretense here that there's any benefit to the user. Intel and Microsoft both want to know who you are; so, too, do the feds -- at least they want to know enough about you to check your age. In its wisdom, the U.S. government has decided that Web sites need to check visitors' I.D.s at the door before granting them access to material that anyone in any state of the union might consider "harmful to minors." Under the provisions of the Child Online Protection Act (which Salon, along with a group of other plaintiffs led by the American Civil Liberties Union, is now challenging in federal court), Web sites face $50,000-a-day fines and six-month prison terms if they fail to prevent underage visitors from accessing content that's "harmful to minors." Forget about the problem of defining that term; on a more mundane level, there's no way a Web site can card you or check your age if it doesn't know who you are. Credit card numbers alone aren't good enough -- minors can type them into a Web browser, too. That's why the COPA is such a ludicrous law. You're never going to be certain of the age of Web-site visitors until and unless you devise some kind of universal Internet I.D. scheme. And nobody wants that, right? Think again. The Intel chip I.D. tempest is a wake-up call for Net users -- a reminder that personal information is the ultimate asset in the online marketplace, and that if consumers don't defend it, companies across the board will grab it. It used to be that only Web sites with aggressive marketing schemes tried to compile detailed information on masses of users. Now we've got hardware giants like Intel and software giants like Microsoft doing the same thing. Don't doubt for a moment that the new hybrid service providers/content companies like America Online and @Home/Excite will join in, too: Unlike mere Web site operators, they know their customers' names and addresses, which helps explain why they have become Wall Street darlings. To be sure, anonymity isn't an unvarnished good. There are some online activities, like banking, where secure identities are vital. Inevitably, the online world will adopt new systems for ascertaining people's identity. The question worth fighting over is, in whose interests will the system be designed? The skyrocketing market valuations of today's big Internet companies is going to put ever greater pressure on them to deliver real profits, soon. It's a good bet that they will try to do so by gathering, using and even selling whatever information they can about the people who use their sites. As that pressure builds, don't be surprised if more ill-devised schemes like the Intel processor I.D. bubble up from the stewing Net industry. Ultimately, what consumers need is an I.D. plan that offers a good balance between the convenience of online services that know who you are and the privacy we all have a right to expect. (A good technology already exists that meets these criteria -- it's called public-key encryption, and we'd all probably be using it today except for the opposition of the FBI and other law-enforcement groups.) Companies that figure out how to deliver both convenience and privacy will win users' loyalty and prosper. Those that just try to cram I.D. schemes down the public's throat -- as Intel got caught doing this week -- will deserve all the black eyes they get. SALON | Jan. 29, 1999 - - - - - - - - - - - - E-mail Scott Rosenberg. ------------------------------ From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 08:13:37 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "TCP/IP Complete", Ed Taylor Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKTCPIPC.RVW 981119 "TCP/IP Complete", Ed Taylor, 1998, 0-07-063400-9, U$69.95 %A Ed Taylor edtaylor@aol.com zac0002@ibm.net %C 300 Water Street, Whitby, Ontario L1N 9B6 %D 1998 %G 0-07-063400-9 %I McGraw-Hill Ryerson/Osborne %O U$69.95 905-430-5000 fax: 905-430-5020 louisea@McGrawHill.ca %P 607 p. + CD-ROM %T "TCP/IP Complete" Chapter one gives a not always reliable background of TCP/IP (Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol) consisting mostly of trivia with a bit of structure showing how the various parts interoperate. Address resolution and routing are the major concerns in chapter two, although it also looks at IP headers. TCP, UDP (User Datagram Protocol), and IP addressing get mentioned in chapter three. Chapter four gives brief explanations of some common Internet applications. There is a quick review of LAN design (and sinusoidal voltage graphs) in chapter five. Network component diagrams, more voltage diagrams, rack diagrams, UPS logs, net clouds, and an ad for a UPS manufacturer make up chapter six. Chapter seven finally gets into some detail on the current IPv4. This is extended into IPv6 in chapter eight, but that must itself be extended into chapter nine. Chapter ten gives extensive details on TCP while chapter eleven gives almost no information at all on UDP. X, the windowing system commonly used in a networked UNIX environment, gets a short description in chapter twelve. Chapter thirteen talks randomly about network management. Some mixed information about telnet is in chapter fourteen. There is a bit of an explanation of SNMP (Simple Network Management Protocol) in chapter fifteen, and other details in sixteen. Chapter seventeen reviews a number of proprietary network management products, concentrating primarily on network cloud diagrams. Chapter eighteen gets back to some TCP/IP basics with DHCP (Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol). This is followed up with DNS (Domain Name System) in chapter nineteen. The book is finished with RPC (Remote Procedure Call) in chapter twenty. The content of this text is random, poorly explained, and badly organized. There are many better books on the system, such as "Designing TCP/IP Internetworks" (cf. BKDTCPIP.RVW), the classic "Internetworking with TCP/IP" (cf. BKINTTCP.RVW), "TCP/IP Illustrated" (cf. BKTCPIPI.RVW), "IPng and the TCP/IP Protocols" (cf. BKIPNGTP.RVW), and even "TCP/IP with Windows NT Illustrated" (cf. BKTCPNTI.RVW). I really can't see any audience that would particularly benefit from this book over the others. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1998 BKTCPIPC.RVW 981119 rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@sprint.ca robertslade@usa.net p1@canada.com Find virus, book info http://victoria.tc.ca/int-grps/techrev/rms.htm Mirrored at http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~rslade/rms.htm Linked to bookstore at http://www97.pair.com/robslade/ Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses, 0-387-94663-2 (800-SPRINGER) ------------------------------ From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: Re: Bell Canada Replaces Operators With U.S. Based Excell Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 10:21:17 -0600 Organization: Tulane University Bell Canada's plan to turn its operator services over to (US-based) Excell Agency is more of a joint-management and labor/union/wage issue, rather than a telco network issue. My understanding, from reading the various online articles from Canadian news services, and asking people with Bell Canada, is that the current operators will be: - offered early retirement - offered other positions within Bell Canada - transferred into the *JOINT VENTURE* entity, owned by Excell and Bell Also, there *is* planned to be a certain amount of "network reconfiguration" regarding Bell Canada's Operator Services. Presently, Bell Canada has about twenty Operator Centers throughout Ontario and Quebec, where the actual operators and their DMS-200-TOPS Terminals are located. Bell intends to reduce the number of Operator Centers down to about five - two in Quebec and three in Ontario. The operator reached at these centers (when dialing '0', or cutting through to a live operator on 0+/01+ or 1-800-555-1111 "Canada Long Distance / Canada Direct" Access) will be an employee of the "joint venture" between Bell and Excell. Bell Canada's Operator Services are **NOT** going to be 'relocated' to Excell Agency's Arizona (USA) HQ's! Bell Canada will probably still maintain their twenty or so DMS-200-TOPS switching computers throughout Ontario and Quebec, although even these 'could' be consolidated some. AT&T in the US presently has about 35 #5E-OSPS switching computers in specific locations, and when one dials '00', 0+/01+ or one of several AT&T 800- access numbers, one routes to their "homing" OSPS machine. Yet when one needs to speak live to a real human being AT&T Operator, one can be routed to _ANY_ available operator anywhere in the (continental) US. I don't know how many Operator Centers AT&T presently has, but I'd read about a year ago that AT&T's ultimate intent is to consolidate and reduce the number down to JUST SIX centers. BTW, Excell in Arizona (USA) is the same company which AT&T has contracted with to provide "pseudo" directory services, rather than AT&T routing to the genuine local telco's directory operator. When one dials (US)NPA+555-1212 via the AT&T network these days, one does _NOT_ route to the real local telco directory operator in that dialed (US) Area Code. Instead, AT&T _TRAPS_ the call and routes it to Excell (which does NOT live up to their name) in Arizona. Other (US) long distance carriers are now doing the very same thing with one or another contract company. These contract directory companies (including Excell) are HORRIBLY out of date in their directory listings, and have all other kinds of erroneous or missing information. If one needs real local telco directory, some long distance carriers (LCI/Qwest still does at this time) still route to the real LEC directory operator of the dialed area code. I am _NOT_ going to use these contract companies, first paying for a directory call and only getting bogus information, and then paying toll to use that bogus info?! Where's the FCC and the FTC in this matter! Mark J. Cuccia ------------------------------ From: Jim Subject: Star VM for Norstar Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 15:47:25 -0600 Organization: SBTek, Inc. Is anyone using a voice mail system called Star VM made by Telephony Experts for the Norstsar key system? I'd like to hear from anyone that is regarding some problems I'm having such as disconnects during announcements, etc. Thanks, Jim Please remove the "extrajunk" in the address before replying. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 12:55:34 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Does AT&T's Long Shadow Portend a Cable-Modem Monopoly? Excerpt from The Industry Standard's Media Grok - February 02, 1999 Groundhog Day: Does AT&T's Long Shadow Portend a Cable-Modem Monopoly? Though the Baby Bells awoke on Groundhog Day with Ma Bell's shadow creeping over them in local phone service (via Time Warner's cable), most prognosticators predicted a few more years of techno-headaches until AT&T chewed into their monopolies. While the major outlets were trying to swallow the complex joint venture between AT&T and Time Warner, MSNBC's David Bowermaster was asking the relevant follow-up: Will Ma Bell now push TW's speedy cable-modem service Road Runner into a merger with AtHome (which AT&T will control through TCI)? One analyst told Bowermaster it was inevitable, and that "it makes no economic sense for the cable industry to have two high-speed data companies. All it really does is give you duplicative overhead and duplicative expenses." And AtHome CEO Tom Jermoluk hinted in an old interview with MSNBC that the combo was "compelling," but that, vaguely, "the business issues are significant." Bowermaster figures that once AT&T gets its IP act together, the Road Runner-AtHome merger might be more appealing. The Wall Street Journal emphasized the local phone market angle in a long piece by Leslie Cauley and Rebecca Blumenstein. Some markets, including New York, could see a 25-percent discount in local phone rates when AT&T pushes into service, said the company. The Baby Bells cried foul in the WSJ piece and gave every indication they'd run to the regulators for redress. Meanwhile, the New York Times fronted a second-day report from Seth Schiesel explaining the financial details of the AT&T-TW venture. The San Jose Mercury News' Jon Healey was upfront with caveats for consumers on savings: Only big spenders would get discounts, and there would be less choice. An AT&T spokesman admitted the promised 20 percent discount would only come by getting extra lines or features like caller ID or call waiting. Still, Healey found that competition in local phone service would likely bring lower rates for everyone, as competition has driven down long distance and wireless. But while AT&T's bringing some competition, it's also taking it away, according to Healey. "On the Time Warner networks, consumers will not be able to choose any local or long-distance phone service but AT&T's for the 20-year life of the joint venture, officials said." A High Speed Cable Colossus? http://www.msnbc.com/news/237286.asp Time Warner Joins With AT&T to Sell Local Phone Service http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/news/financial/att-time.html AT&T Steps Closer to Local Service Through Accord With Time Warner http://interactive.wsj.com/articles/SB917874681624942500.htm AT&T Joins Warner in Telephone, TV Venture http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPcap/1999-02/02/053r-020299-idx.html AT&T, Time Warner Teaming Up http://www.mercurycenter.com/business/top/058305.htm AT&T, Time Warner in Phone Deal http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/current/telecom.htx ------------------------------ From: nospam.tonypo@nospam.ultranet.com (Anthony Steven Pelliccio) Subject: Re: Ameritech's Call-Blocking Service Too Costly, Trade Group Says Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 19:28:39 -0500 Organization: Providence Network Partners In article , tad@ssc.com says... > Jan. 5--If you've ever wondered what it would be worth to rid yourself > of pesky, dinner-interrupting telemarketers, Ameritech has the answer: > $3.95 a month. > Beginning today, Ameritech will roll out its new Privacy Manager > service in three Indiana cities -- Indianapolis, Gary and > Hammond. While the service costs $3.95 a month, it requires Caller ID > with Name to work, which costs an extra $9.50 a month. Gaaacckk! $9.50 for CLID/N? It's $4.95 here and I thought Bell Atlantic was gouging us. ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: Ameritech's Call-Blocking Service Too Costly, Trade Group Says Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 12:58:52 -0500 Organization: Posted via RemarQ, http://www.remarQ.com Discussions start here Tad Cook quoted from an Indianapolis Star story: > "Beginning today, Ameritech will roll out its new Privacy Manager > service in three Indiana cities -- Indianapolis, Gary and > Hammond. While the service costs $3.95 a month, it requires Caller > ID with Name to work, which costs an extra $9.50 a month. > "That's too much, says a telemarketing group, arguing that consumers > can get pretty much the same result by being firm with telemarketers > and asking to be removed from calling lists." I have to agree here -- if Privacy Manager presents a voice message to the called party, there's no reason to require Caller ID (with name or not) because the Caller ID display unit doesn't enter into the operation! ------------------------------ From: oprempj@mail.ustrust.com Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 11:24:58 -0500 Reply-To: oprempj@mail.ustrust.com Subject: "Real" Telecommunication Organization: IBM.NET I have been in this business for many years. I have come to the conclusion that, to the detriment of American business, we are a dying breed. It seems like there's no one left to defend our turf. I feel like Don Quioti. Case in point: The current state of "lan" communications is one of chaos. This only benefits the manufactures who are taking business on a roller coaster ride. Our choices are: ethernet, token-ring, fast ethernet, gigabit ethernet, and ATM. Think about this. What are these choices good for? Since when do we decide on the design before we know what the purpose is? For the LAN, none of these choices amounts to a hill of beans. Doesn't anyone know that?! The PURPOSE of a telecommunications network, specifically, the local area network is to facilitate communications among and between two or more "stations" or end nodes. This function is done best when the SYSTEM is transparent to protocols, applications, and media. Suppose you couldn't place a voice call unless you spoke English! This is exactly the state of voice communications over a hundred years ago in the USA. This is the current state data communications, specifically, local area network communications. Think about this: in order to "improve" or upgrade my local area network I must change my NIC, modify my applications, change my media type, swap out hubs, routers, switches, etc.......... This is stupid. The fact that computer types have won over the minds, the hearts, and the pocketbooks of corporate America is completely due to your ineffectiveness as a telecommunications profession. For the sake of American business and your careers, it is time to fight back! Let's put together a strategy to put telecommunications back in charge of telecommunications and networking in particular. If you feel as I do, let's start a dialog. P.S. I am NOT interested in arguing about computer people versus telecom people. This is not the puppies of this group. This group is for embattled telecommunications professions who want to work together for their own and the country's better interest. For the purposes of weeding out the "noise", i define a telecommunications profession as one who is well versed in the theory and practice of telecommunications principles. Anyone who uses the term "switching bridge" is automatically excluded. (:-D ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #6 **************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Feb 3 21:22:40 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id VAA10689; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 21:22:40 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 21:22:40 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199902040222.VAA10689@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #7 TELECOM Digest Wed, 3 Feb 99 21:22:00 EST Volume 19 : Issue 7 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Wireless Dimension - Cell Phones and Wireless Phone Leader (Mike Pollock) 609 in New Jersey to Split (Carl Moore) What Has Happened to AT&T/NOS Nightmare (Brian Vita) Re: The Web's Identity Crisis (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Quicken Family Lawyer Banned in Texas (Monty Solomon) Re: T1 Cabling Between Demarc and Equipment Rack (Mel Beckman) Re: T1 Cabling Between Demarc and Equipment Rack (digger) Re: T1 Cabling Between Demarc and Equipment Rack (Stewart Irwin) Re: T1 Cabling Between Demarc and Equipment Rack (Matthew E. Pearson) New Telecom Chat Room Available in Archives (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: 847-675-3140 ** 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: Mike Pollock Subject: Wireless Dimension - Cell Phones and Wireless Phone Leader Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 10:42:44 -0500 [TELECOM Digest Editor's note: The site discussed below functions in much the same way as the print publication {Consumer Reports} with a fairly unbiased look at phones, etc. Readers might want to check it out. PAT] The following site was mentioned today on Dave Ross' syndicated radio feature "Chip Talk" http://www.wirelessdimension.com/ Fact sheet POINTS OF DIFFERENCE Covering virtually every available wireless phone and service plan in the top 50 U.S. metropolitan areas, which include thousands of communities nationwide, Wireless Dimension is the most comprehensive one-stop, shopping service for wireless consumers: The only service allowing users to research, compare and buy wireless phones and service plans. The only service that lets consumers compare virtually all available wireless phones and service plans. The only intelligent shopping agent to recommend wireless products and services based on consumers individual needs. The only guide to cover analog, digital cellular and PCS phones. Identifies local authorized dealers and covers compatible accessories. A free, objective and anonymous service. Wireless Dimension is the most highly-targeted, one-to-one marketing resource for carriers and manufacturers: Targets pre-qualified consumers shopping for wireless products and captures their buying preferences. Reduces carriers customer acquisition costs (cost per gross addition) by more than 30 percent per transaction. The Dimension Select advertising system, unlike banner ads, bills advertisers on a per-delivery basis. TWO DIFFERENT WAYS TO USE WIRELESS DIMENSION Service Plan: In minutes, view virtually all service plans in your area, compare them side-by-side and view the local coverage map of each carrier shown. Phone: Research all available analog cellular, digital cellular and PCS phones, including those that match specific carriers and compare them side-by-side. Includes markets/phones and all standard air interfaces (AMPS, N-AMPS, GSM, CDMA, TDMA, iDEN). FEATURES AND FUNCTIONS Research tools: The only database offering virtually all available service plans and phones. An easy-to-read glossary of more than 800 telecommunications terms. Frequently asked questions on a variety of wireless categories. News and feature articles. Side-by-side comparison: A side-by-side comparison grid helps you quickly compare a selection of products and services from different manufacturers. Detailed product information: Once you identify a selection of specific service plans or phones, you can read detailed features and specifications information to narrow your choice. Buy now option: Once you identify service plans and phones of interest, you have the option to buy directly from a participating carrier online through Wireless Dimension. Find retailers and authorized dealers: Identify local authorized dealers through the Locate Retailer function. Coverage maps: View the coverage areas of local service plans. Shopping list: Use this personal portfolio to save and access information. You can print out product and service information, or proceed with an online purchase at any time. TARGET AUDIENCE Wireless consumers with Internet access. Marketing decision-makers for carriers, manufacturers and retailers targeting wireless consumers. PLATFORMS AND TECHNOLOGIES Wireless Dimension was built using the Microsoft Windows NT Server 4.0 operating system, Microsoft SQL Server 6.5 enterprise database development system, Microsoft Internet Information Server, and extensive custom server and client-side code. The system runs on multiple Compaq ProLiant and Dell PowerEdge servers. Must be viewed with Netscape Navigator 3.01 or higher and Microsoft Internet Explorer 3.02 or higher. Service is available 24 hours a day and designed to exceed 98 percent uptime. Complex query response times are held below 10 seconds and maintain an average of five seconds via a 14.4 Kb/s modem connection, despite extremely large data sets and high number of users. NTH DIMENSION MANAGEMENT TEAM Court Lorenzini, Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer Doug DeSantis, Co-Founder, Publisher and President Paul Kowalski, Vice President, Finance Matthew Ellenthal, Vice President, Sales Thomas Gonser, Jr., Senior Vice President, Business Development Dave Cash, Executive Editor Andrew Pope, Director of Technology Peg English, Strategic Growth Manager ABOUT PARENT NTH DIMENSION CORPORATION Nth Dimension Corporation, an online publisher of comparison shopping services, was formed in 1995 by Chief Executive Officer Court Lorenzini, formerly with Cisco Systems, and President and Publisher Doug DeSantis, formerly with Microsoft. The company is headquartered in Bothell, Wash., near Seattle. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 15:04:48 EST From: Carl Moore Subject: 609 in New Jersey to Split KYW news-radio reports today that splitting 609 geographically has been approved. The new area code, not yet known, will go to the western part (Camden etc., near Philadelphia), and 609 will remain in the eastern part, including Atlantic City. I didn't catch where Trenton, the state capital, will end up. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 08:16:37 -0500 From: Brian Vita Subject: What Has Happened to AT&T/NOS Nightmare Last summer, after having been a very satisfied AT&T customer since the beginning of time, our company was hosed by AT&T. We had been in a term contract with them for the previous 3 years that gave us a LD rate of $0.094/minute for all of our inbound and outbound traffic. The contract expired in March without us being immediately aware. Without warning, AT&T brought our rate up to $0.27/minute. Unfortu- nately this increase happened at a time that our business had also increased so the jump wasn't as immediately obvious as it might have otherwise been. In the past we had an account rep with them who contacted us every 6 months or so and compared the services that we had and were using with new or more current offerings. We hadn't seen her for over a year. When I tried to reach her I was told that her entire department (Small Business Development or something of the like) had been closed and that we now had to deal with a national customer service center. The national customer service center was virtually impossible to reach. If you called their "800" line you were only given options for repair or discussing a late payment on your bill, both of which dumped you into an automated device for telling you how much you owed or reporting a line outage. When I finally reached a service rep, she said that the new rate was $.17/minute, take it or leave it. After protesting and asking for a supervisor, I was finally offered a rate in the $0.15 range. I pushed harder and went through a couple of sales offices and, after several non-returned phone calls, was reluctantly offered a rate of $0.109/minute. We declined. We switched to a company called NOS Communications who presented themselves as a wholly owned subsidiary of Willtel. They offered me a rate of $0.079/minute and a $0.15/minute calling card rate. The first sign of trouble should have been the fact that they not only switched the lines that I authorized them to, but also every other line in my or my company's name. I read them the riot act on this and they corrected the problem. The next problem appeared when the first bill arrived and I found that they were billing me in TCU's and ECU's instead of minutes. Their call billing method is a Byzantine system that was deliberately set up to obfuscate the actual calling rate and cost. They send an explanation that is written in a very pale (non-repro) blue ink in 8 point type on a very small piece of paper in legal double talk. From what I could actually make out on the page, it appeared that we were actually paying a rate of $0.10 +/- /minute. Having bigger projects to deal with, I put aside the bills for later analysis. I've just completed an audit of the bill and it appears that we were actually paying about $0.25/minute. The rep that I have been dealing with at the company is suddenly no longer with the company. Needless to say, I'm leaving them as soon as I can switch all of my lines. I plan of filing complaints with the FCC Common Carrier Complaint Bureau and the Massachusetts AG's office for deceptive business practices. I would be interested in hearing from others, particularly in Mass that have had similar problems. At this time, the likely contender for our LD service appears to be Qwest Communications. I would be interested in hearing any feedback that users may have about them. I do not want to receive solicitations from independent agents or resellers. If you send me unsolicited email you will not get my business. Brian T. Vita, President Cinema Service & Supply, Inc. 75 Walnut St. Peabody, MA 01960-5626 (800)231-8849 - Sales (US & Canada) (800)329-2775 - Sales Fax (US & Canada) (978)538-7575 - Business Office (978)538-7550 - Business Office Fax www.cssinc.com ****Visit our new online web store!**** ------------------------------ Subject: Re: The Web's Identity Crisis Organization: Excelsior Computer Services From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 13:43:07 GMT > Intel sells hardware, so Intel wants to build security into hardware. > But the resulting scheme is phenomenally silly on the face of it: Who > says I do all my Net-based work from a single computer? What if more > than one person uses my computer? Aren't we moving away from the > single-desktop-computer model toward a world of diverse Net-access > devices, anyway? Isn't the point of Web-based businesses and services > that you can access them from any available browser? What if I want to > do my online banking from a public Net terminal in an airport or cafe? More to the point, you'll need software to transmit the information in the hardware. How hard will it be for me to spoof that information? I don't see the point. -Joel (joel@exc.com) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think the catch is, the 'average' user on the internet these days would not know how to spoof the information. You would, I probably could do it, and many readers here would figure it out. But all of us combined would be a very small percentage of the total number of users who attempt to defraud (for example) America Online in a year's time with bogus credit card and/or checking account information. That's not to say I approve of Intel's plan -- since abandoned I understand -- because I do not, but if they went through with it, then it, along with other techniques for online fraud prention/detection which a even just a decade ago would never have occurred to the security experts will trim the level of fraud back another notch or so. I really think in the case of AOL they bring on a lot of their own problems through their abysmal lack of security with user screen names. Let's consider the trivial issue of chatting on line. When one screen name becomes too polluted for whatever reason, a user just ditches it and starts another one. Because of the font style they chose to use for things like their Instant Message service, there is no difference at all between a lower case 'l' (el) and an upper case 'I' (eye). Users are forever harassing one another there by assuming look-closely-alike screen names of other users then acting out in an inappropriate way. One user bans another from sending messages so the banned user simply picks a new screen name and starts all over. At least with Compuserve, where screen names are also encouraged in chat, each user has an !absolute! unchangable user number as well which can be viewed at any time in a chat by issuing a certain command. So be whatever screen name you like and change it at will, but if you get on my case, I'll block the user *number* from any further transaction with me, or I'll treat the chat contents in the context of what I know about that number. I would not mind seeing each user of the net have a unique, difficult to create number assigned to them as long as identifying information as to name, address, type of computer, etc did not have to be associated except as the owner chose to do so at various web sites or on chat programs. I do not need your name and address to know that the last time you visited my web site you made a commotion and I had to forbid you to visit me in the future. As with Compuserve where the user ID numbers don't relate to anything another user can conven- iently deal with, they none the less are tamper proof ways of either establishing a good or bad reputation in the net community. I would assign the number to *users* rather than *computers* so that the fellow who uses a public terminal in the airport can get on line with no hassle. I'd make it part of the password; let's say the last eight or ten digits; it would be the only part of the password to travel around the net with the user. Either that, or maybe there could be a push for more use of encrypted signatures which anyone could verify through a place where the keys were kept. In other words, having a *little bit* of user identification for general security purposes is not a bad idea to me as long as the user's true identity and address, etc would not be known except where the user wanted them to be known. As always, so many of my ideas depends upon the ability and willingness of system admins to cooperate and work with each other on the theory 'a bad thing happened at site X, it could happen to me; I cannot prevent it without cooperation from admin X which means I have to cooperate with him in the same way.' Where unix admins, particularly in the .edu domain are concerned, you generally see that attitude. If a security hole is found, word travels around quickly and patches are implemented. If a user acts out at one place before long the others know of him. Unfortunatly, the internet today consists of .com by the carload, and everyone save his own skin and damn all the rest of you. A sad sight, this internet. :( PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 03:23:48 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Quicken Family Lawyer Banned in Texas http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,31783,00.html Judge bars Intuit legal software By Dan Goodin Staff Writer, CNET News.com February 1, 1999, 6:40 p.m. PT A federal judge has banned the sale or distribution of a legal software title in Texas, saying that the program violates a state statute barring the unauthorized practice of law. In a case brought by the committee responsible for enforcing the Texas statute, U.S. District Judge Barefoot Sanders in Dallas held that Quicken Family Lawyer (QFL), a program that aids users in filling out wills, leases, and other legal documents, goes well beyond the mere provision of factual information about the legal system. The decision could give Texas enforcers new ammunition in their investigation of Nolo Press and other companies that offer similar "self-help" legal products. "While no single one of QFL's acts, in and of itself, may constitute the practice of law, taken as a whole [the software goes] beyond publishing a sample form book with instructions, and has ventured into the unauthorized practice of law," Sanders wrote. In explaining his conclusion, the judge noted that the software, which is bundled with Intuit's Quicken Suite, customizes the content of more than 100 legal forms based on information supplied by the end user. "Parson's argument to the contrary notwithstanding, QFL is far more than a static form with instructions on how to fill in the blanks," Sanders wrote in his January 22 order. Parsons Technology is the publisher of Quicken Family Lawyer. Once owned by Intuit, the company is now a division of The Learning Company. An Intuit spokeswoman said the company licenses the Quicken name to Parsons. Sanders rejected Parson's arguments that the Texas statute violates Free Speech rights guaranteed under the U.S. and Texan constitutions, holding that the prohibition is content neutral and therefore subject to a more lenient level of scrutiny. Additionally, the ruling applies only to software that already has been published, so there is no prior restraint of speech, the judge contended. Nonetheless, critics of the ruling say it creates an unconstitutional chilling effect on publishers. "It's inconsistent with the First Amendment to prohibit the distribution of information about the legal system as a general matter," said Pete Kennedy, a George & Donaldson attorney representing Nolo Press as it is being investigated for distributing its Living Willmaker software in Texas. "I don't think the remedy of banning publications from Texas is anywhere near narrowly tailored enough to satisfy the very limited power of the government to regulate speech," he said. In addition to Nolo Press, Kennedy said, Texas is probing several other companies that offer similar products. Lawyers for Texas's Unauthorized Practice of the Law Committee and for Parsons could not be reached for comment. Other critics of the ruling said the biggest casualty of the ruling would be the public. "[The ruling] does create a chill and hurts the ability of the public to get needed legal information at a low cost," said Gerry Goldsholle, who heads the legal advice site Free Advice. Still, he added, the effect of the ruling is likely to be narrow. "Good publishers," he explained, "should be able to work around this ruling with cautions" and disclaimers displayed prominently on the product. Copyright ) 1995-99 CNET, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy policy. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: For goodness sake yes, we better ban anything that is likely to cut in on the profits made and the control held by lawyers in the USA. I mean, look at how this sorry sight known as the Internet has turned so many things topsy-turvy in society in recent years. It was bad enough back in the 1980's when the Usenet newsgroups were so active, but at least it was only a relative handful of cranks and dissidents and anarchists making speeches. No one much had even heard of them. A fond memory: the early days of this Digest in 1981-83 when the telcos were absolutely aghast that anyone could get on here and print previously heretofore 'secrets' they preferred no public discussion on. Remember, this Digest was around even before divestiture, when AT&T was 'Ma Bell'. Fast forward a few years ... the print media has been quite concerned for awhile now about their gradual loss of control over what people write about and the advertising dollars that go with it. When you don't need the morning newspaper or the talking heads on television news to (as W.R. Hearst once put it) tell you what your opinions and beliefs are any longer then times are getting tough at places like Tribune Media Services. That is why the newspapers and television/ radio stations are so happy to tell Frightened Mothers everywhere about all the child porn on the net. Keep those kids away from the net! What are you trying to do, fix things so in the next generation or so we don't have any readers/television watchers left at all? Maybe we can use the copyrigtht laws to further muddy the waters. Now the relative handful of crackpots has grown to a huge number of citizens and not only are they posting idiotic messages everywhere exposing our corporations and government agencies, they are actually using free audio/video encoders and decoders like those given away by Real Player and Microsoft (Windows Media Player) to put on their own audio/video webcasts to do the same thing. There are actually millions of people watching and listening to them, and to think they did not have to clear it first with our network and its advertisers. Can't the police do something to stop it? Other than accusing them of having seventy-six thousand kiddy porn pictures on their computer and rounding up all the Frightened Mothers of course; that joke got stretched so thin that where netters used to laugh about it now they just ignore it totally ... I mean, that damned Internet has made hassles for the print and broadcast media; it has made it very difficult for government to work in secret; it has made locating and utilizing public records that were previously so obscure as to be useless quite easy; it has given our fine men and women in law enforcement countless headaches and heart- aches as they strive to lock up more and more of our citizens each year; and now, by God, can't someone do something to stop it before it sends America's legal beagles, shysters and mouthpieces to the poorhouse? What has the world come to if a lawyer won't be able to get away with charging two hundred dollars an hour for his 'services' any longer? All of our establishments are seeing major changes in what they can get way with and do in secret as a result of the Internet, because -- as freespeech.com phrases it ... 'the people know better ...' I think we can assume the lawyers and judges will do their best to save us from the tyranny of the internet. Others of our institutions may suffer, but the lawyers will do their best to keep it from happening to them. And don't forget: YOU can now do your own webcasting quite easily with very little hassle, plus a free player and audio encoder to assist you in your effort. Check out http://www.freespeech.org PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 07:10:07 -0800 From: Mel Beckman Subject: Re: T1 Cabling Between Demarc and Equipment Rack > I want to use patch panels and 25 pair cable to link our equipment > racks with the TELCO demarc point. At present we just string a CAT5 > cable from the demarc to the piece of equipment in question (~30-40 > feet). Needless to say the under floor gets pretty messy with all the > cables. > So, the question is can I use CAT5 25 pair to link the 2 patch panels > or do I have to use 25 pair individually shielded pairs to avoid cross > talk between the receiving and transmitting pairs? Ivonader, When you ask "can I use CAT5 25-pair to link the 2 patch panels" I'm guessing you actually mean regular 25-pair telco house cable, and not CAT5. Category-5 cable is a specific standard for four-pair wiring generally used in local area network (e.g. Ethernet) applications; it's not a telco wiring standard. I see your situation frequently, and telco installers are running into it much more often as T1's become ubiquitous. The short answer is: no. Spectrum management rules for in-house wiring of T1s usually don't allow more than two T1s in a pair of 25-pair cables. Note that's a _pair_ of 25-pair cables. The send and receive sides of the T1s must be carried in separate 25-pair cables (this is called diverse routing), and the two T1s transported in a 25-pair cable must be positioned physically as far apart as possible. If you try to run three T1s through a pair of 25-pair cable, it may or may not work, you may or may not take errors, and you might experience intermittent failures at any time. It's not worth the risk, in my opinion. You can carry a single T1 in a Cat-5 (four-pair) cable, up to 50 feet or so, as long as the other two pairs are not used and not grounded, or are grounded on only one end. Be sure to mark the cable as a "hi-cap", or high-capacity line, so that nobody decides to use the spare pares in the future. It's usually a mistake to try and go more than 50' in Cat5. Beyond that distance, you should use shielded cable (ground the shield at one end only). The common telco name for two-pair shielded cable (which has two pairs of wires, T1/T, R1/R, each pair shielded individually) is "D-Screen" (some telco people erroneously call this "T-Screen"). This cable is big and thick and hard to work with, but it has the low-loss characteristics necessary to accommodate the low-power T1 signal from a telco demarc. With D-Screen you can run perhaps 400 feet. I'm amazed how many people try to run T1s hundreds, or even thousands, of feet on Cat-5 or house cable. They run a couple of limited tests (e.g., make a single call on an ISDN PRI line), and then sign-off on the installation, thinking it's fine. Later, when a half-dozen calls or so go through the line, or the aggregate amount of data increases, the line takes errors (usually reported by a high CRC count in the CSU). There is no fix other than proper wiring. I've also seen a flaky T1 installation work fine until a second T1 is installed nearby, at which point both lines fail. Telco demarcs are designed to serve user equipment connected within a few feet. The Network Interface Unit that the telco provides strips off the driving current (about 140 volts) that carried the signal to your office. The signal coming out of the NIU can only run a short distance in ordinary Cat5 cable before suffering degradation. The T1 send and receive pairs are on RJ45 pins 1/2 and 4/5, respectively. It turns out that ordinary Cat5 Ethernet patch cable pairs are organized so that RJ45 pins 1/2 and 4/5 are carried on separate pairs without being split, so you can use ordinary Ethernet patch cables to connect your CSU to the demarc over short (5-50') distances. Anything beyond this is considered an "extended demarc" by the telco, and requires following the above rules. The most important step of installing an extended demarc is to stress-test it. On the cheap you can ask the telco to do this by putting a loop up at your CSU and having them run to it. They should run the test for at least ten minutes, using various bit patterns. There should be *zero* errors. Even a few errors is an indication of some kind of noise problem in your extension (assuming test run error-free to the NIU). If you do a lot of T1 work, invest in a TBird or other T1 test generator and measurement set. These are as cheap as $600 now from some vendors. Learn how to use it and you'll save yourself all kinds of headaches. - Mel Beckman ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 07:58:35 -0800 From: xr-dude000@paralynx.com (digger) Subject: Re: T1 Cabling Between Demarc and Equipment Rack In article , Lex wrote: > I want to use patch panels and 25 pair cable to link our equipment > racks with the TELCO demarc point. At present we just string a CAT5 > cable from the demarc to the piece of equipment in question (~30-40 > feet). Needless to say the under floor gets pretty messy with all the > cables. > So, the question is can I use CAT5 25 pair to link the 2 patch panels > or do I have to use 25 pair individually shielded pairs to avoid cross > talk between the receiving and transmitting pairs? 25 pr will be fine, Cat 5 isnt really necessary unless there is a lot of noise in the room - radio transmitters, high current devices - pumps or airconditioners. (thats cat 3 25 pr) remove 000 from email address to reply ------------------------------ From: Stewart Irwin Subject: Re: T1 Cabling Between Demarc and Equipment Rack Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 07:50:35 -0500 Organization: Interpath Communications Inc. Yes you can use it for the most part, but you will have problems down the road. You should use a cable that is rated for T1. We are using LUCENT-D 613C 30/22 cable between our patch panel and the frame. tel;pager:1-800-331-7242 pin#516717 tel;cell:(919)630-3980 tel;fax:(919)856-2055 tel;home:(919)556-2178 tel;work:(919)856-2086 x-mozilla-html:FALSE adr:;;;;;; version:2.1 email;internet:stewart.irwin@interpath.net x-mozilla-cpt:;0 fn:Stewart W. Irwin end:vcard ------------------------------ From: Matthew E. Pearson Subject: Re: T1 Cabling Between Demarc and Equipment Rack Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 01:32:18 -0500 Organization: The Internet Access Company Should be just fine, thats how telco's usually put in their blocks around here. Matthew E. Pearson email: mpearson@tiac.net Sr. Network Engineer tel: (781) 932-2000 The Internet Access Company ------------------------------ From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: New Telecom Chat Room Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 20:00:00 CDT Be sure to check out the new chat room specifically for telecom topics which is part of the Telecom Archives. It seems to function much better than the older version which was available, and it functions like an IRC-style chat. http://telecom-digest.org/chatroom.html PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #7 **************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Feb 5 19:51:03 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id TAA29655; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 19:51:03 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 19:51:03 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199902060051.TAA29655@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #8 TELECOM Digest Fri, 5 Feb 99 19:51:00 EST Volume 19 : Issue 8 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Local Residential Competition Comes To Canada (Joey Lindstrom) UCLA Short Course: New Third Generation Cellular Digital PCS (B Goodin) Go Network Mulls Security Issue (Monty Solomon) Book Review: "HTML: The Definitive Guide", C Musciano/B Kennedy (R Slade) Re: Ameritech's Call-Blocking Service Too Costly (Steven J. Sobol) Re: Ameritech's Call-Blocking Service Too Costly (Al Varney) Re: T1 Cabling Between Demarc and Equipment Rack (Steve Pinkston) Re: T1 Cabling Between Demarc and Equipment Rack (digger) Re: The Web's Identity Crisis (Billy Harvey) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of 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: 847-675-3140 ** 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: Fri, 05 Feb 1999 10:32:21 -0700 Reply-To: Joey Lindstrom Subject: Local Residential Competition Comes To Canada The following article appeared in the Calgary Sun newspaper on Friday, February 5th 1999. It's probably also available somewhere on their website: http://www.canoe.ca Note the bits about LNP and no charges involved in switching. PHONE OPTIONS RING IN Sprint Hopes To Win Telus Customers By Wanda Ehlers Calgary Sun Calgary's phone market got a whole lot busier yesterday as Sprint Canada Inc. announced it will take on Telus in the local phone business. Calgary will be the first Canadian city to be offered alternative local telephone services for both business and residential customers, Sprint's parent firm said yesterday. Starting today, Call-Net Enterprises will begin an advertising and telemarketing blitz in an attempt to court Calgarians into switching service providers. Sprint's basic local service inside Calgary will be $22.61 per month and rise to as high as $30.61 in outlying regions. Those who buy local service and either internet or long distance from Sprint will get a $2 discount off the basic rate. The newly-merged BCT.Telus charges virtually identical rates in Alberta for basic service. But both providers say the real advantage will be in getting more bang for your buck with services like calling features, long distance and internet access. "For the first time in the 120-year history of telephone service in this country, there is now real local competition for business and residential customers," said Call-Net chief executive Juri Koor. AT&T Canada also weighed (sic) into the fray, quietly announcing plans to provide local service for business customers in up to seven major urban markets this year. Calling Calgary a strong market that's open and accepting to competition, Sprint Canada president Philip Bates said Cowtown was an obvious market to launch into the $8.5 billion local phone wars. The switch will be virtually seamless, Bates said, with no special equipment or charges involved in moving to the new provider. Customers will also be able to keep their existing phone numbers. Along with Calgarians, residents of Airdrie, Cochrane, Okotoks, and High River will have the option to choose Sprint Canada as their new local provider. Within three years, Sprint expects to be in 25 major Canadian markets, including Edmonton. The company will use its existing long-distance customer base of 1.3 million as a launching pad for local service and will be in a position to reach out to six or seven million households by the time the rollout is complete. Telus welcomed the competition, adding it's been ready to take on all comers since deregulation in 1994. "Last year, we actually increased our (long distance) market share," said spokesman Jeff Welke. -files from Sun News Services / From Joey Lindstrom Joey@GaryNumanFan.NU, joey@lindstrom.com / Visit The NuServer! http://www.GaryNumanFan.NU / Visit The Webb! http://webb.GaryNumanFan.NU / "640K ought to be enough for anybody." - Bill Gates, 1981 ------------------------------ From: Bill Goodin Subject: UCLA Short Course: New Third Generation Cellular Digital PCS Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 09:54:19 -0800 On May 3-6, 1999, UCLA Extension will present the short course, New Third Generation Cellular, Digital PCS, and Broadband Mobile Data - What Will Dominate?", on the UCLA campus in Los Angeles. The instructors are C. R. "Rick" Baugh, PhD, consultant, and Peter Rysavy, MSEE, consultant. The establishment of standards for several different third-generation cellular systems is underway, with completion scheduled for late 2000 and deployment shortly thereafter. While each of the alternative technologies has established its architectural foundation, third generation standards emphasize better voice quality, a wider range of services, and higher performing data capabilities than the deployed services. At the same time, current second generation cellular and PCS technologies are rapidly upgrading their enhanced services and high performance data capabilities to incorporate many third generation capabilities. Developers are now asking the question: will the second-generation cellular and PCS technologies evolve to match the new third generation cellular capabilities, or will the new third generation cellular prevail in the end? Concurrently over the last 5 years, the FCC has released over 3 GHz of spectrum for wireless services, by any measure an enormous amount. Furthermore, license holders have virtually no restrictions on what services they provide in this spectrum, setting the stage for a wide range of new wireless services, including broadband mobile data. Multiple wireless service providers will offer competing services, including a range of broadband mobile data capabilities. This raises yet another question: Will cellular be the broadband data service of choice, or will services other than cellular dominate this market? While on the surface many of the services may look similar, there are subtle but profound differences. It is critical to understand these differences and their impact on competition, service offerings, system performance, and customer acceptance. These differences occur in: Wireless coverage; Service capacity; Ease of deployment; Mobility and roaming; Security and privacy; Network interoperability protocols; Compatibility with legacy systems; Data rates and data response times; Architectural approaches for Internet access; Voice quality; Multimedia capacity; Standards-cellular, PCS, wireless data; Costs-deployment and usage; and Susceptibility to interference. Wireless connectivity and access is important, but this is only a partial answer for end-to-end solutions and applications. Integration and interoperability with legacy systems and traditional public voice and data networks is the key for successful businesses. This course should help service providers enhance and expand on their own choice of technologies as well as understand the differences between competing technologies. Users who attend the course should come to understand the distinctions among alternatives when qualifying service providers to meet their business needs and application requirements. And finally, manufacturers of equipment should benefit from the course in understanding the technical trade-offs between alternative technology characteristics and their associated impact on system performance. UCLA Extension has presented this highly successful short course since 1992. The course fee is $1395, which includes 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, 5 Feb 1999 02:46:57 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Go Network Mulls Security Issue http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,31981,00.html By Sandeep Junnarkar Staff Writer, CNET News.com February 4, 1999, 5:20 p.m. PT Update: Disney's recently launched Go Network is charging ahead with a direct-email campaign aimed at drawing traffic from the media giant's affiliated sites. But in its effort to help users make a smooth transition from the affiliate sites, Disney included user names and passwords in the email messages, raising concern about the network's security. "Although I was told I would not get unsolicited mail, I got this email with my user name and password in a completely unsecure way," said Sanjay Mathur, a regular user of ESPN.com, one of Disney's online properties, along with ABCNews.go.com and Family.go.com. "What bothers me is that someone could possibly use that information to get my credit card information," Mathur added. "I do whatever I can to maintain security, and here is someone just piping it over the Internet." But the Go Network quickly noted that it is more of a customer satisfaction issue than a security problem, adding that there is no way to retrieve credit card information from their sites either over the Internet or by email. "The broadcast email that was sent to ESPN subscribers to inform them of their benefits on GO Network did not compromise the users' credit card information in any way," said Patrick Naughton, executive vice president of products at the Go Network. Even if credit card security is not vulnerable in the email messages, Disney could lose precious credibility and members simply because of the perception of risk. As hacks, free email breaches, and other security issues make regular headlines, those who are newer to the Net often are unsure where they are safe. And with entertainment, portal, and other companies locked in intense competition for members, there are plenty of choices for users looking to make a switch. No company knows that more than the image-conscious Disney. "If we find that many users feel more comfortable specifically requesting their password information be mailed to them, we'll adjust the content of our email messages to not contain this convenient information up front," Naughton said. The company said it had not yet received any complaints about the campaign but that it would look into the security issues involved. An ESPN.com spokesman said a call from a CNET News.com reporter was the first time he had heard that the direct email effort has raised concern. "I think it is a good call-out that it could be a security issue," said Barak Berkowitz, Go Network's senior vice president of worldwide marketing. "We are checking to make sure, but everyone believes you would not be able to get any credit card data with that user ID and password." The Go Network said several different emails have been sent out recently to users. Among them, one deals with parental notification when someone under 13 joins, while another is a confirmation email that a new subscriber receives when he or she registers for the service. Both contain user names and passwords, ESPN.com and Go confirmed. The Go Network pointed out, however, that only the last four digits of a credit card are listed in the account information. The letter that people like Mathur received was to inform members of new services available at the Go Network, which now has about nine million members. "What we are going to do is right now is a fairly quick security review," Berkowitz said. "If there is no clear benefit to keeping the password there, we should definitely get rid of it." Meanwhile, Mathur is not quite appeased. Although he sent a complaint to ESPN, he is still waiting for a response. "I actually am thinking about ending my membership," he said. "I don't want to reward them for that kind of behavior. And I can get enough [sports news] for free on their site anyway." Copyright 1995-99 CNET, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy policy. ------------------------------ From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 08:12:41 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "HTML: The Definitive Guide", Musciano/Kennedy Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKHTMLDG.RVW 981115 "HTML: The Definitive Guide", Chuck Musciano/Bill Kennedy, 1998, 1-56592-492-4, U$32.95/C$46.95 %A Chuck Musciano cmusciano@aol.com %A Bill Kennedy bkennedy@activmedia.com %C 103 Morris Street, Suite A, Sebastopol, CA 95472 %D 1998 %G 1-56592-492-4 %I O'Reilly & Associates, Inc. %O U$32.95/C$46.95 800-998-9938 fax: 707-829-0104 nuts@ora.com %P 608 p. %T "HTML: The Definitive Guide", 3rd edition If you are serious about designing documents and Web pages with HTML (HyperText Markup Language) then you *must* have this book. First of all, it *is* definitive. Many books, though much longer, don't begin to match the depth of this current work. Musciano and Kennedy cover the standard HTML up to 4.0, and, more importantly, include the non-standard extensions of Netscape and Internet Explorer. The basics, text, rules, multimedia, links, lists, forms, tables, frames and more are all thoroughly covered, point by point and attribute by attribute. There is even the SGML (Standard Generalized Markup Language) DTD (Document Type Definition) for HTML 4.0. (This must be definitive: it's the definition of the language.) Second, it *is* a guide, and a very good one. Lemay's "Web Publishing With HTML" (cf. BKWPHTML.RVW) still holds an edge as the most approachable beginner's introduction to Web page creation, but Musciano and Kennedy can easily welcome the newcomer as well. The structure is logical and the explanations are crystal clear. In spite of all this, the book contains even more. Web design is not given a separate section, but seamlessly permeates every section of the book. Readers are constantly reminded that while extensions may be fun, not everyone in the world has the same browser. Alternative methods are suggested for non-standard effects and functions. Shortcuts, suitable to only one browser or server, are recommended against in order to ensure the utmost compatibility with all systems. The authors no longer have coverage of CGI (Common Gateway Interface) programming, but they do explain the use of email to collect form data, which is much more useful for maintainers of small Web sites without access to extensive server functions. All this, and readable, too. The content is straightforward and lucid. While you might not read this book for laughs, it is not the tome to choose to put yourself to sleep at night, either. I can recommend this book, without reservation, to anyone who wants to learn HTML programming and use. It is, still, the definitive guide and the only one I find I need to keep on my shelf. (The fact that my review has been misquoted on the back cover of the last two editions of this book has had no influence at all on this review.) copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996, 1997, 1998 BKHTMLDG.RVW 981115 rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@sprint.ca robertslade@usa.net p1@canada.com Find virus, book info http://victoria.tc.ca/techrev/rms.htm Mirrored at http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~rslade/rms.htm Linked to bookstore at http://www97.pair.com/robslade/ Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses, 0-387-94663-2 (800-SPRINGER) ------------------------------ From: sjsobol@nstc.com (Steven J. Sobol) Subject: Re: Ameritech's Call-Blocking Service Too Costly, Trade Group Says Date: 4 Feb 1999 00:59:35 GMT Organization: North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.INET Rumor has it that nospam.tonypo@nospam.ultranet.com said > Gaaacckk! $9.50 for CLID/N? It's $4.95 here and I thought Bell Atlantic > was gouging us. I don't think it costs that much in Ohio, though I pay for it as part of a package, so the cost of CID alone isn't broken out on my phone bill. Steven J. Sobol - President, North Shore Technologies Corporation Founding Member & System Admin, The Forum for Responsible & Ethical E-mail www.nstc.com * sjsobol@nstc.com [<>] www.spamfree.org * sjsobol@spamfree.org I offer my services free of charge to people running Sendmail who have open relays and need to close them. E-mail me, or call 888.480.INET (4638) ------------------------------ From: varney@ihgp2.ih.lucent.com (Al Varney) Subject: Re: Ameritech's Call-Blocking Service Too Costly, Trade Group Says Date: 5 Feb 1999 00:22:09 GMT Organization: Lucent Technologies, Naperville, IL Reply-To: varney@lucent.com In article , Ed Ellers wrote: > Tad Cook quoted from an Indianapolis Star story: >> "Beginning today, Ameritech will roll out its new Privacy Manager >> service in three Indiana cities -- Indianapolis, Gary and >> Hammond. While the service costs $3.95 a month, it requires Caller >> ID with Name to work, which costs an extra $9.50 a month. >> "That's too much, says a telemarketing group, arguing that consumers >> can get pretty much the same result by being firm with telemarketers >> and asking to be removed from calling lists." > I have to agree here -- if Privacy Manager presents a voice message to > the called party, there's no reason to require Caller ID (with name or > not) because the Caller ID display unit doesn't enter into the > operation! Privacy Manager presents a voice message to UNIDENTIFIED calling parties, and then (assuming the caller persists) to the called party. Calling Name is used to: 1) show the name/number of most callers or 2) display the fact that the call has been intercepted by CALL MANAGER. I.e., "CALL MANAGER" appears in the calling name display. I think Ameritech was assuming most folks that wanted Privacy Manager ALSO wanted to know who was calling (on all calls, not just those handled by Privacy Manager). Without Calling Name, called party wouldn't know the identity of any IDENTIFIED caller. Is that useful by itself? Alternatively, they could "privacy manage" every incoming call, but that would cost more (more such calls per month) and annoy the mother-in-law. Al Varney - just my opinion ------------------------------ From: Steve Pinkston Subject: Re: T1 Cabling Between Demarc and Equipment Rack Date: 5 Feb 1999 16:14:50 GMT Organization: ADC Kentrox I've been following this discussion of T1 customer premises wiring for some time now, and watching the various responses. With the explosion of T1 deployments in recent years, a lot of people have done installations and their field experiences -- varied as they are -- are evident in the responses. My perspective is a little different. I work in the technical support department of a company that makes T1 CSUs and DSUs. I have spoken to thousands of field installers over the years and have seen just about everything that can go wrong in a T1 installation. I'll try to give you some bottom-line facts and observations. Most of Mel Beckman's observations are quite accurate. If you can only carry one type of cable to use for connecting CPE to CSU and CSU to NIU, use INDIVIDUALLY-SHIELDED TWISTED- PAIR cable. The drain wires of the shields should be grounded at one end only. Cat5 does not qualify because it is not shielded. So, why can you get away with using Cat5 a lot of the time? The unknown variable in the wiring equation is signal level. If two unshielded pairs are in close physical proximity to each other, and the signal levels are significantly different, crosstalk -- that is, the inductive coupling of the stronger signal into the weaker signal -- can occur. In our tests, we have shown that a signal differential of 7.5 dB or greater can cause crosstalk. In T1 applications, this results in BiPolar Violations (BPVs), which will also show up as CRC-6 errors in ESF receivers. The connection from the CPE to the CSU is not usually a problem, since this is limited to 655 feet; there is not enough loss over that distance to cause a crosstalk problem. Cat5 will not usually cause a problem. If the NIU regenerates the inbound signal -- this happens with devices like an HDSL unit, colocated M13 mux or 1/0 DCS -- then you could also use Cat5, unless you are going to extend the demarc a great enough distance that the received signal level at the CSU is -7.5 dBdsx0 or lower. The installations that are toughest are the ones that terminate in a true NIU or "smartjack." Although most NIUs can be optioned to regenerate the T1 signal toward the CPE, this is almost never done, and is often explicitly prohibited by the telco. In an installation like this, the received signal can be as low as -16.0 dBdsx0. If you connect the CSU to the NIU with Cat5 in this situation, you are almost guaranteed to have a BPV problem, and I have seen it happen in as little as 6 feet. To make matters worse, the telco often directs on-site personnel to help them check the line by putting a "hard loop" on the line -- that is, shorting the transmit pair to the receive pair. The passive RJ48X jacks often installed at the end of an extended demarc are usually set up to do this automatically if the RJ48 plug is withdrawn. And -- surprise! -- the line tests GOOD, even though the CSU takes massive BPVs when connected. This happens for two reasons. The most important is that putting the short at the end of the line equalizes the transmit and receive levels. The very mechanism of crosstalk is eliminated temporarily because there is no active driver at the end. The second reason is that the same line state exists on both sides of the the line at the same moment. Ones don't interfere with ones, and zeroes don't interfere with zeroes. I hope I have been clear in this article. If proper cabling were used on all T1 installations, my co-workers and I would take a lot fewer calls, and customers would get their networks into service a lot sooner. A few minor quibbles with Mel Beckman's excellent post: Mel Beckman wrote in article ... > You can carry a single T1 in a Cat-5 (four-pair) cable, up to 50 feet > or so, as long as the other two pairs are not used and not grounded, > or are grounded on only one end. Crosstalk can and does occur in Cat5 runs of 50 feet and less. It all hinges on the signal level. > With D-Screen you can run perhaps 400 feet. Again, signal level is everything. If the telco NIU is a regenerator, like an HDSL CPE unit, you might be able to go 2000 feet or more, depending on the receiver input sensitivity of the CSU. > The Network Interface Unit that the telco provides strips > off the driving current (about 140 volts) that carried the signal to > your office. The current you speak of is the simplex current, which has nothing to do with the T1 signal directly, but is used to power the repeaters in the line, and sometimes the NIU, as well. It used to also be used to power the CSU, but that is rare these days. Steve Pinkston ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 Feb 1999 10:31:01 -0800 From: xr-dude000@paralynx.com (digger) Subject: Re: T1 Cabling Between Demarc and Equipment Rack We've been running 3 t1's on the same cable for more than a year now, with no errors. It comes in on a 100pr 10year (or more) old entrance cable, with payphones, ordinary 1b lines running fax and modem etc. We use seperate 4pr cat5 cables running from the telco demarc to the switch (mitel sx-2000l) because there are also many 100mb ethernet hubs and routers in the same room, but it's been running the campus without a hitch so far - knock wood. Marty cableguy@twu.ca remove 000 from email address to reply ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 18:00:58 -0500 Subject: Re: The Web's Identity Crisis From: Billy Harvey Dr. Joel M. Hoffman writes: > More to the point, you'll need software to transmit the information in > the hardware. How hard will it be for me to spoof that information? > I don't see the point. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think the catch is, the 'average' > user on the internet these days would not know how to spoof the > information. You would, I probably could do it, and many readers > here would figure it out. Pat, What you missed here is that if anyone can do it then everyone can do it. The software would hit the web and be available worldwide before the chip itself was. So what would be the recourse - the typical response by "concerned legislators" would be to make it illegal to have your computer put out false information, even if the individual is trying to protect his privacy. If it *can* be abused, it *will* be abused in the pursuit of profit. There are so many instances of commercial interest taking precedence over privacy that the fight to retain it is probably already well lost. Billy ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #8 **************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Feb 9 14:16:06 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id OAA22530; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 14:16:06 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 14:16:06 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199902091916.OAA22530@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #9 TELECOM Digest Tue, 9 Feb 99 14:16:00 EST Volume 19 : Issue 9 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson It's No Time to Dial 9-1-1 (Monty Solomon) Public Service Commission May Alter Sarasota FL Area Code (Tad Cook) Telecom Update (Canada) #169, February 8, 1999 (Angus TeleManagement) Telecom Operations Testing (Michael Young) Re: Bell Canada Replaces Operators With U.S. Based Excell (Louis Raphael) Switchmode Power Supplies - Consultants (mmcintyr@swichtec.co.nz) History of Telco Mergers? (Erik Rauch) 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: 415-520-9905 ** 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, 8 Feb 1999 14:13:20 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: It's No Time to Dial 9-1-1 By Ronald Rosenberg It's open season on Bell Atlantic Corp. For years after the Baby Bells were spun off from AT&T Corp. in 1984, Bell Atlantic lumbered along, wielding its monopoly power over local phone service. A whiff of competition began after passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which called for the Bell companies to open their local markets to rivals. Now, New York-based Bell Atlantic is under assault on seemingly all fronts - ranging from local calling and long-distance service to wireless communications and Internet access. In Massachusetts alone, Bell Atlantic faces 87 rivals. Four years ago, Nynex Corp., the former New England phone company that Bell Atlantic acquired in 1997, had just four competitors. ''This is a real transition year for Bell Atlantic,'' said Fred Voit, an analyst at The Yankee Group, the Boston market research and consulting firm. ''They're losing business customers to competitors, face some significant rivals for the first time in the residential market, and they need to get into long-distance services.'' Bell Atlantic's chief executive, 52-year-old Ivan G. Seidenberg, who joined the company in New York out of high school and rose from a cable splicer's assistant, maintains that the nation's largest regional phone carrier is prepared for the competitive assault arising from regulatory and technological changes sweeping the industry. ''We are seeing the telecommunications industry transition itself away from large regional players to a handful of stronger global players, and we want to be one of them,'' said Seidenberg, in a recent interview. Indeed, the company is taking significant steps to transform itself beyond a humdrum provider of local phone service in 13 East Coast states. Its immediate goal is to expand into long-distance service, initially in New York State. Like other Baby Bells, it is barred by the 1996 telecom act from entering the long-distance market until it proves to regulators it has opened up its local market. Meanwhile, Bell Atlantic also faces hurdles in gaining regulatory approval for its $52.9 billion proposed acquisition of GTE Corp., which would help give it a nationwide presence in local, long-distance, and wireless communications plus a wholesale Internet business. Still, rivals are closing in from many directions. Long-distance providers, most notably AT&T, are pressing to get into local calling. Cable television service providers, which have started to offer phone service over cable wires, represent a huge new threat to the Baby Bells. Increasing numbers of wireless carriers, both national and regional, are going after Bell Atlantic's customers. New independent carriers are offering high-speed Internet access. Just last week, several competitors announced initiatives that turned up the heat on Bell Atlantic. Suddenly Bell Atlantic's customers have more choices than ever before, which promises to bring lower prices and improved service. With all-out competition materializing this year, Bell Atlantic finds itself slugging it out on numerous battlefields: Local calling: Starting April 20, some residential Bell Atlantic customers in Massachusetts will begin to see competition for toll calls. Callers who dial 1+ any of the four Greater Boston area codes (617, 508, 978, and 781) will be able to choose an alternative - such as AT&T and MCI WorldCom - the way they pick a long-distance provider now. In some Boston suburbs, Bell Atlantic already faces another competitor: MediaOne Group, the state's largest cable TV service provider, whose coaxial cables can provide digital local phone service. Targeting consumers who make many local calls, MediaOne offers a flat-rate service in 27 Mass. communities for $26.95 per month. Just last week MediaOne obtained Time Warner's Bay State cable system in a swap that will give MediaOne over one million customers - 59 percent of the state's cable TV market - who are all potential local telephone customers. MediaOne is not alone. Also last week, AT&T, in a bold effort to challenge the Baby Bells in providing local residential phone service, cut a deal to offer phone service over Time Warner's cable lines in much of the country. That venture came on top of ATT's pending purchase of Tele-Communications Inc., the nation's number two cable television provider. AT&T already provides large businesses in New York and Boston with local telephone service through its subsidiary, Teleport Communications Group. Other Bell companies are looking to lock horns with Bell Atlantic on local service. SBC Communications, San Antonio-based Bell company, said last week it plans to enter the Boston market late this year or early next, initially for business customers. It would mark the first time a Baby Bell is invading the territory of another Bell company for local or long-distance services. In yet another assault on Bell Atlantic's local calling market, MCI WorldCom last week began offering residential service in New York State, at a 5 percent discount to Bell Atlantic rates or in flat-rate monthly packages. MCI WorldCom, the nation's second-largest long distance company, is leasing lines from Bell Atlantic. Long distance: With long distance considered the brass ring for nearly all regional Bell companies, Bell Atlantic's primary objective this year is to offer long-distance service in New York State - the single largest source in the United States for domestic and international calls. But it faces high hurdles in proving to federal and state regulators that it can meet the telecom act's requirement of freeing up local markets before being allowed to enter long distance. Bell Atlantic expects to complete federal and state requirements by the end of this month and clear all hurdles by the summer or early fall, according to Seidenberg. Already several other regional Bells, such as Ameritech, have tried and failed to gain regulatory approval to offer long-distance service. But many analysts maintain Bell Atlantic could become the first long-distance Bell company. ''I still have a rosy expectation of how it will all come out,'' said Seidenberg. He bristles at the more than 600 pages of requirements needed to prove that Bell Atlantic has the technology to switch customers who may want an alternative local phone carrier. ''In the last few years, we have not been permitted to have the kind of growth strategies that our competitors have because of government policies,'' he added, calling the requirements an ''anachronism.'' Massachusetts and Pennsylvania would follow New York as the next states where Bell Atlantic plans to offer long distance. The company says it seeks to apply in both states by year-end. Wireless: Although Bell Atlantic's overall revenue last year grew only 3 percent to $31.6 billion, its wireless business soared 25 percent. That success came despite competition from five wireless competitors in Greater Boston alone. Still, Bell Atlantic saw customer erosion as AT&T and Sprint PCS offered single-rate calling plans to business and residential customers that eliminated separate long-distance and roaming charges. Bell Atlantic responded with a similar plan last year. And while the pending merger with GTE will significantly expand its wireless operations to as far as California, Bell Atlantic was unsuccessful in its bid to acquire AirTouch Communications Corp., the nation's largest independent cellular telephone company. Bell Atlantic was outbid by Vodaphone Group PLC of Great Britain. The combination of GTE and AirTouch would have given Bell Atlantic wireless coverage in 44 states and enabled it to better compete against AT&T Wireless and Sprint PCS, which have coast-to-coast networks. Seidenberg said the loss of AirTouch was a ''missed opportunity, but not a critical loss,'' adding that the Bell Atlantic-GTE combination creates a large national wireless company nonetheless. Internet access: Later this month, Bell Atlantic plans to begin competing against MediaOne, RCN Corp., and other area cable TV service providers with Infospeed, a high-speed Internet service that uses the ubiquitous telephone wire. The new service, which will cost up to $99.95 per month compared to $50 per month or less for cable modem service, is expected to appeal to residential customers in Boston and communities not served by MediaOne or RCN. Some small- and medium-sized businesses are turning to other companies that offer the same high-speed Internet service over phone lines. These Internet service providers, such as Northpoint Communications Inc., say they can undercut Bell Atlantic's prices for high-speed telephone lines leased by businesses for Internet access. But some analysts believe it's the cable companies that have the upper hand in assembling a bundle of services that include Internet access, TV, and local dialing. But don't count the Baby Bells out. William P. Bane, a telecommunications analyst at Mercer Management Consulting, said Bell Atlantic is better positioned than the other Bells for the competitive new era. ''For Bell Atlantic this is the Olympics, where the best of the best are in the stadium,'' Bane said. ------------------------------ Subject: Public Service Commission May Alter Sarasota FL Area Code Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 00:30:05 -PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) By Phil Levine, The Bradenton Herald, Fla. Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News Feb. 6--SARASOTA, Fla.--In the regional battle over proposed changes to the 941 area code, all's quiet on the northern front. However, at a Public Service Commission hearing held Friday at Sarasota City Hall, battle lines were being drawn along the southern vanguard of Sarasota County. The proposal under consideration at the hearing would maintain the 941 exchange in Manatee, Sarasota and Polk counties. However, the proposed split would mean that residents of Englewood -- a town divided between Sarasota and Charlotte counties -- will be faced with two local area codes; and the rest of Charlotte and seven other counties would have a new area code. In an interview after the hearing, commission representative Ann Shelfer confirmed that the "permissive" first phase of splitting the current 941 area code will begin next month. This phase would allow callers in the affected region to use either 941 or the new, as yet unnamed area code. The mandatory final change is scheduled for September. The last change to the region's area code occurred in 1995, when 941 was introduced to Manatee, Sarasota and 11 other counties stretching south to Monroe County. At the time, officials didn't foresee a need to make further changes before the year 2012. However, growth in the use of cellular phones, pagers and other telecommunications devices has changed that timetable. During Friday's hearing, which drew about 25 people, few Manatee County voices were heard. One of the voices in attendance belonged to Roger Hill. As ranch manager at the Schroeder-Manatee Ranch -- home to the massive Lakewood Ranch development in East Manatee County -- Hill expressed satisfaction with the plan's intention to retain the 941 area code for both counties. However, vocal opposition from Englewood residents at the hearing caused Hill some concern. "I assume from the small Manatee turnout today that most people are confident the plan will succeed," he said. "I only hope their confidence is justified. As of now, it's in the hands of bureaucrats." Manatee Chamber of Commerce representative Rick Brown echoed Hill's appreciation of the plan and "reiterated our support for maintaining the area code in Manatee and Sarasota counties." Business owners and residents of Englewood were less than laudatory in their review of the plan. Linda Pierce, executive director of Englewood's Chamber of Commerce, adamantly opposed the plan. "On behalf of the 600 businesses our chamber represents," she said, "I implore you to reconsider the decision to split our area into two codes." Several other Englewood residents echoed those sentiments. Charlotte County business owner Lynn Flatt warned Public Service Commission members that the proposed split would have "an extreme effect" on area businesses. Speaking on behalf the commission, attorney Julie McKinney said those concerns would be expressed to commission board members and they would be addressed "if it's possible to do so." The commission, which has regulatory oversight, is sponsoring a series of public hearings before deciding on a final plan of action. To comment on the area code proposal, contact the Public Service Commission at 1-850-413-6236, send a fax to 1-850-413-6250, or write to 2540 Shumard Oak Blvd., Tallahassee, Fla. 32399. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 11:06:58 -0500 From: Angus TeleManagement Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #169, February 8, 1999 ************************************************************ * * * TELECOM UPDATE * * Angus TeleManagement's Weekly Telecom Newsbulletin * * http://www.angustel.ca * * Number 169: February 8, 1999 * * * * Publication of Telecom Update is made possible by * * generous financial support from: * * * * AT&T Canada ............... http://www.attcanada.com/ * * Bell Canada ............... http://www.bell.ca/ * * Lucent Technologies ....... http://www.lucent.ca/ * * MetroNet Communications ... http://www.metronet.ca/ * * Sprint Canada ............. http://www.sprintcanada.ca/ * * Telus Communications....... http://www.telus.com/ * * TigerTel Services ......... http://www.citydial.com/ * * * ************************************************************ IN THIS ISSUE: ** Sprint Launches Local Service in Calgary ** MetroNet Buys Starcom's Fiber ** Bell and Shaw Protest Exclusion From Developer's Trenches ** Internet Providers Slam Bell Offer ** U.S. Carrier Plans Fiber Through Canada ** Strike Looms at Bell Canada ** LNP Extended to Additional Cities ** SaskTel Allies With Netscape ** AlphaNet Goes Bankrupt ** Review of Policy Freezing Contribution Rates ** Excel Enters Canadian LD Market ** Cantel Cuts Overseas Rates ** BCI Raises $350 Million ** New Name for Tele-Direct ** MT&T Invests in Automated Customer Service ** NS Power Allies With Williams ** Bell, Cenosis Extend Digital Transport Test ** AT&T Canada Registers as CLEC ** AT&T (U.S.) Allies With Time Warner ** Paytel Signs Equess for Payphone LD ** Financial Reports Telus Rogers Cantel MTS MT&T Island Telecom ** How Are Telecom Carriers Coping With Y2K? ============================================================ SPRINT LAUNCHES LOCAL SERVICE IN CALGARY: On February 4, Sprint Canada launched local telephone service to residential and business customers in Calgary and said it will expand to Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal later this year. Business rates are 14% below Telus. Residential customers who also use Sprint's Internet or LD services will save 10% on local rates. ** Blowing our own horn: Two months ago, Telecom Update #161 reported that Sprint would offer local service in Calgary in February. METRONET BUYS STARCOM'S FIBER: MetroNet Communications has purchased 48 fiber optic strands between Vancouver and Seattle, and related electronics, for $24 Million. The fiber was owned by Starcom Service Corp, now in receivership. MetroNet has hired key Starcom technical employees. ** As part of the deal, MetroNet sold 20-year indefeasible rights of use to PSINet (20 strands), Teleglobe (2), and BC Telecom (2). BELL AND SHAW PROTEST EXCLUSION FROM DEVELOPER'S TRENCHES: Metrus Properties has told Bell Canada and Shaw Cablesystems that Futureway Communications, a recent CLEC registrant, will have exclusive access to common utility trenches in a new subdivision in Richmond Hill, Ontario. Bell and Shaw have asked the CRTC to intervene. http://www.crtc.gc.ca:80/eng/proc_rep/telecom/1999/8690/b2-01.htm INTERNET PROVIDERS SLAM BELL OFFER: The Canadian Association of Internet Providers says Bell Nexxia has made a proposal to resolve the dispute over ADSL Internet access. CAIP President Ron Kawchuk said the plan, which would reduce the cost to ISPs from $200 to $35 per customer per month, is overpriced and dependent on a technology which doesn't yet exist. U.S. CARRIER PLANS FIBER THROUGH CANADA: Level 3 Communications, a U.S. carrier which is building a network based on Internet Protocol technology, plans to install fiber from Albany to Buffalo via Montreal. Level 3 says this will provide diverse routing for its U.S. network and "allow Level 3's future entry into the Canadian market." ** Worldwide Fiber Inc, which is building Level 3's Montreal-Buffalo route, recently completed an undersea fiber link between Vancouver and Seattle. STRIKE LOOMS AT BELL CANADA: Bell Canada's operators and technicians could be on strike by the end of February. Conciliation talks between Bell and the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union broke down on February 4. LNP EXTENDED TO ADDITIONAL CITIES: On February 1, Local Number Portability in Calgary expanded to include the Airdrie, Cochrane, High River, and Okotoks exchanges. LNP is also now available in Winnipeg and Quebec City, and will be activated in Richmond, BC, on March 1. SASKTEL ALLIES WITH NETSCAPE: SaskTel has signed a three- year agreement with Netscape Communications, giving it access to Netscape's enterprise software and help in offering e-commerce and Internet applications. ALPHANET GOES BANKRUPT: Toronto-based AlphaNet Telecom Inc. has filed an assignment in bankruptcy. The company has sold its hospitality business unit, but was unable to obtain financing or a buyer for its overseas long distance business. AlphaNet's directors have resigned and PricewaterhouseCoopers has been appointed Trustee. REVIEW OF POLICY FREEZING CONTRIBUTION RATES: CRTC Public Notice 99-5 seeks comment on whether contribution revenues, driven by expansion in long distance traffic, have grown faster than could have been expected in early 1998 when fees were frozen, and if so what remedies are appropriate. To participate, notify the Commission by March 12. http://www.crtc.gc.ca:80/internet/1999/8045/03/pn99-05.htm EXCEL ENTERS CANADIAN LD MARKET: Excel Canada says it will launch residential LD service across the country on March 1, and may introduce Internet service and small business LD by year end. The multi-level marketing company, a subsidiary of Teleglobe, begins recruitment of independent representatives and customers today. CANTEL CUTS OVERSEAS RATES: Rogers Cantel has reduced overseas rates of its standard calling plans and established overseas rates for its prepaid plan. Sample postpaid/prepaid rates: UK 23 cents/75 cents; France 40 cents/75 cents; Japan 63 cents/$1. ** Cantel has added Amway and 7-Eleven stores to its distribution channels. BCI RAISES $350 MILLION: Nortel Networks will invest $150 Million in Bell Canada International convertible bonds in a deal that includes "equipment sales opportunities." In a related agreement, BCI will raise $200 Million from a separate bond issue. NEW NAME FOR TELE-DIRECT: Bell Canada's directory publishing arm, Tele-Direct, has been renamed Bell ActiMedia. MT&T INVESTS IN AUTOMATED CUSTOMER SERVICE: MT&T has taken a stake in Neuromedia, a California-based maker of "Virtual Service Representatives" that answer customer queries by text and pictures delivered via the Web. NS POWER ALLIES WITH WILLIAMS: Nova Scotia Power and Tulsa- based energy/telecom giant Williams have agreed to share information and "explore potential joint energy and telecommunications opportunities." BELL, CENOSIS EXTEND DIGITAL TRANSPORT TEST: Bell Canada and Montreal-based Cenosis Inc. are expanding their trial of a new digital data transport service for the graphics arts industry to 24 sites from four. The service uses a central server to facilitate exchange of very large files. AT&T CANADA REGISTERS AS CLEC: AT&T Canada has filed with the CRTC to become a Competitive Local Exchange Carrier and says it will offer business local service in up to seven urban centers later this year. AT&T (U.S.) ALLIES WITH TIME WARNER: AT&T Corp. is forming a joint venture with Time Warner to supply local phone service over Time Warner's cable systems in 33 states. AT&T aims to offer local service within five years to 40% of U.S. households through cable company facilities. PAYTEL SIGNS EQUESS FOR PAYPHONE LD: Paytel Canada, which hopes to install 10,000 competitive payphones this year, has signed Calgary-based Equess Communications to provide long distance. FINANCIAL REPORTS: The following results are for the fourth quarter: ** Telus reports profits of $59.5 Million, up from $35 Million last year. Revenue increased 1% to $696 Million; long distance revenue fell 11%. ** Rogers Cantel's net loss was $33 Million. Revenue was $324 Million, down 6% on the year but up 3% on the quarter. Rogers Communications' overall loss (excluding one-time items) was $55 Million, unchanged from last year. ** MTS recorded net income of $24 Million, up 13% from last year. Revenue was $163 Million, a 3% increase. ** MT&T's net income was $17 Million, up from $9.1 Million last year. Revenue increased 7% to $185 Million. ** Island Telecom reports net earnings of $2.8 Million, a 65% increase over last year. Revenue grew 2%. HOW ARE TELECOM CARRIERS COPING WITH Y2K? In the February issue of Telemanagement, representatives of four major telecom carriers weigh the hazard to their networks posed by the millennium bug and explain what they've done to cope with it. ** In the same issue, Henry Dortmans explains how telecom managers can go beyond "fire fighting" and draw up an action list for planned telecom improvements. ** To subscribe to Telemanagement, call 1-800-263-4415, ext 225, or visit http://www.angustel.ca/teleman/tm.html. ============================================================ HOW TO SUBMIT ITEMS FOR TELECOM UPDATE E-MAIL: editors@angustel.ca FAX: 905-686-2655 MAIL: TELECOM UPDATE Angus TeleManagement Group 8 Old Kingston Road Ajax, Ontario Canada L1T 2Z7 =========================================================== HOW TO SUBSCRIBE (OR UNSUBSCRIBE) TELECOM UPDATE is provided in electronic form only. There are two formats available: 1. The fully-formatted edition is posted on the World Wide Web on the first business day of the week at http://www.angustel.ca/update/up.html 2. The e-mail edition is distributed free of charge. To subscribe, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should contain only the two words: subscribe update To stop receiving the e-mail edition, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should say only: unsubscribe update [Your e-mail address] =========================================================== COPYRIGHT AND DISCLAIMER: All contents copyright 1999 Angus TeleManagement Group Inc. All rights reserved. For further information, including permission to reprint or reproduce, please e-mail rosita@angustel.ca or phone 905-686-5050 ext 225. The information and data included has been obtained from sources which we believe to be reliable, but Angus TeleManagement makes no warranties or representations whatsoever regarding accuracy, completeness, or adequacy. Opinions expressed are based on interpretation of available information, and are subject to change. If expert advice on the subject matter is required, the services of a competent professional should be obtained. ------------------------------ From: Michael Young Subject: Telecom Operations Testing Date: Mon, 08 Feb 1999 14:31:01 -0500 Organization: Bell Canada / Bell Nexxia I'm part of a group in Bell Canada's IS/IT department that tests the methods and procedures for the operational processes around a service. For a telco that's the business offices, sales channels, phone centres, repair desks (first level, and subsequent test desks), network maintenance, billing, customer enabling, and any links to third party maintenance. The service has usually gone through technical and/or field trial, with a limited group of user, but these processes are handled internally at that stage by the development team. However, before a full scale launch to REAL customers, it's imperative to ensure that all groups have documented,tested procedures to follow. This usually involves what we call an Operational Readiness Test -we select test users, and key people in each operational area, and run actual orders, troubles, and billing records through the system - end to end. This is done for almost all our projects (depending on size) and is clearly seen as a benefit both from the marketing group - looking for a smooth introduction with satisfied customers, and by the actual line groups - looking for a product they can easily support. I'm curious how involved other telcos are in this, and would like to exchange test philosophies and successes, nothing confidential/restric- ted of course. If this isn't your area, would you pass this on within your organization? Thanks, Michael Young IS/IT QA & Implementation Bell Canada ------------------------------ From: Louis Raphael Subject: Re: Bell Canada Replaces Operators With U.S. Based Excell Date: 7 Feb 1999 09:21:45 GMT Organization: Societe pour la promotion du petoncle vert Mark J Cuccia wrote: > Bell Canada's Operator Services are **NOT** going to be 'relocated' to > Excell Agency's Arizona (USA) HQ's! [Fortunately] it would be almost imposible for them to do this, because getting French-speaking operators in Arizona would be expensive at the very best. That being said, I'm sure that service will suffer greatly - currently, the Bell Operators are simply amazing, and I can't see anything run/operated by "Excell" even beginning to match what these people can do. This truly is a great shame and my heart goes out not only to the operators, but to the tradition of a bygone era of truly outstanding service that they represent. > These contract directory companies (including Excell) are HORRIBLY out > of date in their directory listings, and have all other kinds of > erroneous or missing information. If one needs real local telco > directory, some long distance carriers (LCI/Qwest still does at this > time) still route to the real LEC directory operator of the dialed > area code. I am _NOT_ going to use these contract companies, first > paying for a directory call and only getting bogus information, and > then paying toll to use that bogus info?! That's rather unpalatable, considering that the information is actually out there and available. Plus, even if the information were up to date, a local operator would still be much better, because they're able to handle a query like "I'm looking for a Mr. Albert Green, somewhere in the eastern part of downtown ..." (having a fix on the streets would likely narrow that down to only one or two possibilities). Louis ------------------------------ From: mmcintyr@swichtec.co.nz Subject: Switchmode Power Supplies - consultants Date: Mon, 08 Feb 1999 22:33:51 GMT Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Fellow toilers: I would be grateful if some(any)one would advise the name(s) of reputable/recognized/better known consultants/analysts in the marketing/engineering aspects of switchmode power supplies (DC power) for the telecommunications industry. I realize this sounds a little vague but I'm feeling my way at present. Thank you, Myles McIntyre mmcintyr@swichtec.co.nz ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 18:34:42 EST From: Erik Rauch Reply-To: Erik Rauch Subject: History of Telco Mergers? Does anyone have a concise history of mergers of the various phone companies over the years? It would be interesting to compare the current spate of mergers with the ones from the late 19th/early 20th centuries that led to the formation of the AT&T monopoly. Erik Rauch Room 434, 545 Tech. Square rauch@mit.edu Cambridge, MA 02139 617-253-8576 http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/~rauch ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #9 **************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Feb 9 17:10:33 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id RAA03421; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 17:10:33 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 17:10:33 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199902092210.RAA03421@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #10 TELECOM Digest Tue, 9 Feb 99 17:10:00 EST Volume 19 : Issue 10 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Year 2000 Glitch Meets People Problem: Possible Panic (Monty Solomon) Re: T-1 Cabling Between Demarc and Equipment Rack (Mel Beckman) Bad Email From MCI (James Bellaire) "Real" Telecommunication (John Kristoff) Terminal Emulation - Wyse, TI (Diller Ryan) Required: VOX File Player For DOS! (Peter Thomas) Winzip32.exe Missing From Computer (Trojanella Carter) What is a Prepaid Calling Card (David Vuong) Re: What Has Happened to AT&T/NOS Nightmare (Adam H. Kerman) M1 Tech Wages (Dan J. Rudiak) Advanced TSAPI/CSTA Development Help Urgently Needed (Anthony Uliano) Re: 609 in New Jersey to Split (Linc Madison) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 415-520-9905 ** 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, 9 Feb 1999 11:09:25 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Year 2000 Glitch Meets People Problem: Possible Panic http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/02/biztech/articles/09panic.html By BARNABY J. FEDER LOS ANGELES -- The early fears about the Year 2000 computer problem featured all sorts of machines driven haywire by their inability to read dates in the new year: computer networks that control power, water and phone systems freeze; railroads, airlines and trucks are idled as dispatch and traffic safety systems crash, and the financial universe, from stock markets to payroll systems to automated teller machines, goes on the blink. Jeff T. Green for The New York Times Larry Shook and his wife, Judy Laddon, of Spokane, Wash., stock their shelves in preparation for Year 2000 computer problems. That was before tens of billions of dollars were spent on computer repairs and upgrades. Now, a chorus of regulators, Year 2000 project managers and other authorities warn that Americans fearing the worst may end up inflicting more serious damage on themselves, their neighbors and the economy than anything the computers do. Planning experts say those scenarios could include bank runs, hoarding of food and gasoline, fires caused by misuse of newly acquired wood stoves and generators, and a rise in gun violence stemming from the surge in firearm sales to those fearing civil unrest. "As it becomes clear our national infrastructure will hold, overreaction becomes one of the biggest remaining problems," said John Koskinen, chairman of the President's Commission on Year 2000 Conversion. The challenge is to keep the computer repair work going and prudent preparations for disruptions on track while calming the most nervous citizens. While surveys show most Americans do not expect their lives to be severely disrupted, a significant minority say they are planning big investments of time or money to protect themselves. And the American Red Cross advises the public, as a precaution, to have enough food and other staples on hand to endure disruptions of several days to a week. At a meeting here today, the Year 2000 project committee of the National Retail Federation, endorsing the Red Cross recommendation, called for retailers and manufacturers to develop campaigns aimed at getting consumers to stock up gradually rather than trying to do so in the last few days of 1999. But the group declined to provide any examples of the kind of supplies it thought citizens should stock, fearing that being so specific would be too alarming. "Nobody wins if the public freaks out," said Cathy Hotka, the information technology specialist at the federation, a Washington trade group that includes virtually every major retailing company and trade association except Wal-Mart, the nation's largest retailer. "If the public reacts badly, you could take a potentially minor situation and make it a nightmare." Surveys show that almost half the nation's local governments have not started on Year 2000 repairs. Some sectors, like the banking industry, began addressing public fears months ago. The Federal Reserve, which supplies cash to the banking system, took the lead by announcing its intention to print $50 billion in extra currency -- lifting the total in circulation to $200 billion -- to assure consumers that banks will have plenty of paper for those who want to have extra cash on hand before the end of the year. Individual banks and industry associations have sponsored a wide variety of advertising suggesting that shifting money to the mattress leaves customers wide open to losing it to theft, fires and scam artists, not to mention the temptation to fritter it away on unnecessary luxuries. Some symbolic gestures have already been announced as well. Jane F. Garvey, head of the Federal Aviation Administration, has promised to be flying on New Year's Eve as a show of faith in the air traffic control system. British Airways announced that nearly all of its senior executives would also be aloft. Surveys show that almost half the nation's local governments have not started on Year 2000 repairs and contingency planning and that many small businesses lag just as badly. Multinational companies are bracing for disruptions in Russia and a number of Asian countries where Year 2000 work has been a low priority. Where the work has been done, at home or abroad, testing remains crucial because experience shows that computer system repairs inevitably introduce unanticipated glitches. Thus, President Clinton's only Year 2000 remarks in his State of the Union address homed in on the need to keep working to reduce the risks. Koskinen says complacency is still at least as big a concern as overreaction. "For some people, a certain amount of panic would help," Koskinen said. Pogo's Revenge Remembered The growing questions about behavior management highlight a paradox that computer programmers were among the first to realize: The Year 2000 computer problem, also known as the Millennium Bug and Y2K, probably should have been called something like the Pogo Syndrome after the old comic strip that observed "We have met the enemy and he is us." After all, humans seeded the Year 2000 problem into the technology landscape by using just two digits in programming dates, such as 99 for 1999, to save expensive memory in the 1960's and 1970's. Early on, computer workers began warning that some machines and software would malfunction because they would read 00 as 1900 instead of 2000 or as no date at all. But all too human foibles like sloth, greed and unfounded optimism that someone else -- or new intelligent machines -- would take care of the Year 2000 problem allowed it to grow into an expensive, potentially deadly global challenge. Now, as the race to minimize the machine risks enters its last months, the Year 2000 glitch may test people's trust in one another as much as the reliability of their machines. Do they believe that the repair work has been sound and that most of what is left to be done will be finished? Will workers have the skills and dedication to overcome whatever computer malfunctions do occur? Will citizens be neighborly, rather than selfish? Will political and business leaders step in effectively at the right moments? A tiny minority is already investing heavily in the belief that the answer to these questions is mostly no. Year 2000 alarmists, religious groups that see the computer problem as a pre-ordained divine punishment and survivalists fleeing for rural fortresses are producing measurable bounces in the sale of dehydrated foods, wood-burning stoves, home power generators and other goods at the fringes of the normal economy. Getting a Leg Up on Survivalists More telling though is the number of Americans saying they are considering moves that would clearly be unnecessary if the nation's computer networks end up being as reliable as regulators and industry leaders are projecting. Polls show that around 10 percent of citizens expect to withdraw most or all of their money from banks. A Gallup poll in December found that 17 percent expected to buy either a generator or a wood stove. YEAR 2000 CHECKLIST Efforts to prepare the public for possible disruptions from Year 2000 computer problems involve a delicate balance between encouraging prudence and preventing panic. Here are some of the steps that the American Red Cross is recommending: Check with makers of computer-controlled electronic equipment to see if the devices may be affected: alarm systems, thermostats, appliances, garage door openers, electronic locks and other equipment that might be controlled by an embedded computer chip. Stock disaster supplies to last several days to a week: nonperishable foods, stored water, and an ample supply of medications that you regularly use. As you would in preparing for a storm, have some extra cash or traveler's checks on hand in case transactions involving A.T.M. cards or credit cards cannot be processed. Withdraw money from your bank in small amounts well before Dec. 31. In case the power fails, plan to use alternative cooking devices. Have extra blankets, coats, hats and gloves to keep warm. Do not plan to use gas-fueled appliances, like an oven, to keep warm. Be prepared to relocate to a shelter for warmth and protection during a prolonged power outage or if local officials request or require that you leave your home for any other reason. Have plenty of flashlights and extra batteries on hand. As you would in preparation for a winter storm, keep your car's gas tank above half full. "It's reasonable to assume the population will get very nervous," said Douglass Carmichael, a Washington-based consultant who lectures community groups that public information on Year 2000 progress is too unreliable to justify putting off building substantial food stockpiles and other "safety nets." Dealing with mass nervousness is more art than science. Consultants and Government officials preach that the best way to calm nerves is to make sure that customers and consumers are inundated with the details of the work being done to reduce risks. And many of those organizing on the community level agree. "Statements have to be out there for people to jump on and research," said Margo King, one of a group of organizers who have helped make Boulder, Colo., a pacesetter in local preparedness planning. But John Steiner, Ms. King's husband and fellow organizer, adds that even with more information, many people will retain doubts that could prime them for panic. "On Vietnam, we listened to the people in charge for a long time and everything was going well, and then it wasn't," Steiner said. "The question is what is appropriate contingency planning if things don't turn out as we hope." While those like Steiner and Ms. King crave more details about repairs, most people are apparently not concerned enough to listen. Chase Manhattan Bank officials say consumer fears about the banking system leveled off at about 25 percent in the bank's monthly surveys in the last half of 1998, convincing them that it was too soon to publish extensive information about its Year 2000 work -- lest it be interpreted as an ominous sign rather than reassurance. One way to head off nervousness may be to encourage those most likely to be worried later this year to go ahead and acquire now the supplies that would make them comfortable. "There's sufficient information for people to say there's a substantial risk of disruption," said Charles Halpern, president of the Nathan E. Cummings Foundation, a New York-based foundation that has been providing funds for community preparedness efforts and lobbying other foundations to get involved in Year 2000 work. Halpern wants leaders from President Clinton on down to talk more often and more forcefully about Year 2000 risks. "Overreaction now is so much preferable to overreaction in November that it's a risk worth running," Halpern said. "People who want to lay in supplies of canned vegetables can do it now without disrupting anything." Community Groups Lead the Charge The drumbeat for early, locally based preparation to minimize risks and head off panic is coming from community groups, many of which have gone far beyond advocating stockpiling of necessities. Some suggestions have been ignored, as when Year 2000 organizers in Spokane, Wash., called for a "practice" day last month on which families were to do without such basics as electricity and running water to learn more about what they need to cope with worst-case scenarios. "I think we were the only people who did it," one of the Spokane organizers, Larry Shook, said of himself and his wife, Judy Laddon. Even other members of the organizing group ended up deciding they were "too busy," he said. But such organizers have been building links to local officials in some communities that could lead to broad preparedness efforts. Shook has been hired by Global Action Plan of Woodstock, N.Y., a nonprofit consultant to cities and towns on environmental and social issues, to write a manual on how cities can help citizens prepare for two-day, two-week and two-month disruptions. The manual, which is financed by the Cummings Foundation, is being developed in cooperation with the City of Portland, Ore., which hopes to distribute it to all the city's households this spring. It will also be available on the World Wide Web. Federal authorities are cautiously encouraging community groups like those in Spokane and Boulder, although they fear some of them may end up creating more alarm than preparation. Many have become distribution channels for planning materials such as those developed by the Red Cross and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which expects to publish by the end of this month new advice tailored to the Year 2000 problem rather than to natural disasters. "People ultimately have a lot of common sense, so the real goal is to give them all the information we have," Koskinen said. Copyright 1999 The New York Times Company ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 00:13:37 -0800 From: Mel Beckman Subject: Re: T-1 Cabling Between Demarc and Equipment Rack On 5 Feb 1999 16:14:50 GMT, Steve Pinkston said: >> The Network Interface Unit that the telco provides strips >> off the driving current (about 140 volts) that carried the signal to >> your office. > The current you speak of is the simplex current, which has nothing > to do with the T1 signal directly, but is used to power the repeaters > in the line, and sometimes the NIU, as well. It used to also be used > to power the CSU, but that is rare these days. It's fantastic to have a Kentrox person with Steve's background contributing! There is so much black magic in T1 installation that you can never have too much good advice. When Steve talked about the equalization of a hard loop on the end of an extended demarc, I slapped my forehead. Dang! This is just the sort of test I do all the time, and I've seen the weird behavior Steve describes (errors disappearing) but could never understand it. That one tip is worth a free lunch! ;) Regarding the 140v phantom power, Steve is, of course, correct. My explanation was poorly worded. What I meant was that the repeaters in the span use the 140V phantom power to regenerate and re-drive the signal, but that the NIU, which may use this power to energize it's circuitry, doesn't regen the signal on true T1s. HDSL is a different animal, since the two-wire HDSL encoding must be converted to ordinary T1 encoding, which requires regeneration. However, even in HDSL NIUs I find that the signal level is much lower than the output of a repeater. (There are 4-wire HDSL circuits, which usually serve a shelf of four NIUs, and in that case I'm pretty sure that the HDSL NIU doesn't have enough available power to drive four full T1s). One last tidbit: the 140V phantom power on the wires leading to the NIU can zap you (and at 140 mA, it's enough to kill you). That's why hicaps have red insulated bridge clips -- they're warning you to stay clear. Mel Beckman ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1999 09:32:55 -0500 From: James Bellaire Subject: Bad Email from MCI It looks like MCI has decided to break privacy as well. I just received an announcement from them about some change in their website, with 21 addresses on the TO line instead of using the BCC line. The email was sent from and contains the note: ****************************************************************** NOTE: Responses to this e-mail will not be answered. Please send inquiries via www.mci.com/service ****************************************************************** At least there were only 20 other customers on the TO line - this could have been worse. James [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But there were actually many such 'clusters' with 20-21 names on each. So your group of 21 knows about each other, the next group of 21 knows about each other, etc. Actually, I would not be too harsh on them; their problem is more one of ignorance than malicious intent. I get messages like that a lot, where everyone is loaded into the 'to:' line and you have to page through screen after screen of names before you get to the real intent of the email. They simply do not understand or know any better. In this Digest, readers via the mailing list will note that the Digest is 'mailed' to one person only: my name is in the 'to:' line; everyone else is in the 'bcc:' line. What I actually do is mail it to myself and the bcc: is to an alias which when it is triggered tells sendmail to :include: a carefully concealed script in a directory of mine at a site somewhere which has a few thousand email addresses in it. The stream comes along, looks in one of my directories and is told where to go look for the file in question. Don't get any smart ideas; the delivery of the stream is to a file of mine which is only read/writeable by user and group not by others. I am the user and the group consists of me, a couple aliases for Digest administration purposes and 'nobody', which is sendmail's name in case you did not know it. You did not think sendmail runs as root around here did you? It gets this file and sits there plodding along loading the lines of that file (an email address per line) until it gets through. Then it looks at me as a 'trusted user' (in unix/sendmail parlance) and allows me to set -f so the mailing actually appears to come from 'editor@telecom-digest.org'. The whole thing is then dropped in the mailq and off it goes. All the above is an automated script of course; I don't actually sit here and do these steps one by one. I just use the techniques any professional and effecient spammer would use. But I get mail from users at AO-Hell where I swear, the guy must have sat there all afternoon typing all the names in one after another in the 'to' line. And several years ago, I remember having problems with MCI Mail and this Digest of the very same nature as Jim describes in his note: I have a couple hundred users of MCI Mail on my mail list here. When MCI would get its single copy of the Digest and the list of names in the bcc: to whom it should distribute the mail, it would immediatly break up the list in little groups of twenty or so names each, pack them all in the 'to' line and send it out. Then if a *single* name in the newly (by them) created 'to' line was incorrect, they would bounce the entire mailing to those twenty names back to me without saying *which email address was the bad one* ... so nineteen good users did not get their copy of the Digest and I had no idea which name to remove. Then maybe the next issue to hit their gateway, they would regroup the names in other clusters of twenty, causing even more confusion. Finally for a while I had to take all MCI Mail readers and send them individual pieces of test mail with a code buried in the subject line so I could get individual items of bounced mail back and figure out who to remove. No Jim, I would say 'privacy violation' means the wholesale collec- tion and redistribution of email addresses for some kind of profit motive. I would not use the term to describe the handling of mail by some incompetent goofus running a mailing list or whatever. I put those in the same category as the people who try to dial a phone number, get the shakes and dial the wrong number by accident and then click off without so much as an apology or acknowlegement that they got a wrong number. An invasion of privacy? Yeah, but what would the world be like without them? PAT] ------------------------------ From: John Kristoff Subject: "Real" Telecommunication Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 10:44:21 -0600 Organization: Posted via RemarQ, http://www.remarQ.com - Discussions here! oprempj@mail.ustrust.com wrote in message ... > Think about this: in order to "improve" or upgrade my local area network > I must change my NIC, modify my applications, change my media type, swap > out hubs, routers, switches, etc .... This is stupid. I've often lamented over the lack of being able to simply plug in a network connection and it just works. However, there is an architec- tural difference between data networks and legacy telecommunications. This difference creates a big trade-off. The trade-off can be debated to the world's end, but just to point it out ... Traditional circuit-switched networks have all the intelligence built into the network so all the end devices can remain unchanged. I could keep my analog phone on my desk for years. To make improvements in the network, they are all done without having to visit the existing end user. Cellular phones are a good example. Packet switching however puts the burden at the end nodes. To improve the intelligence of this network, you have to change your end nodes. In addition, many of the points you made also have to do with bandwidth requirements. My bandwidth requirements for a voice call has never changed. The same cannot be said of data networking. Dialing up to a BBS 10 years ago generally required a lot less bandwidth than browsing the web today. 64Kbps isn't enough, 1Mbps isn't, 10Mbps isn't, 100Mbps isn't and so on. As the end application changes, more and more bandwidth all the way out to the end user increases, causing the network to change much more rapidly than we might like. John ------------------------------ From: dryan@slonet.org (Diller Ryan) Subject: Terminal Emulation - Wyse, TI Organization: SLONET Regional Information Access Date: Mon, 08 Feb 1999 23:06:51 GMT Is anyone aware of a terminal emulation package that runs under Linux and emulates a Wyse 60 or Texas Instrunents 924? Shareware or commercial; I'm limited to the above terminals; Thanks for any pointers, Diller ------------------------------ From: see-my-sig-for-real-e-mail-addy@nospam.demon.co.uk (Peter Thomas) Subject: Required: VOX File Player For DOS! Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1999 19:06:05 GMT The company I work for (a data capture company, which works with telephone audio responses) is in desparate need of a program for MS-DOS. Does anyone know of a program that can play .VOX files and can run with our data-entry applications (ie: stay in the background - TSR)? I've taken a web search, and found one program, which, alas is for Windows specific PCs only. If anyone does know of such a program for DOS, whether it be commercial, shareware or freeware, please let me know! Or, on the other hand, if you're a programmer, and can write such a program for us, do get in touch! Thanks a lot. Peter Thomas pete [at] prodge.demon.co.uk ------------------------------ From: Trojanella Carter Subject: Winzip32.exe Missing From Computer Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 22:08:58 -0800 Organization: gte.net Hi, I'm have Windows 98 completely installed on my system. In fact it came with it already along with the Y2K upgrades. But I'm having problems using files I've downloaded from the Internet. My system keep telling me that it cannot locate Winzip32.exe. If you have any advice it would be very helpful and very much appreciated. Thanks. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: winzip32.exe is a pretty common program and I am sure someone reading this will send you a copy, assuming there is none on your machine for some reason. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1999 12:02:05 -0800 From: David Vuong Subject: What is a Prepaid Calling Card? I would like to know what is a prepaid calling card and how is it works. Thank you, Diana [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: A prepaid calling card is like a regular calling card, where calls you make are billed to a third number with one difference: You deposit a sum of money in advance with telco (or the card issuer if not the same) so they do not have to give you credit or trust that you will pay them when the bill comes due. In return for you loaning them money for their cash 'float' which may not have to be paid back by them in the form of services rendered for a long time, the card issuer expresses his appreciation for your advance payment by charging you sometimes twice as much per minute for a call as he does his customers with credit accounts and in many cases he adds on a service charge as well. Prepaid calling cards are BAD NEWS unless your credit is so bad that not a single telco anywhere (and traditionally they have very loose and liberal credit policies) will give you an account without money up front. Oh, I have heard all the excuses: I travel a lot and do not have a place to get bills in the mail; I use pay phones a lot and do not want to look around trying to get change for the coin box; I want my calls to be private with no audit trail of where I called. Only the last one gets any respect from me, and even then, if you do not know how to confuse the issue of where you called and from where and etc, then you are a very ill-equipped traveler indeed. The phone company would not have created loop arounds, call forwarding to and from cell phones and voicemail if they did not want travelers to benefit from them. As for a place to get mail, I would make an effort to find a mail drop somewhere where the proprietor minds his own business and expects you to do the same. For the most part, I think regular use of a cell phone turns out less expensive than most or all prepaid calling cards and is certainly more convenient. This reminds me of American Express Traveler's Cheques and money orders. Amex has stated in the past they have a float of about two million dollars per day based on Traveler's Cheques purchased but not yet redeemed. Two million per day! I wish someone would loan me a million dollars for a couple hours ... well that might be cutting things close, but let's say a day or two; I would return it with interest and have gobs of cash for myself as well. I suspect the telcos have some money laying around on prepaid calling cards also. Now in fact, cash is anonymous and once it is gone, its gone. With traveler's checks and money orders, in theory they are replaceable with Amex insuring their safety. But you can obtain the same results by using a cash card at an ATM machine, at least until January 1, 2000, taking only what you need each time. PAT] ------------------------------ From: ahk@chinet.chinet.com (Adam H. Kerman) Subject: Re: What Has Happened to AT&T/NOS Nightmare Date: 8 Feb 1999 13:26:07 -0600 Organization: chinet In article , Brian Vita wrote: > At this time, the likely contender for our LD service appears to be > Qwest Communications. I would be interested in hearing any feedback > that users may have about them. Based on a recommendation by Mark Cuccia (that calls to directory assistance are still routed to the directory assistance bureaus of the actual incumbent local exchange carrier for an area code), I tried to sign up for an account two months ago. As far as I can tell, the sales lady destroyed all evidence of my order and nothing was processed. I should beg to become a customer? Screw that. ------------------------------ From: Dan J. Rudiak Subject: M1 Tech Wages Date: Tue, 8 Feb 1999 12:01:06 -0700 Organization: Calgary Tri-West Soccer Hello All, After ten years in Tech Support at Nortel, I find myself in the job market. I have been afforded an opportunity with a local independent dealer to start up the M1 side of the business, pretty much writing my own ticket. Based on the market out there, what should I be pricing that ticket at? Thanks! Dan J. Rudiak ------------------------------ From: Anthony Uliano Subject: Advanced TSAPI/CSTA Development Help Urgently Needed Date: 8 Feb 1999 03:19:22 GMT Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. We are developing a TSAPI/CSTA telephony server that interfaces with SAP R/3, and need urgent help. We are located in Richmond, VA, and are willing to work out great financial arrangements for the right developer. If you have practical experience with TSAPI/CSTA or a major CTI (Callpath, Genesys, etc.) as a developer, please drop me a note as soon as possible. Please use my auliano@amconsulting.com e-mail address. Thanks. Regards, Anthony Uliano auliano@amconsulting.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 04 Feb 1999 12:06:45 -0800 From: Telecom@ns2.downtown.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: 609 in New Jersey to Split Organization: LincMad Consulting In article , Carl Moore wrote: > KYW news-radio reports today that splitting 609 geographically has > been approved. The new area code, not yet known, will go to the > western part (Camden etc., near Philadelphia), and 609 will remain > in the eastern part, including Atlantic City. I didn't catch where > Trenton, the state capital, will end up. 609 will remain in Trenton, most of Burlington County, Atlantic City, and Cape May. The new area code will go to Camden, Cherry Hill, and Vineland. ** 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 delete the "NOSPAM" << ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #10 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Feb 12 13:38:15 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id NAA11130; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 13:38:15 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 13:38:15 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199902121838.NAA11130@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #11 TELECOM Digest Fri, 12 Feb 99 13:38:00 EST Volume 19 : Issue 11 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson You Call, You Pay (Monty Solomon) Book Review: "Fighting Computer Crime", Donn B. Parker (Rob Slade) Book Review: "1999 Canadian Internet Handbook" (Rob Slade) Validating the Format of an International Telephone Number (Robert Bonomi) Early Y2K Casualty? (John N. Riggins) Re: Required: VOX File Player For DOS! (James Gifford) Re: Winzip32.exe Missing From Computer (David Clayton) Re: Winzip32.exe Missing From Computer (Al Varney) Re: Winzip32.exe Missing From Computer (Jeffrey M. Vinocur) Re: What is a Prepaid Calling Card? (Anthony Argyriou) 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: 415-520-9905 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: You Call, You Pay Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 15:29:13 -0500 http://www.wired.com/news/print_version/business/story/17843.html You Call, You Pay Reuters Federal telephone regulators are preparing to let wireless carriers charge people for making calls to cellular and PCS phones, hoping to boost competition with land-based local phone networks. Although the use of mobile phones has risen dramatically, few people have fully replaced their land lines with cellular or PCS units -- in part because under current rules, the phone owner pays both for calls made and calls received. Mobile phone use in the United States lags behind Europe. But Federal Communications Commission Chairman William Kennard said Tuesday that he had studied so-called 'calling party pays' system in use in Europe and was ready to move forward with a similar system for the United States. "It's time for us to find a way to implement a calling party pays system in this country," Kennard said in a speech at the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association's annual conference in New Orleans. "Only 5 percent of all calls are now made on mobile phones. I think that number would increase dramatically with a calling party pays system." The FCC is likely to issue proposed rules in May or June for allowing wireless carriers to implement calling party pays systems, an FCC staff person said. However, two major issues are yet to be resolved, the staffer added. First, the agency needs to determine what notice a person calling a mobile phone customer would receive about the charges they are about to incur. Unlike calling another land-based number, which usually is covered by a customer's flat rate monthly charge, calling a wireless phone user could result in charges ranging anywhere from 10 cents to US$1 per minute. Also to be determined is how billing and collection will be structured for calling party pays. Some wireless carriers want the FCC to require local phone companies to do billing and collection for calling party pays, but others are willing to rely on third-party billing companies. "It's going to be a big proceeding, a difficult proceeding," the FCC staffer said. Copyright 1994-99 Wired Digital Inc. All rights reserved. ------------------------------ From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 10:19:41 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "Fighting Computer Crime", Donn B. Parker Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKFICMCR.RVW 981106 "Fighting Computer Crime", Donn B. Parker, 1998, 0-471-16378-3, U$34.99/C$49.50 %A Donn B. Parker dparker@sric.sri.com %C 5353 Dundas Street West, 4th Floor, Etobicoke, ON M9B 6H8 %D 1998 %G 0-471-16378-3 %I John Wiley & Sons, Inc. %O U$34.99/C$49.50 416-236-4433 fax: 416-236-4448 rlangloi@wiley.com %P 512 p. %T "Fighting Computer Crime: A New Framework for Protecting Information" Parker feels that too much of the data security field concentrates on technical answers to the problems of reliability, integrity, and availability of data, and doesn't pay sufficient attention to those people who are deliberately out to read, steal, or ruin your information and systems. Personally, I find it rather ironic that he defines "crimoids," in chapter one, as minor events promoted to much higher significance by the media, and public misperceptions. In the non-specialist realm, more people spend more time worrying about "hackers" than ever back up their drives. (I am reminded of a friend; an intelligent and educated person who started his career programming large and sophisticated information systems and who has now risen to the executive ranks; who has for years refused to get a modem for his home computer. In spite of his frequently expressed desire for access to the Internet, and my repeated assurances that with his current computer and operating system there is no hidden danger, he remains convinced that the mere attachment of a modem to his machine will allow someone to break into his computer and damage it.) Who, then, is this book written for? The author does not say, but what he does say in the preface seems to indicate that he is not writing for those whose business cards make reference to security. (I have neither argument nor inclination to dispute Parker's assertion that security "professionals" do not really deserve the designation.) But if this text is aimed at the general public, chapter one's emphasis on the dangers and lack of protection would seem more inclined to incite further panic, rather than a realistic and measured response. Chapter two is an interesting and useful examination of an often unasked question in the field: what is the nature of the information we are supposedly securing? There are valuable side points, such as both the danger and the opportunity in the security arena presented by the Year 2000 problem. At the same time, I have to note that an erroneous description of the Cascade virus is an example of Parker's asserting points that are just beyond the available facts, and, for me anyway, has an unfortunate effect on the trustworthiness of the work as a whole. The review of cybercrime, in chapter three, has more reference to journalism and other forms of fiction than to reality, but I have to agree with everything said there. Computer misuse and abuse is discussed in chapter four. (As if to make up for chapter two, the section on viruses is very good.) Network misuse is covered in chapter five, and although I still have trouble believing in the reality of salami attacks (Parker's sole example is said to have resulted in a conviction, but no citation is given) I am a bit more willing to accept his broader definition. Chapter six is extremely strong in portraying a realistic and broadly based analysis of characteristics of computer criminals. A similarly informed and balanced approach distinguishes chapter seven, regarding hacker culture, but there is also a universally condemnatory tone that is not wholly justified by the facts as presented. Chapter eight is a very helpful first step for those wanting to deal in the art of computer security. Chapter nine reviews the deficiencies in most current security practices, noting overprotection in some areas while ignoring loopholes in others, and a flowery jargon that serves mostly to hide the fact that security people just don't feel very comfortable with what is going on. However, Parker's new model of security, in chapter ten, while it is very clear and useful, does not extend recent work in, say, electronic commerce. On the one hand, this congruence does support the model, but on the other, one can't really say it is too novel. The popular, but demonstrably incomplete, risk assessment study is de-emphasized in favour of a more difficult, but more realistic, baseline security standard in chapter eleven. Details on how to conduct such a study are very helpfully given in chapter twelve, although the benchmark chart is going to be much harder to come by than is made clear in the text. Chapter thirteen provides a practical and useful set of criteria for determining control objectives. A number of security tactics are detailed in chapter fourteen. Chapter fifteen takes the larger strategic view. (I was delighted to see the inclusion of a section on corporate ethics in this chapter. Recently I contracted to produce a security document for an educational institution, and was told to take the section on ethics out.) Management of security, in chapter sixteen, includes provisions for training, policy, and other factors. Chapter seventeen finishes off with a look to the future. The material, while thought- provoking, is possibly more likely to generate arguments than solutions. Parker's stance on security in general definitely puts him in the camp of the professional paranoids. However, absent the first and last chapters, there is a lot of good, solid knowledge here to help educate any security practitioner. The material in the second half of the book is just as valuable to the security process as the more technical works such as "Practical UNIX and Internet Security" (cf. BKPRUISC.RVW) by Spafford and Garfinkel, albeit in quite a different way. An informed security policy is every bit as important as a good set of "access" controls. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1998 BKFICMCR.RVW 981106 rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@sprint.ca robertslade@usa.net p1@canada.com Find virus, book info http://victoria.tc.ca/techrev/rms.htm Mirrored at http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~rslade/rms.htm Linked to bookstore at http://www97.pair.com/robslade/ Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses, 0-387-94663-2 (800-SPRINGER) ------------------------------ From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 08:33:10 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "1999 Canadian Internet Handbook" Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKCANINT.RVW 990109 "1999 Canadian Internet Handbook", Jim Carroll/Rick Broadhead, 1998, 0-13-974940-3 ISSN 1204-9034, C$27.95 %A Jim Carroll jcarroll@jimcarroll.com www.jimcarroll.com %A Rick Broadhead rickb@sympatico.ca www.rickbroadhead.com %C Scarborough, Ontario %D 1998 %G 0-13-974940-3 ISSN 1204-9034 %I Prentice Hall Canada %O C$27.95 800-576-3800 416-293-3621 www.phcanada.com %P 376 p. + CD-ROM %T "1999 Canadian Internet Handbook" Unlike the first five editions of this book, there is no tutorial or introductory material to help you get onto the net. This is, therefore, a fairly completely new book from those that have gone before, and addresses a new and different audience. In fact, it may be said to be four new books, since the structure divides the book into four quite significantly differing topics. Part one shows this departure from tradition by assuming not only that you are on the net, but that you have your own Web site, and need to evaluate it's effectiveness. Chapter one provides a checklist of some technical questions and tools you can use to review your own site. The points are fairly standard, but important. One topic which does not get much mention is a focus on the objective and aim of your site. Promotion is the aim of chapter two, and while it lists a number of tricks to get you listed favorably in search engines, there is no discussion of the many other ways you can use to net to get the word out. (No, I am *not* talking about spam. Sheesh.) A number of Webmasters are asked for advice in chapter three. The resulting deluge of points has interesting bits, and is generally well chosen, although it may look a bit chaotic. Part two deals with some security topics. Chapter four, on malicious software, seems to be somewhat disjointed. While I ultimately agreed with most of the specific material, the overall impression seemed a bit misleading, and I found few points which would be helpful in protecting the average computer user. Backup is important, of course, but chapter five looks at some tools for a very specific backup problem, that of copying your Web site itself. Privacy concerns expressed in chapter six may be legitimate, but are definitely inflated. Again, the material is not terribly helpful, for example, recommending the use of outside programs for cookie management without explaining the simple browser configuration steps that can be taken to eliminate the problem. Security is a complicated subject, and the coverage of system cracking in chapter seven is just too simplistic. Part three looks at making your net time more productive. Chapter eight is a grab bag of random tips. An overview of methods for increasing both real and apparent access speed is given in chapter nine. Chapter ten looks at some tools for managing mail and Web pages. Chapter eleven reviews remote access software and videoconferencing. Query management tools for a variety of Web search engines and directories are described in chapter twelve. Chapter thirteen looks at personalizable news services. Part four comes full circle in that it talks about enhancing the Web site that you assessed in part one. Chapter fourteen introduces e-commerce programs. Audio and video additions are discussed in chapter fifteen. A concluding chapter looks at the future of the net by extension from the popularity of the Linux operating system. From Alexander Graham Bell to Marshall McLuhan to X.25 to archie, Canadians have been in the forefront of communications technology. The question is, what makes this a specifically Canadian Internet book. The answer, unfortunately, seems to lie solely in the citizenship of the authors. Is it at least a handbook? Well, generally a handbook is noted either for completeness of coverage of a field, or small size and cogent facts. This book does not cover the Internet in scope, concentrating almost completely on the Web, rather than the net, and not even exhausting that. Nor is it an essential minimum of information. It doesn't even have much focus. There is good and useful information contained in the book. It is, however, very difficult to find a specific audience that would benefit from it. I note the assignment of an ISSN (International Standard Serial Number) to it: perhaps one should best consider this to be the latest issue of a magazine, presenting information that may be of interest, but in no particular arrangement. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1994, 1999 BKCANINT.RVW 990109 rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@sprint.ca robertslade@usa.net p1@canada.com Find virus, book info http://victoria.tc.ca/techrev/rms.htm Mirrored at http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~rslade/rms.htm Linked to bookstore at http://www97.pair.com/robslade/ Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses, 0-387-94663-2 (800-SPRINGER) ------------------------------ From: Robert Bonomi Subject: Validating the Format of an International Telephone Number Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 09:29:16 -0600 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com I'm writing some software for, in-house use, that has to cope with international (full world-wide) telephone numbers. There is an issue of an unacceptly high rate of various kinds of data-entry error on non-NANP numbers -- mostly because the people doing data-entry don't know what all the 'foreign' numbers are "supposed" to look like. I've located material which lets me extract the 'country code" part -- now I just need to determine if the _rest_ is a valid number, IN THE CONTEXT of that country code. for instance: "state code" required -- if 1st digit is 1 thru 5, it's one digit long if 1st digit is 6 thru 8, it's two digits if 1st digit is 9, and second digit is 0 thru 6, it's 3 digits if second digit is 7 or 8, it's 4 digits second digit of 9 is not used first digit of '0' is unused 'city code' follows -- if 1st digit is 1 thru 8, it's two digits if 1st digit is 9, and 2nd digit is 0-7, it's three digits 2nd digit is 8, it's 4 digits 2nd digit of 9 is unused first digit of '0' is unused. 'local number' follows -- if 1st digit is 5 thru 9, it's 4 digits if 1st digit is 3 or 4, it's 5 digits if 1st digit is 2, it's 6 digits Is there a compendium of this kind of information,anywhere, for the WHOLE WORLD ?? Or, failing that, for anywhere? Most immediate need is Mexico (non-NANP), South America (all), various W. Europe, anc Central America. NOTE: I'm NOT trying to do a 'full' verify of the number -- to wit, for NANP, I just check number of digits, and make sure 1st one and 4th one are not '0' or '1'. -- whether the 'area code', or 'exchange prefix' (within *that* area-code, that is) is actually valid/in-use, I _don't_ worry about. robert bonomi @ .com ------------------------------ From: John N. Riggins Subject: Early Y2K Casualty? Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 22:42:47 -0600 Organization: Posted via RemarQ, http://www.remarQ.com - Discussions here! From the "Nashville Tennessean", February 9, 1999: "Y2K bug closes local call center" "A Nashville call center is one of the area's earliest casualties of the year 2000 technology bug, saying it will shut its doors Sunday after 15 years of operation, in part because a fix was too costly. "Bernard C. Harris Publishing Company, a White Plains, N.Y.-based alumni directory company, announced the shutdown of its regional call center on West End Avenue (Nashville, TN) in December ... 'We're on some fairly old technology here, and it's not Y2K compliant, nor will it be Y2K compliant. Our lease also expires at the end of February, and although our landlord has been very accommodating, they just can't extend it any more.' said Nashville call center manager Paul McCann. "He noted that cost projections for new equipment coupled with a move range from $1 million to $2 million." The article goes on to say that other regional call centers in Austin, Texas and Norfolk, Virginia will probably not be similarly affected. Obviously Y2K was not the only consideration leading to the closing but it appears to have been a major factor in the final decision. Anyone aware of any other examples of *actual* adverse effects due to the Y2K issue? -== JNR ==- [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So a telemarketer goes out of business due to the Y2K bug ... isn't that a pity! I'll cry about it some other time maybe. I would say there is one real benefit we have overlooked; the fact that many shoestring operations which have major sources of annoyance in our lives for years now such as the dinner-hour callers trying to sell us something and the spammers who fill our email boxes with load of get-rich-quick schemes every day may find it too expensive to continue operations with the cost and work involved in upgrading their systems. PAT] ------------------------------ From: James Gifford Reply-To: gifford@ns.net Organization: Heinlein Central | CT Magazine Subject: Re: Required: VOX File Player For DOS! Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 22:22:26 GMT Peter Thomas wrote: > The company I work for (a data capture company, which works with > telephone audio responses) is in desparate need of a program for > MS-DOS. > Does anyone know of a program that can play .VOX files and can run > with our data-entry applications (ie: stay in the background - TSR)? Maybe if you explain the need a little more, someone here can help. I can't imagine a situation where you'd need a TSR .VOX player. Most of the audio editing apps have moved to Windows, but nearly all had DOS versions that may still be available. CoolEdit is one, I'm pretty sure. Another is Audio Toolbox, which I'm pretty sure is obsolete -- I have an unopened DOS version here on the shelf, but I don't know if it will do the sort of TSR job you need done. Dialogic may have some utility packages that support simple .VOX playing. Hope that is some help. | James Gifford | | Associate Editor, Computer Telephony Magazine | | = Speaking only for myself in this case = | ------------------------------ From: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au (David Clayton) Subject: Re: Winzip32.exe Missing From Computer Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 07:11:31 GMT Organization: Customer of OzEmail/Access One Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia Reply-To: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au Trojanella Carter contributed the following: > I'm have Windows 98 completely installed on my system. In fact it came > with it already along with the Y2K upgrades. But I'm having problems > using files I've downloaded from the Internet. My system keep telling > me that it cannot locate Winzip32.exe. If you have any advice it would > be very helpful and very much appreciated. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: winzip32.exe is a pretty common program > and I am sure someone reading this will send you a copy, assuming > there is none on your machine for some reason. PAT] Considering Winzip is shareware that should be paid for, this is probably not a good idea. There are many freeware zip programs about for Windows, "Enzip" springs to mind as a good one. Regards, David Clayton, e-mail: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Still think the 20th century ends after 1999? Check this URL: http://riemann.usno.navy.mil/AA/faq/docs/faq2.html [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Actually, people who distribute shareware are usually happy to have assistance in distributing it. It is not that it should not be distributed, but rather, that the new user (of that shareware) should also make the suggested payment to the author. This Digest is an example of 'shareware' in that sense. I am more than happy to see people distribute it entirely or for that matter, cut and paste individual articles, etc to other places where there can be some benefit. I only ask that those who benefit make some token contribution to assist me. I think most shareware authors feel the same way. By all means, if our earlier correspondent gets a copy of winzip32.exe somewhere, all the licensing requirements which go with it should be obeyed. PAT] ------------------------------ From: varney@ihgp2.ih.lucent.com (Al Varney) Subject: Re: Winzip32.exe Missing From Computer Date: 12 Feb 1999 14:49:20 GMT Organization: Lucent Technologies, Naperville, IL Reply-To: varney@lucent.com In article , Trojanella Carter wrote: >.... My system keep telling me that it cannot locate Winzip32.exe. If > you have any advice it would be very helpful and very much appreciated. WINZIP is a commercial product of Nico Mak Computing, not part of "Windows 98". See . Al Varney ------------------------------ From: jmv16@cornell.edu (Jeffrey M. Vinocur) Subject: Re: Winzip32.exe Missing From Computer Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 17:10:20 -0500 Organization: Cornell University Look for it at http://www.winzip.com/ One of the few programs you don't need winzip to get at (otherwise it'd be a bit of a bootstrapping problem). Jeff Vinocur jmv16@cornell.edu ------------------------------ From: anthony@alphageo.com (Anthony Argyriou) Subject: Re: What is a Prepaid Calling Card? Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 01:52:47 GMT Organization: Alpha Geotechnical Reply-To: anthony@alphageo.com TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to David Vuong : > Oh, I have heard all the excuses: I travel a lot and do not have a > place to get bills in the mail; I use pay phones a lot and do not > want to look around trying to get change for the coin box; I want > my calls to be private with no audit trail of where I called. Only > the last one gets any respect from me, and even then, if you do not > know how to confuse the issue of where you called and from where and > etc, then you are a very ill-equipped traveler indeed. The privacy excuse also requires some work to keep up - apparently the FBI tracked Timothy McVeigh through a prepaid calling card he kept refilling. See the latest issue of 2600 for details. Of course, if he had just kept buying new ones at local liquor stores, they would not have been able to do this. Anthony Argyriou ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #11 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Feb 12 14:50:24 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id OAA14183; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 14:50:24 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 14:50:24 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199902121950.OAA14183@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #12 TELECOM Digest Fri, 12 Feb 99 14:50:00 EST Volume 19 : Issue 12 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Book Review: "Intrusion Detection", Terry Escamilla (Rob Slade) Lawsuits Challenge Search Engines' Practice of 'Selling' (Monty Solomon) Zero-Knowledge: Nothing Personal (Monty Solomon) Mystery Robocaller and the TCPA (Mark W. Schumann) Re: Bell Canada Replaces Operator Comments (Lou Jahn) What Has Happened to AT&T/NOS Nightmare - Revisited (Brian Vita) Re: What is a Prepaid Calling Card? (Daryl R. Gibson) DS3 Signalling (Baris Aksoy) 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: 415-520-9905 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: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 08:33:14 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "Intrusion Detection", Terry Escamilla Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKINTRDT.RVW 990108 "Intrusion Detection", Terry Escamilla, 1998, 0-471-29000-9, U$39.99/C$56.50 %A Terry Escamilla %C 5353 Dundas Street West, 4th Floor, Etobicoke, ON M9B 6H8 %D 1998 %G 0-471-29000-9 %I John Wiley & Sons, Inc. %O U$39.99/C$56.50 416-236-4433 fax: 416-236-4448 rlangloi@wiley.com %P 348 p. %T "Intrusion Detection: Network Security Beyond the Firewall" Maybe my perception is skewed from having been involved with physical security as well as the computer kind, but I see intrusion detection as being part of security. There is no security system that cannot be penetrated or bypassed, and so detection is, in my view, simply a fact of security life. Isn't that what auditing, one of the main pillars of data security, all about? So I find the attempt to sell the idea of intrusion detection somewhat redundant. Then there is the emphasis on reviewing commercial Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS). Part one looks at what happens before intrusion detection: the traditional role and model of computer security. Chapter one provides a brief, but reasonably sound, overview of this classic paradigm, concentrating on defining most of the theoretical terms used. Some identification and authentication details from both UNIX and Windows NT start our chapter two, which then meanders through a few examples of password cracking, and finally ends with a look at ticket granting systems and other authentication improvements. A similar look at access control is provided by chapter three. Given the complexity of networking and network security, the number of topics covered in chapter four is unsurprising. Part two looks at intrusion detection by extending the traditional security design. Chapter five is fairly pivotal, as evidenced by the title "Intrusion Detection and Why You Need It." The "why" part comes first, with a rather weak example showing that security systems can have loopholes if you don't configure or program everything properly. Intrusion detection then seems to be defined as the usual game of find vulnerability-fix-repeat, only in automated form. A number of possible attacks are mentioned in chapter six, and then a promotion of the addition of an IDS layer to a system, without a corresponding reiteration of the warning, from chapter four, that layers in a system increase the possibility of loopholes. I was rather astonished that SATAN [Security Administrator's Tool for Analyzing Networks] was not included with the vulnerability scanners mentioned in chapter seven. Two more sophisticated products are reviewed in chapter eight. Chapter nine looks at the possibility of catching intruders by traffic analysis, although "catch" seems to be too strong a term to use here. Since most of the foregoing deals with UNIX, chapter ten looks at similar products for NT, although most of the material seems to concentrate on NT's own audit logs. Part three looks at dealing with an intrusion once you have detected it. Chapter eleven recommends being prepared well, detecting early, analyzing thoroughly, and deciding judiciously. In one useful piece of advice, it recommends against an attack on a system you may think is hitting on yours. Chapter twelve is a quick summary of the book. As the author admits, in the final chapter, that intrusion detection systems are not the final word in computer security, I am inescapably reminded of the battles in the antiviral field over the relative strengths of scanners, activity monitors, and change detection systems. What works best? A combination approach, of course. The price of a secure system is more budget for administration time and tools. This book does not present any radically new approach or technique for system security. In fact, with the emphasis on proprietary commercial products, the work will date quite quickly. For those who are looking to add an automated IDS to their current network, the volume could act as a kind of incomplete buyer's guide. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1999 BKINTRDT.RVW 990108 rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@sprint.ca robertslade@usa.net p1@canada.com Find virus, book info http://victoria.tc.ca/techrev/rms.htm Mirrored at http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~rslade/rms.htm Linked to bookstore at http://www97.pair.com/robslade/ Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses, 0-387-94663-2 (800-SPRINGER) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 11:40:38 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Lawsuits Challenge Search Engines' Practice of 'Selling' http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/yr/mo/cyber/cyberlaw/12law.html By CARL S. KAPLAN Lawsuits Challenge Search Engines' Practice of 'Selling' Trademarks An Internet surfer seeking Playboy's Web site decides to get help from Excite, a major search engine. The prospector goes to Excite's home page and enters the word "Playboy" in the search box. Then a funny thing happens. A banner advertisement for an explicit pornographic Web site appears, high above the list of pages generated by the search. But that site has nothing to do with Playboy. Is it sneaky and illegal for Excite to display a non-Playboy advertisement to a user who enters the trademarked words "Playboy" or "Playmate?" Or is it fair play because search engines, like the Yellow Pages, naturally create the opportunity for advertising aimed at people seeking certain information? Last week Playboy Enterprises Inc. gave its answer to the question by filing an important lawsuit against Excite Inc. and Netscape Communications Corp., a licensee of Excite's search engine. The suit challenges their practice of having advertisements for pornographic sites appear whenever a user of the search engines enters one of Playboy's trademarks as a search term. This practice has "hijacked and usurped" Playboy's reputation, the company said in legal papers filed in federal court in Los Angeles last week. The case was recently transferred to federal court in Santa Ana, California. The lawsuit, which seeks an injunction and unspecified damages, claims that Excite and Netscape, by their "unauthorized use" of the Playboy trademarks to sell targeted banner ads, are committing trademark infringement, unfair competition and related offenses. The lawsuit also challenges the companies' practice of providing links to special directories of pornography sites along with the search results for "Playboy" or "Playmate." Those directories prominently feature the sites of advertisers, according to legal papers. Spokeswomen for Excite and Netscape declined comment on the lawsuit. A lawyer for Playboy, Jeffrey D. Neuburger, and a spokeswoman for Playboy, also declined to comment. The Playboy case is not the only lawsuit that challenges what some experts say is a common advertising practice at search engine companies. Last month three subsidiaries of the Estie Lauder Companies Inc. filed suit in federal court in New York against Excite Inc. and The Fragrance Counter Inc., an online seller of cosmetics and fragrances. In its lawsuit, Estie Lauder claimed, among other things, that when a consumer uses the Excite search engine or Webcrawler, which is owned by Excite, and types "Estie Lauder" as a keyword, a misleading Fragrance Counter banner ad appears that features the Estie Lauder name. Estie Lauder said that The Fragrance Counter is not an authorized retailer of its products. Spokeswomen for Estie Lauder and Excite declined to comment on the lawsuit. A spokesman for The Fragrance Counter, based in Brentwood, N.Y., said the case was without merit. Based on a recent look at the sites targeted by the suit, it appears that The Fragrance Counter has changed its ads so that they no longer contain Estie Lauder's trademarks. Online advertising experts say it is a common and lucrative practice for Internet search engines, many of which are now part of larger "portal" sites, to sell banner ads linked to particular search keywords, including trademarked terms. "I would estimate that 20 to 30 percent of a portal's ad revenues" are generated from such targeted banner ads, said Marissa Gluck, an analyst at Jupiter Communications, a New York research firm. Playboy said it did not object to tying a banner ad to a "neutral" search term, such as "baseball." Nick Copley, director of business development for Thomson & Thomson, a company based in Quincy, Mass., that tracks search engines, said that if courts hold that banner advertising triggered by trademark keywords may only be sold to the trademark holder, "it will have quite an effect on the business model of search engines." Playboy's lawsuit is much broader than the Estie Lauder case because it attacks the right of a search engine company to sell banner ads in this way. In essence, Playboy is arguing in its suit that a banner ad appearing with the results of a search for one of its famous trademark terms might confuse Web users, making them think that Playboy is a sponsor of, or somehow connected to, the banner ad buyer. But some legal experts dispute this argument. They claim that consumers are not likely to be confused about the relationship between a pornographic banner ad merchant and Playboy when they use the search term "Playboy." "I would compare this case to a drugstore, where you walk down the aisle looking for Tylenol and you spot it on the shelf next to a generic-brand pill," said Carl Oppedahl, an lawyer who specializes in Internet litigation. "That is not confusing to the consumer. And I don't think there is any confusion to Playboy consumers on the search engine Web site." Mark Lemley, a professor of law at the University of Texas, also believes that Playboy will have a difficult time proving that the ad practices in question cause consumer confusion, assuming that the banner ads that pop up don't falsely advertise Playboy products or photographs. He added that the Playboy case was interesting because it illustrated the way that the Internet can help companies target someone else's customers. "Outside cyberspace, we've always had purely comparative advertising -- 'My product is better than yours,'" he said. "But the Internet allows me to reach customers who are interested in my competitor's products without making a direct comparison." Banner ads keyed to certain search terms are just one means to accomplish the goal, he said. Lemley added that he was not surprised to see Playboy leading the charge on this issue. In recent years the company has challenged several Internet practices that it considers a form of piracy, including its competitors' use of the word "Playboy" in their domain names or in "meta tags," hidden code in a Web page that is designed to draw the attention of search engines. In its legal papers, Playboy said it did not object to tying a banner ad to a "neutral" search term, such as "baseball." But it claimed that a banner ad tied to another company's trademark was deceptive and unfair. Carl S. Kaplan at kaplanc@nytimes.com welcomes your comments and suggestions. Copyright 1999 The New York Times Company ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 01:39:46 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Zero-Knowledge: Nothing Personal http://www.wired.com/news/news/technology/story/17820.html In a world of ad banner targeting, cookies, and consumer "profiling," some have come to believe that total online privacy is a myth. Zero-Knowledge Systems is out to prove them wrong. The Canadian software start-up gave a demo of its Freedom 1.0, its so-called total privacy technology, on Tuesday at the Demo '99 conference in Indian Wells, California. "When you browse the Internet, your personal information is routinely collected and often distributed without your knowledge or consent," said Austin Hill, president of Montreal-based Zero-Knowledge Systems. "With Freedom, you can safely browse Internet sites, participate in public discussions, chat, and send email without revealing any of your personal information." Presently, Web users leave footprints every time they request a Web page or send an email. But by building in multiple layers of encryption and re-routing, Zero Knowledge Systems promises totally anonymous Web browsing and Net use. Freedom offers Net users a variety of pseudonyms -- online identities created for different, Internet-related tasks, such as shopping or online discussions. Users can assign each pseudonym a different email address, geographic location, and encryption key. Each alias allows a user to visit different Net sites under different identities. The privacy effect is that users can avoid profiling by Internet marketers. Public key cryptography scrambles the contents of any Internet-bound data from the user's PC, such as email, chat transmissions, and Web browsing. The crypto also hides the source and destination of Internet traffic routed through the service, which the company says will also block cookies and filter spam. Law enforcement agencies will likely find the prospect of totally untrackable Net use troublesome. The system may attract extortionists as much as it will appeal to those with a legitimate need to hide, including whistle-blowers, human-rights workers, and harassment victims. In testimony before the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on 4 February, FBI Director Louis Freeh said that strong crypto will be a boon to terrorists. "The continued widespread availability and increasing use of strong, non-recoverable encryption products will ... devastate our capabilities for fighting crime, preventing acts of terrorism, and protecting the national security." Hill built the Zero Knowledge Systems business model atop an increasingly uncertain public policy climate. Because the product uses very strong crypto, it may be subject to recently tightened global controls on crypto distribution. The Wassenaar Arrangement is expected to increase crypto restrictions in 33 countries, including Canada, the United States, and Great Britain. Any developer of super-strength cryptography, such as Zero-Knowledge, would need to obtain export licenses just as US crypto vendors do now. As a hedge, the company regularly exports the Freedom software code to an undisclosed offshore location. Should Canada's export policy on strong encryption change abruptly, Hill said he would ask his programmers to leave the country and continue development in a country free from the restrictions. Copyright 1994-99 Wired Digital Inc. All rights reserved. ------------------------------ From: catfood@apk.net (Mark W. Schumann) Subject: Mystery Robocaller and the TCPA Date: 12 Feb 1999 12:14:41 -0500 Organization: Akademia Pana Kleksa, Public Access Uni* Site Well, well, well. I seem to have caught a robocaller. An outfit calling itself "Community Development Home Services" robocalls me every few months with a sales pitch. I'm not complaining about their robo-DIALER, which is annoying but not illegal in itself; I'm saying that the first voice on the line when I answer is a recording. That's illegal under 47 USC Whatever, and I'm entitled to $500 per instance ... of which I've recorded three already. This last time I hit *69 and _actually_got_a_number_. I logged it and called the local public library for a lookup in the "criss-cross" phone directory. They turned up nothing. Likewise the Internet-based reverse lookup services failed. I needed to identify the business or a responsible person in order to bring my private action. Suing a John Doe might be satisfying, but John Doe doesn't write checks. So I called Ameritech's customer service, since the call came from Cleveland. They were able to tell me that the line was paid for on a residential account but that they were not allowed to disclose the accountholder's identity. How about that -- they say it's a privacy issue! I don't doubt the reasons for that regulation but it sure is ironic as well as annyoing in context. Anyway, I'd like to go forward with a small claims suit against these jerks. My statutory damages are $1,500, the federal law grants jurisdiction to local courts, and these calls originated and terminated in the city of Cleveland ... all of which point to jurisdiction in the Cleveland Municipal Court. (Good news: I'm 2-0 in pro se cases in that venue.) My whine and question for Telecom readers is this. What procedure short of a subpoena or discovery motion will get me the identity of my John Doe? It just occurred to me that I could wait for their next call and indicate interest in their offering. But is there a quicker way to track these bozos down? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What do you get when you call that number? If it is a residential line operating out of a residence in your town, there is the distinct possibility it is going to be answered at some time or another when you ring it. And doesn't the outgoing message give some phone number or address you can use to contact them if interested in their service? Is Community Development Home Services listed in any phone directory? What about a business directory from the Chamber of Commerce? Have you done a corporate records search with your Secretary of State? What about a city or county business license search. Do they have that name registered as a DBA? (Doing business as). If they have a post office box, you can get the name and street address of the person(s) to whom the box is listed *provided the box is registered at the post office under the category 'box is used to solicit the public'*. If the post office says the box is registered to a private person and thus exempt from having applicant information revealed, you can point out that in fact the box number is quoted in commercial advertising messages, etc. Next time they call, also listen closely to their message, get what hints you can that way. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 14:37:07 -0500 From: Lou Jahn Subject: Re: Bell Canada Replaces Operator Comments Mark J Cuccia wrote: > These contract directory companies (including Excell) are HORRIBLY out > of date in their directory listings, and have all other kinds of > erroneous or missing information. If one needs real local telco > directory, some long distance carriers (LCI/Qwest still does at this > time) still route to the real LEC directory operator of the dialed > area code. I am _NOT_ going to use these contract companies, first > paying for a directory call and only getting bogus information, and > then paying toll to use that bogus info?! and in Vol 19 Issue 9 Louis Raphael wrote: > That's rather unpalatable, considering that the information is > actually out there and available. Plus, even if the information were > up to date, a local operator would still be much better, because > they're able to handle a query like "I'm looking for a Mr. Albert > Green, somewhere in the eastern part of downtown ..." (having a fix on > the streets would likely narrow that down to only one or two > possibilities). Our firm provides access to the LSSi National Directory Assistance DB for LECs, CLECs, small IXCs and AOSPs. Mr. Rapheal is correct in that this DB soon will have over 90% of the USA listings being directly fed from RBOCs and Independent LECs. At a "Major" LEC offering 411 Coast-to-Coast the LSSi DB along with the search engine and operators have been independently measured as correctly finding callers requested listings 95% of the time. In over six months of operation not one FCC complaint has been lodged. Some European carriers are beginning to use the system for their callers; a reverse search into Europe listings will be available later this year. We now have USA and Canada in production. The second part of Mr. Raphael's comments regarding new searches and services is also totally on mark. With an average of some 30+ new NPAs per year, millions of dollars are wasted each year by callers entering the wrong NPA-555-1212. There is a major infrastructure evolution going in as LECs offering National 411 service capture hundreds of millions of LD-information dollars from IXCs! With National DA a caller does not need to even understand NPAs -- all they need is the state and hopefully the location. The National 411 service will also move millions of MOU from the preselected IXC into the LECs IXC via call completion utilization. Meanwhile even the IXCs are cannibalizing each others revenues using National DA services. Small IXCs will not only lose revenues to LEC via national 411 service, but MCI's 10-10-9000 moves both the LD-information fees and millions of MOU off of the other IXCs via their free call completion. So why aren't the IXCs fighting back? Maybe their CFOs haven't been told of the ongoing massive revenue drain. IXCs need an answer and they need it yesterday! And who said the telecom industry isn't changing? Lou Jahn ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 22:52:55 -0500 From: Brian Vita Subject: What Has Happened to AT&T/NOS Nightmare - Revisited In the week that has passed since my original post a lot has happened. After the posting I received a number of responses from other readers. Some were folks genuinely trying to help. The others were very obviously LD reps trying to pose as folks trying to help - shame on you. Over the weekend I received yet another ridiculous bill from NOS that was at least twice what my bill was before them. I've been withholding payment for the past two months and one of their reps called and demanded payment overnight for continued service. I reminded them that I had placed a dispute on the bill last month and was promised a call back from a manager. This, of course, never came. I told the rep that no payment would be forthcoming until I received an adjusted billing (which would probably indicate that they owe me money). I brought to their attention that I had been quoted $0.079/minute. They claimed it was per TCU. I produced a letter that stated "cents per minute". No answer. I've checked some other telecom news groups and virtually all of them have a NOS horror thread. I decided to go ahead with Qwest on my primary outbound and inbound lines with AT&T handling some secondary lines and lesser "800" numbers. I've had both companies unblock all of the lines so that I can do a "1010xxx" dial around with either of them on all of the lines. A very strongly worded letter was faxed and sent overnight to NOS advising them in no uncertain terms that they were no longer our LD carrier and that any failure to surrender the RESPORG status of our 800 lines immediately would have strong legal repercussions. Despite what I expected from the horror stories that I had read, they surrendered them without a wimper within 24 hours. As of this writing the changes have all taken effect and now I'm gearing up to fight NOS for the overcharges for the past 6 months. A new twist on this episode occurred this afternoon when the Bell Atlantic bill came in. It seems that although we had PIC'ed all of the lines with Bell Atlantic to NOS when they were installed in November (we moved in December), they had failed to set one of the lines up in their computer. As a result, I received a billing on the BA bill from a company called USBI. They took what should have been about $30.00 worth of calls and billed me $997.92 for them at an average rate of $2.87/minute. These were for direct dialed 1+ calls on a line that had been PIC authorized to another carrier! USBI didn't want to talk about it claiming that they were just a billing agent for Worldcom and that I had to call them. I called them and got an automated attendant that claimed I had to call my carrier "Affinity" (the carrier that I just switched to - long after these calls were made). I called USBI back and they said that they had nothing to do with the billing. I called BA back and they agreed to remove the calls from my bill. I'm just waiting for a collection company for USBI to call me. Brian Vita, President Cinema Service & Supply, Inc. 75 Walnut St. Peabody, MA 01960-5626 USA Sales & Service ->(800)231-8849 US & Canada Sales & Service Fax ->(800)329-2775 Business Office -> (978)538-7575 Business Fax -> (978)538-7550 ***Visit Our Web Site at www.cssinc.com*** Check out our new online webstore for cinema supplies! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 10:00:49 -0700 From: Daryl R. Gibson Subject: Re: What is a Prepaid Calling Card? TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to original posting: > and in many cases he adds on a service charge as well. Prepaid > calling cards are BAD NEWS unless your credit is so bad that not While basically, I agree with you, Wal-Mart's Sam's Club division is now selling 160 minute AT&T-branded prepaid calling cards for around 10 cents a minute ... it certainly beats either of my other calling cards Sam's Club was selling MCI/Worldcom-branded cards for 15 cents a minute until the new contract was signed a few weeks ago. Hopefully, there will be other firms that offer prepaid cards for a reasonable per-minute charge. 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 ------------------------------ From: Baris Aksoy Subject: DS3 Signalling Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 12:17:27 -0500 Organization: Alcatel Microelectronics Hello, I wonder is there any frames that can handle DS3 signals? I mean, @ DS1 signal rate we can use T1 frames. I saw somewhere that there is T3 frames. Is it only theoretical, or casn anybody use this type of frames? Actually, I expect that DS3 --> DS1 --> T1 frames a flow like that. But is it practical? Thank you all in advance for your answers. Baris ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #12 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Feb 12 18:12:12 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id SAA25834; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 18:12:12 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 18:12:12 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199902122312.SAA25834@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #13 TELECOM Digest Fri, 12 Feb 99 18:12:00 EST Volume 19 : Issue 13 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Telecom Update (Canada) #168, February 1, 1999 (Angus TeleManagement) Online Freedom Of Information Sparks Fears (Monty Solomon) Re: Telemarketing by Playing Recordings (Peter Corlett) Re: Telemarketing by Playing Recordings (James Gifford) Re: Telemarketing by Playing Recordings (Jim) Re: Bad Email from MCI (Brian A Doreste) Forwarding One Line Using Another? (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Can Arbitrary Tones be Detected With a Modem DSP? (Tinkerman) 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: 415-520-9905 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: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 11:04:21 -0500 From: Angus TeleManagement Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #168, February 1, 1999 ************************************************************ * * * TELECOM UPDATE * * Angus TeleManagement's Weekly Telecom Newsbulletin * * http://www.angustel.ca * * Number 168: February 1, 1999 * * * * Publication of Telecom Update is made possible by * * generous financial support from: * * * * AT&T Canada ............... http://www.attcanada.com/ * * Bell Canada ............... http://www.bell.ca/ * * Lucent Technologies ....... http://www.lucent.ca/ * * MetroNet Communications ... http://www.metronet.ca/ * * Sprint Canada ............. http://www.sprintcanada.ca/ * * Telus Communications....... http://www.telus.com/ * * TigerTel Services ......... http://www.citydial.com/ * * * ************************************************************ IN THIS ISSUE: ** JDS Fitel in US$6-Billion Merger ** CRTC Okays Bell Business ADSL Rates ** BC Tel Proposes Expanded Vancouver Free Calling Area ** MetroNet Buys Netcom ** Bell, Hydro-Quebec Outsource Telecom Management ** Union Asks CRTC to Block Bell Operator Deal ** BC Tel, Bell Offer Internet Bundles ** Alberta Wireless Users Too Quick in 780 Conversion ** GTE to Sell InfoInterActive Software ** Wes Scott Named Bell Vice-Chairman ** MTS Plan Drops Time-of-Day Overseas Rates ** Telus Edmonton Stops Supplying Primary Sets ** New CIO at MetroNet ** Northwestel Consolidates Rate Groups ** NextWave to Market Canada Payphone in BC ** BCE Results ** "Dial 'O' for Outraged" ============================================================ JDS FITEL IN US$6-BILLION MERGER: JDS Fitel of Nepean, Ont, will merge with Uniphase Corp. of San Jose, California, through an exchange of shares valued at US$6.1 Billion. The two companies, of about equal size, make fiber optic components and modules. CRTC OKAYS BELL BUSINESS ADSL RATES: CRTC Telecom Order 99- 68 approves Bell Canada's proposed rates for ADSL service to business customers. The decision rejects objections made by the Canadian Association of Internet Providers because they "relate principally to the retail Internet services provided by Bell's unregulated affiliate." http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/telecom/order/1999/o9968_0.txt BC TEL PROPOSES EXPANDED VANCOUVER FREE CALLING AREA: CRTC Public Notice 99-4 invites comments on BC Tel's proposal to introduce free calling throughout the Greater Vancouver Region by May 1, 2000. To participate, notify the Commission by February 19. http://www.crtc.gc.ca:80/internet/1999/8045/03/pn99-04.htm METRONET BUYS NETCOM: MetroNet Communications has agreed to buy 51% of Netcom Canada, Canada's fifth-largest Internet Service Provider, from ICG Communications. The other 49% will be purchased by a U.S. venture capital firm, Providence Equity Partners. ** MetroNet operates fiber networks in 11 Canadian cities, and will add six more this year, giving it access to 70% of Canadian business access lines. BELL, HYDRO-QUEBEC OUTSOURCE TELECOM MANAGEMENT: Bell Canada and Hydro-Quebec have created Connexim, a new company which will manage their internal telecom networks and offer similar services to other companies in Quebec. The company begins operations with about 250 employees from Bell and a similar number from Hydro. UNION ASKS CRTC TO BLOCK BELL OPERATOR DEAL: The union that represents Bell Canada operators has asked the CRTC to order Bell to drop its plan to outsource operator services. (See Telecom Update #166) The Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union says the plan is contrary to Canadian telecom policy objectives and the public interest. BC TEL, BELL OFFER INTERNET BUNDLES: ** BC TEL has the CRTC's okay to offer Residential Additional Line Bundle, which includes a second residential access line, 120 hours of Internet access, and a SmartTouch service. Price: $40-$49/month. (Telecom Order 99-71) http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/telecom/order/1999/o9971_0.txt ** Bell Sympatico has increased hours of access for its Internet plans: $24.95 now brings 200 hours of monthly access, or 250 hours for Bell FirstRate long distance customers. ALBERTA WIRELESS USERS TOO QUICK IN 780 CONVERSION: Many Telus Mobility customers in Alberta who sought to convert cellphones on the new 780 Area Code's first day of operation January 25 lost service for up to 12 hours when paperwork fell behind. Customers have until May 18 to make the change. (See Telecom Update #165) GTE TO SELL INFOINTERACTIVE SOFTWARE: GTE will make InfoInterActive's Internet Call Manager available to its 23 million U.S. customers. WES SCOTT NAMED BELL VICE-CHAIRMAN: Bell Canada has named Wes Scott, formerly Nortel Networks CFO, as Vice-Chairman responsible for finance, human resources, strategy planning, and other fields. Nortel's new CFO is Frank Dunn. MTS PLAN DROPS TIME-OF-DAY OVERSEAS RATES: MTS First Rate customers can now call overseas for per-minute rates that do not change by time of day. Calls to the UK are 24 cents; to Japan, 64 cents. TELUS EDMONTON STOPS SUPPLYING PRIMARY SETS: Telus has CRTC approval to stop supplying phones to its Edmonton residential customers. The sale of terminal equipment by Telus-Edmonton is now deregulated. (Telecom Order 99-69) http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/telecom/order/1999/o9969_0.txt NEW CIO AT METRONET: MetroNet Communications has appointed Harold Teets, formerly MCI WorldCom's Vice-President for IT, as Senior Vice-President and Chief Information Officer. NORTHWESTEL CONSOLIDATES RATE GROUPS: CRTC Telecom Order 99- 75 approves uniform local rates across Northwestel territory as of February 1. Individual lines are $20.33 (residence) and $38.70 (business). The multiline rate is $47. ** The decision also approves a 15 cent per minute promotional rate for residential toll calling within Canada from 3pm Saturday to 8am Sunday, each weekend in 1999. ** Three Commissioners opposed the decision because it includes local rate increases for many customers. http://www.crtc.gc.ca:80/internet/1999/8045/04/o99-0075.htm NEXTWAVE TO MARKET CANADA PAYPHONE IN BC: NextWave Wireless Solutions will offer Canada Payphone pay telephone and Internet terminals to location site owners in Greater Vancouver. BCE RESULTS: ** BCE reports net earnings before one-time items of $1.6 Billion in 1998, a 25% increase over 1997. Excluding Nortel, revenues rose 6% to $27.5 Billion. Despite a 7% drop in LD and network revenue, Canadian telecom earnings grew 27%. ** BCE Mobile's customer base grew 19%, but revenue increased only 3%, and profits fell to $212,000 from $71 Million. ** Bell Canada International now has almost 3 million wireless subscribers abroad. Revenues for 1998 rose 71%; losses also rose, to $66 Million. ** Nortel Networks, 42% owned by BCE, reports that 1998 sales rose 16% to US$17.6 Billion. Profit before one-time items was valued at $1.07 Billion, a 33% increase. ** CGI Group, which merged last year with Bell Sygma, reports that net earnings more than tripled in 1998 to $18.2 Million. BCE owns 43% of CGI. "DIAL 'O' FOR OUTRAGED": In the February issue of Telemanagement, available this week, Ian Angus examines how Bell Canada's decision to outsource operator services led to a "public relations disaster" and suggests that the decision may not have been in Bell's best interests. ** Also in Telemanagement #162: "Y2K in Telecom: Canadian Carriers Say They've Covered All the Bases." ** To subscribe to Telemanagement, call 1-800-263-4415, ext 225, or visit http://www.angustel.ca/teleman/tm.html. ============================================================ HOW TO SUBMIT ITEMS FOR TELECOM UPDATE E-MAIL: editors@angustel.ca FAX: 905-686-2655 MAIL: TELECOM UPDATE Angus TeleManagement Group 8 Old Kingston Road Ajax, Ontario Canada L1T 2Z7 =========================================================== HOW TO SUBSCRIBE (OR UNSUBSCRIBE) TELECOM UPDATE is provided in electronic form only. There are two formats available: 1. The fully-formatted edition is posted on the World Wide Web on the first business day of the week at http://www.angustel.ca/update/up.html 2. The e-mail edition is distributed free of charge. To subscribe, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should contain only the two words: subscribe update To stop receiving the e-mail edition, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should say only: unsubscribe update [Your e-mail address] =========================================================== COPYRIGHT AND DISCLAIMER: All contents copyright 1999 Angus TeleManagement Group Inc. All rights reserved. For further information, including permission to reprint or reproduce, please e-mail rosita@angustel.ca or phone 905-686-5050 ext 225. The information and data included has been obtained from sources which we believe to be reliable, but Angus TeleManagement makes no warranties or representations whatsoever regarding accuracy, completeness, or adequacy. Opinions expressed are based on interpretation of available information, and are subject to change. If expert advice on the subject matter is required, the services of a competent professional should be obtained. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 13:32:49 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Online Freedom Of Information Sparks Fears [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: File this under the 'What Else is Old News' category, and see my commens following the article. PAT] http://www.nytimes.com/techweb/TW_Online_Freedom_Of_Information_Sparks_Fears.html By Mary Mosquera for TechWeb, CMPnet WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Posting disaster information over the Internet from 66,000 hazardous-materials facilities could provide a road map for terrorists, some lawmakers said Wednesday. The Internet's ability to make information public and transmit it quickly and universally raises concerns among law-enforcement agencies that terrorists and criminals could use it against the communities trying to protect themselves from possible disasters. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is set to release in June worst-case scenarios, such as number of deaths and amount of damage, related to disasters at chemical facilities around the country. The Clean Air Act requires facilities that produce lethal agents, such as anthrax and sarin gas, have risk-management plans and that they be published as part of the Freedom of Information Act, so communities can prepare for emergencies. The House Commerce Committee heard emergency, law-enforcement, and government witnesses testify about the quandary of fulfilling the public-information mandate while trying to protect communities from becoming a terrorist target. Posting the sensitive information online could empower terrorists to pinpoint attacks on neighborhoods and towns," said Commerce Committee Chairman Thomas Bliley, (R-Va.), who is prepared to propose legislation to make it more difficult for terrorists to gain access to the information. The FBI believes there are legitimate law-enforcement concerns about the potential misuse of the sensitive disaster files, said Robert Burnham, the FBI's chief of the domestic terrorism section. The EPA and the FBI have proposed that the most sensitive information -- the consequence analysis of a disaster -- be separated from the overall risk-management plan, said Timothy Fields Jr., the EPA's acting assistant administrator. Although the risk-management plans will be transmitted as planned in a national database of the 66,000 facilities, the worst-case data could be available to only the affected states in a closed, secure system. That closed system could require special passwords and follow-up queries to the user. However, the problem is still there if someone who accesses the worst-case data wants to share it on the Internet. The government is also looking at developing technology for a read-only CD-ROM that will not let a file be duplicated or loaded on the Internet, Fields said. The fears of potential terrorists need to be balanced with the public's right, said Paul Orum, coordinator of the Working Group on Community Right-to-Know, a public-advocacy group. Over a 10-year period, the government recorded nearly 1 million chemical accidents. "By comparison, we don't have much information on chemical accidents caused by sabotage, let alone any examples involving the Internet," said Orum. Civil-liberties groups urged Bliley not to retreat from gains made in ensuring that citizens have access to public information. "Rather than taking advantage of the Internet's democratic potential to provide public access to this public information, these proposals view the Internet and its power to distribute information as a threat," said Ari Schwartz, policy analyst at the Center for Democracy and Technology in Washington, D.C. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Somehow they think it is a newsworthy item to say that law enforcement dislikes and is frightened by the internet. Gee, I would have never guessed that the government in general and its various law enforcement agencies in particular wanted to keep 'certain kinds of information' (actually, the more the better) off the internet, would you? . First it was child porn, then copyright issues, and now let's try guilt tripping everyone with the possibility of terrorist attacks. PAT] ------------------------------ From: abuse@verrine.demon.co.uk (Peter Corlett) Subject: Re: Telemarketing by Playing Recordings Date: 12 Feb 1999 20:07:41 GMT Organization: B13 C*b*l TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Larry Conzett : > [...] If I or someone was here to first use the phone to 'request > permission to play a recorded transmission' what need would I have > for the alarm system? Are you certain in Tenessee that security > alarms are not exempt from the requirement that a live person first > get permission to play a message? [...] I expect that the permission doesn't have to be granted in the same call that initiates the transmission. It would certainly make more sense this way than any daft requirement for there to be a human being present at the time of playout. I've set up my employer's computer to phone my mobile whenever various links fail. Now although this is more of a rhetorical question, being based in the UK, but would this be allowed by said law, given there'll be nobody in the office at 3am when it decides there's a fault? Peter Corlett, Moseley, Birmingham, England. Tel. +44 7050 603311 Usenet Millenium in 34 days: Will October arrive at last? ------------------------------ From: James Gifford Reply-To: gifford@ns.net Organization: Heinlein Central | CT Magazine Subject: Re: Telemarketing by Playing Recordings Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 02:50:34 GMT Linc Madison wrote: > There is a California state law that forbids such calls, but, of > course, it only applies if the origin is within California. > I got a couple of such calls, from the same telemarketing outfit, > at 2:45 a.m. on Thanksgiving Day, and then at 4:45 a.m. on a Sunday. > Yes, that's a.m. as in "wee hours of the morning," between midnight > and dawn. The telco was absolutely unhelpful in giving me any way > to deal with the problem, other than trying very aggressively to > sell me Caller ID service, which I am 99.9% sure would be of no > help in identifying the caller. I've been getting them a couple of times a week, after not hearing any for years. Did a law expire somewhere? Did some other loophole open up? As far as identifying the culprit ... wouldn't listening to the message long enough to get the contact info work? | gifford@ns.net * See http://www.ns.net/~gifford for the | | Heinlein FAQ & _Robert A. Heinlein: A Reader's Companion_ | ------------------------------ From: jyoull@hotmail.com (Jim) Subject: Re: Telemarketing by Playing Recordings Date: 12 Feb 1999 06:39:12 GMT Plex Inphiniti wrote: > On Tue, 26 Jan 1999 09:31:21 -0500, Michael A. Covington > wrote: >> I was under the impression that telemarketing machines that dialed you >> and played a recording, with no human operator, had been banned. Just >> now I got a call from one, an outfit called VPT that sells pagers. >> The only identifying information given was the 800 number, >> 1-800-388-2161, repeated many times. The Caller ID said only "out of >> area." > I was pretty sure those are illegal. They laws around it are I believe > a human has to initiate the call and ask you personally if they can > play a recording. I may be wrong. Sorry to be late with this comment but I guess I have relevant info. The telemarketing activity you're discussing -- calls initiated using a recording -- seems to be covered by Federal law, 47USC227 -- part of the Communications act of 1934 as currently amended -- the same law that blocks junk faxes. I am not a lawyer, I just like this law. The nice part about where this falls within the statute is that the same private right of action that applies to junk faxes also applies to telephone calls initiated with a recording. Emergency calls and "prearranged" calls are exempted of course. Automated calls are also exempted for "noncommercial purpose ... that does not include transmission of advertising". This seems to pertain mostly to calls to residential lines. Go get your $500 :) Here's the relevant segment: This is excerpted from 47USC227(b)(1): (b) RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF AUTOMATED TELEPHONE EQUIPMENT.-- (1) PROHIBITIONS.--It shall be unlawful for any person within the United States-- (A) to make any call (other than a call made for emergency purposes or made with the prior express consent of the called party) using any automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice-- (i) to any emergency telephone line (including any ''911'' line and any emergency line of a hospital, medical physician or service office, health care facility, poison control center, or fire protection or law enforcement agency); (ii) to the telephone line of any guest room or patient room of a hospital, health care facility, elderly home, or similar establishment; or (iii) to any telephone number assigned to a paging service, cellular telephone service, specialized mobile radio service, or other radio common carrier service, or any service for which the called party is charged for the call; (B) to initiate any telephone call to any residential telephone line using an artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver a message without the prior express consent of the called party, unless the call is initiated for emergency purposes or is exempted by rule or order by the Commission under paragraph (2)(B); (C) to use any telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine; or (D) to use an automatic telephone dialing system in such a way that two or more telephone lines of a multi-line business are engaged simultaneously. (2) REGULATIONS; EXEMPTIONS AND OTHER PROVISIONS.--The Commission shall prescribe regulations to implement the requirements ofthis subsection. In implementing the requirements of this subsection, the Commission-- (A) shall consider prescribing regulations to allow businesses to avoid receiving calls made using an artificial or prerecorded voice to which they have not given their prior express consent; (B) may, by rule or order, exempt from the requirements of paragraph (1)(B) of this subsection, subject to such conditions as the Commission may prescribe-- (i) calls that are not made for a commercial purpose; and (ii) such classes or categories of calls made for commercial purposes as the Commission determines-- (I) will not adversely affect the privacy rights that this section is intended to protect; and (II) do not include the transmission of any unsolicited advertisement; and (C) may, by rule or order, exempt from the requirements of paragraph (1)(A)(iii) of this subsection calls to a telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone service that are not charged to the called party, subject to such conditions as the Commission may prescribe as necessary in the interest of the privacy rights this section is intended to protect. (3) PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION.--A person or entity may, if otherwise permitted by the laws or rules of court of a State, bring in an appropriate court of that State-- (A) an action based on a violation of this subsection or the regulations prescribed under this subsection to enjoin such violation, (B) an action to recover for actual monetary loss from such a violation, or to receive $500 in damages for each such violation, whichever is greater, or (C) both such actions. If the court finds that the defendant willfully or knowingly violated this subsection or the regulations prescribed under this subsection, the court may, in its discretion, increase the amount of the award to an amount equal to not more than 3 times the amount available under subparagraph (B) of this paragraph. ------------------------------ From: bdoreste@copland.udel.REMOVE_THIS.edu (Brian A Doreste) Subject: Re: Bad Email from MCI Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 06:29:56 GMT Organization: University of Delaware On Tue, 09 Feb 1999 09:32:55 -0500, James Bellaire wrote: > It looks like MCI has decided to break privacy as well. > I just received an announcement from them about some change in > their website, with 21 addresses on the TO line instead of using > the BCC line. > The email was sent from and contains > the note: > ****************************************************************** > NOTE: Responses to this e-mail will not be answered. > Please send inquiries via www.mci.com/service > ****************************************************************** > At least there were only 20 other customers on the TO line - > this could have been worse. [snip] Yeah, I got this crap also ... I immediately logged onto MCI's Online Customer Service and changed my email address to 'bdoreste@127.0.0.1' Problem solved. -------------------- Want to know who has been calling you and hanging up when you answer the phone? Visit http://216.71.16.113/hangup.htm to find out. Brian A Doreste school email: bdoreste 'at' copland.udel.edu 74 E Cleveland Ave #2 work email: bdoreste 'at' mail.dot.state.de.us Newark, DE 19711-2247 USA Univ of Delaware Civil Engineering Undergraduate Usual disclaimers apply Delaware Dept of Transportation - Traffic Ops/Mgmt ------------------------------ Subject: Forwarding One Line Using Another? Organization: Excelsior Computer Services From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 15:35:38 GMT I have two lines (voice and fax) and on the voice line, I have two numbers (RingMate, IdentiRing, etc.). I use the second number for private calls. Bell Atlantic can forward the main voice number, but not the second number, which is really all I want. So I was thinking: Is there a simple machine that I can use to forward incoming calls on line one to a second number, using line two to do the forwarding? Joel [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: A device from Radio Shack can listen to the ringing cadence on an incoming call and then send only those calls you want (identified by the ringing cadence of the second number) to a separate instrument. You put the device at the very head of the line where the line enters your premises. You plug your line into this device then take the output from it to a separate unit to be discussed in a moment. What the Radio Shack device does is (after listening to a couple of rings) take the line off hook, i.e. the call is answered, and then it in turn sends ringing voltage through the output to whatever is out there. Traditionally, that would mean a fax machine, answering machine, etc. But you get yourself a call extender device instead, and feed Radio Shack's identified (by ringing cadence) output to that call extender. The call extender sees the incoming ring and thinks it is getting an incoming call. It proceeds to do its thing and forward the call to wherever. It won't answer the incoming call until it is in a position to patch it to the party it is forwarding to. Use your fax line for the call extender's outgoing side. So, a person calls your line. If they dial the first number they get forwarded before the Radio Shack device even has a chance to deal with it. Even if you did not forward that line via telco call-forwarding the Radio Shack device would ignore it and just let it ring forever. If the calling party dials your second (or distinc- tive ring) number, the Radio Shack device notices that, and after two (or sometimes only one) of the 'distinictive rings' starts its work. The calling party hears telco ring twice (or once), hears a slight click then a totally different sounding ring, the ring back tone from the Radio Shack box. He will hear a few of these ring sounds while the Radio Shack box is nudging the call extender box trying to wake it up. The call extender will out dial to wherever and typically send a 'beep tone' to alert the answering party that a call is coming via forwarding. When it hears a human voice on the other end, it opens its front end to patch it through. On the opening of its front end, the Radio Shack device says 'well I woke him up and got him to answer me' and it in turn lets the original caller through. So you need two devices: one to identify the type of call you desire and begin handling it, and a second device to forward to wherever what the first device hands off to it. Expect that the person calling will hear six to eight rings before he gets you on the line, ie one or two while the Radio Shack device decides if this is a call for it, and another four or five of the Radio Shack-originated ringback tones while it and the call extender are communicating and the call extender is trying to get you on the line. The usual caveat-emptors apply when you allow an anonymous person on the other end access to your phone lines, but since the call extender does NOT open its front end until long past the stage where someone could seize your dial tone, you probably are pretty secure. A far easier method in my opinion is to reverse the purpose and intent of the two numbers on one line. Keep the first line -- the one that telco can forward -- as your private line, and have the distinctive ring line be the 'public' listed number. Telco will list either of them for you. Have them list the second number, with distinctive ring, and send it all the time to an answering machine whether you are home or not. There is no rule that says the distinctive ring number has to be your private one; make the first one serve that purpose instead. Now you can forward your 'personal' line to wherever and as for the distinctive (and from what you say) non-user-forwardable number, let *it* fall in an answering machine or something. An answering machine would never pick up the line anyway based on the one short ring that is sent out as part of the call forwarding process. This confused me at one point also. I had distinctive ringing and call forwarding on the same line. I would call forward my line, and callers to the first number were forwarded. When someone called the second number it was as though the call- forwarding instruction was ignored totally. It would just ring through anyway. The reason is, all outgoing calls (including the administrative command to forward calls) is associated with your first, main number. There is no way when dialing out to make the telco switch somehow think it is talking to your second number. But even then, there is an exception, but boy, is it a tricky one. Have telco put call forwarding capability on your second number. They will argue and resist and say you won't be able to use it. But you persist, having them associate that feature with your distinctive ringing number also. How do you acess it you say? Good question! The *only* way is to then use 'remote call forwarding', the feature where you dial into a 'gateway number' at the telco switch, give it your password for the number assigned to the distinctive ring, and activate it that way. I might add the only way you will ever get call forwarding cancelled on that line is via remote call forwarding also. For instance, in the Chicago-Franklin CO in downtown Chicago, to use remote call forwarding (let's say you left home, realized you forgot to forward your line and want to do it now), you dial xxx-xxxx. A voice tells you to enter your password, enter the number to be forwarded, then press *72-number or *73 to cancel forwarding on the line in question. Most folks just enter their number. You would enter your distinctive ringing number instead. By the way, I have been asked recently how to use call screening from telco across a rotary hunt group of numbers without having to purchase call screening for each line as telco tries to make you do. If your only listed number -- the only number you ever publish or give out is the fist number in the hunt group, you can get call screeing on that line only and it WILL work even if a call hunts to somewhere else. The reason is, in the CO switch, the decision to screen is made *before* the decision to hunt. If the caller is screened and sent to treatment, it will never reach the hunt group. If the caller dials direct into one of your back lines, then this won't work. Ditto having to purchase caller-id for each line in a hunt group. The decision on whether or not the information is to be passed to the called party is made *before* the decision to 'hunt him down'. Once the decision is made to pass the information, it gets sent once a line somewhere is found on which to hand the call off to you. There is nothing special about a line equipped for caller id; if the subscriber has that feature, the data gets pushed to him. For all I know, you could have a tin can and a string on one of your hunt lines. Again, this will not work if the caller dials into a back line direct. So get one caller id display unit and one of those little gimmicks from Radio Shack which takes either of two ringing lines and sends it to an answering machine in common -- only you send the output to a caller id box in common. :) It works about ninety percent of the time; the little box wakes up in time (usually by the middle of the first ring) to have gotten itself connected before the data stream starts immediatly at the end of the first ring. You may occassionally get corrupted (or no) data if the switch box is slow. I think the order in which decisions are made by the switch go like this: 1) who is this calling? let's find out. 2) now that we know who is calling, did the subscriber ever give us instructions about this caller? a) make his phone ring a special way to let him know in advance its his boss. b) get rid of the caller, our subscriber does not want to talk to him. c) no instructions either way. 3) are we supposed to tell the subscriber in advance who is calling? if so, let's get that data ready to be transmitted between the first and second ring. 4) were we told not to disturb the subscriber right now or to send his calls to some other place? where is that? 5) subscriber's line is busy, what are are we supposed to do now? we were told if line one was busy to put calls on line two automatically or line three/four, etc.) 6) okay now we are ready to hand him his call and the data that goes at the start of it ... over here is one of his lines we can use, let's send it now. There is a bit more than that, but that is the basic idea. Special features need to only be bought and paid for one time assuming all incoming calls are funneled through the lead number. PAT] ------------------------------ From: tinkerman97@usa.net (Tinkerman) Subject: Can Arbitrary Tones be Detected With a Modem DSP? Reply-To: tinkerman97@usa.net Organization: Tinkerman Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 03:05:04 GMT Hello Netfriends, I know that modems have DSP support to detect standard DATA and FAX carriers, as well as detect DTMF tones (voice modems can for sure), but is there any modem technology that can detect ANY ARBITRARY TONE with it's builtin DSP firware? I know voice modems can generate arbitrary tones, but detecting is a completely diffrerent story! Thanx for any help offered. Thanks and best regards, T-man ## Note: when Replying, please email me directly in addition to posting here, so I don't miss any responses. Don't forget to remove the "97" from my email address inserted as an anti-spam counter measure...:-) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #13 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Feb 16 14:31:24 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id OAA14741; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 14:31:24 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 14:31:24 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199902161931.OAA14741@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #14 TELECOM Digest Tue, 16 Feb 99 14:30:00 EST Volume 19 : Issue 14 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson AT&T Fights for Control in Struggle Over Internet Access (Monty Solomon) Ticketmaster and Microsoft Settle Linking Dispute (Monty Solomon) Book Review: "I Love the Internet But I Want My Privacy Too" (Rob Slade) Telecom Update (Canada) #170, February 15, 1999 (Angus TeleManagement) SS7 Release Link Trunk Info Sources? (Simon Chapman) 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: 415-520-9905 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, 15 Feb 1999 22:44:03 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: AT&T Fights for Control in Struggle Over Internet Access http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/02/biztech/articles/15net.html AT&T Fights for Control in Struggle Over Internet Access By SAM HOWE VERHOVEK SEATTLE -- It is an unusual movement, one that mixes populist and free-market appeals with the high-technology abbreviations of the age, like ISP and DSL, and so far, anyway, it seems to have taken hold mostly in the well-wired cities of the Pacific Northwest. But in the legal debate over the future of Americans' high-speed connections to the Internet, some public figures clearly think they have found a potent political issue. -------------------- Larry Davis for The New York Times AT&T's acquisition of Tele-Communications Inc. is making it a cable giant. In Seattle, a worker strung new cable for the TCI system. -------------------- "This is a pipe, a pipe for critically important information, and we're simply taking the position that no one should be allowed to monopolize it," said King County Executive Ron Sims, a likely Democratic contender next year for U.S. Senate. Sims is describing cable-television lines, which can provide Internet access up to 100 times faster than what most consumers now get through conventional phone lines. On Wednesday, a committee of the County Council here voted unanimously to reject the transfer of the county cable franchise to AT&T. Members said they believed AT&T would have a monopoly on cable access to the Internet and should instead be forced to open the cable lines to other Internet service providers, much as the telecommunications giant was once required to lease its telephone lines to competing long-distance c arriers. The same condition has already been imposed by city and county officials in Portland, Ore., which recently became the first place in the nation to develop such "open access" requirements for cable lines. That move prompted a legal challenge from AT&T, and a similar fracas is expected here if the County Council votes on Tuesday to adopt its committee's recommendation. County and AT&T officials said this weekend that they hoped to reach a compromise that would leave the access issue open for future negotiation and avoid a lawsuit. The fight over access to the cable lines is taking place amid a lobbying blitzkrieg, pitting AT&T and the huge cable company it is planning to acquire, Tele-Communications Inc., known as TCI, against local phone companies and an array of Internet competitors, including America Online and dozens of smaller Internet service providers. But it is also raising a core philosophical issue, one that is already being debated in other communities around the country and that will become all the more consequential as Americans increasingly use their cable lines to connect to the Internet for work, education, shopping and entertainment. Should the cable lines, in which private companies have invested billions of dollars, be treated like public rights-of-way? To AT&T, which ultimately plans to pay for cable upgrades in nearly half the nation's homes, the notion is outrageous. In addition to suing Portland, the company has pointedly said that it can hardly move "as aggressively" to improve cable service where it may be forced to lease its lines to competitors. AT&T also points out that under its plan, cable consumers will indeed be able to connect to any Internet provider they want, though they will have to go through the company's Internet affiliate, known as At Home, to get there. In AT&T's depiction, that is hardly different from the common procedure now, in which a consumer pays the phone company for a line and pays another company, such as America Online, for content and access to the Internet. Still, in many ways, AT&T may face an uphill battle in the future to keep total control over its cable lines. For one thing, it is hard to be on the other side of a debate in which public officials are using terms like "share" and "open access" and railing against monopolies. In endorsing the rejection of AT&T's license, Jane Hague, the chairwoman of the Metropolitan King County Council budget committee, said: "Approval of the merger would place control of local cable and high-speed Internet access in the hands of one mega-company. Our proposal would protect the public from predatory pricing." For another, in acquiring or contracting with cable-television providers around the country, AT&T, which has a relatively good reputation for customer service, is now allied with some companies that consumers -- and politicians -- love to revile. Here in Seattle, for instance, TCI is already embroiled in a major dispute with both the city and the county over delays in promised improvements in cable lines and is also the subject of numerous complaints over customer service. At a public hearing before the Seattle City Council this month on how to punish the company for failing to meet its deadlines for the improvements, angry residents unloaded numerous complaints about TCI service. One man called the company "unconscionably bad, totally irresponsible, arrogant," a comment that drew sustained applause. No one doubts that cable access to the Internet is a huge and promising field, in which customers may soon be able to pull up World Wide Web pages with the ease and immediacy they now enjoy as they retrieve television channels. Roughly half a million Americans now have high-speed Internet access at home through cable or phone lines; by 2002, according to Forrester Research Inc., that number is expected to grow to 16 million, about 80 percent through cable. "It's like a fire hose as opposed to an eye dropper," said Gary Gardner, executive director of the Washington Association of Internet Service Providers (ISPs), a Seattle-based group of Internet companies around the state that want access to the cable lines. AT&T rejects the notion that it is developing any sort of monopoly on hookups to the Internet anyway. "Cable-modem technology is an attractive way of providing high-speed access, but it is by no means the only way," said Scott Morris, an AT&T vice president in charge of negotiations with Seattle officials. "The sooner At Home is deployed, the more aggressively local phone companies will roll out DSL, and the more reasonably they will price it." DSL technology, named for digital subscriber lines, is used for high-speed access over standard telephone lines. Clearly, the company has prevailed for now in hundreds of communities that have granted approval for it to take over their local cable franchises from TCI, but regulators in many of those places say they eventually want to impose "open access" rules on cable. Here in Seattle, the City Council, also due to vote on license approval Tuesday, appears ready to say yes, with the general understanding that it may negotiate access rules later. "It does absolutely no good for anybody in Seattle to have TCI and AT&T not invest money here, to have them stop because they're stuck in litigation," said Tina Podlodowski, a former Microsoft executive who is now chair of the City Council's public safety, health and technology committee, which oversees cable matters. Federal regulators have taken much the same position for now, saying they don't want to do anything that would deter companies like AT&T from upgrading cable lines. AT&T also says that even providing for "open access" would be far more complicated and expensive than opening up its long-distance lines was, a contention that other Internet companies reject. "Feasibility, schmeasibility," said Chris Miller, an employee of Mindspring, a rival Internet service provider, at the recent City Council hearing. Morris, of AT&T, said new regulations would hamper access for everybody and were unnecessary. "The whole point here is, the Internet is morphing even as we speak," he said in an interview. "Yesterday's Internet is not today's, and it certainly won't be tomorrow's." But that has not stopped hundreds of people here, in an impassioned campaign partly whipped up by AT&T's Internet competitors, from flooding city and county officials with letters and e-mail messages, imploring them to require open access for cable lines. Sims, the county executive, shared many of those e-mails, including one in rhyme: "I need to pick my own Web provider," wrote one of his constituents, "not limited by a cable service monopolizer." Copyright 1999 The New York Times Company ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 22:42:51 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Ticketmaster and Microsoft Settle Linking Dispute http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/02/cyber/articles/15tick.html By BOB TEDESCHI Ticketmaster Corp. has settled its closely-watched lawsuit against the Microsoft Corp., the chief executive of Ticketmaster Online-CitySearch said Thursday, with the ticketing giant prevailing in the dispute over whether one Web site can freely link to pages deep within another site. According to Charles Conn, Ticketmaster Online's chief executive, Microsoft agreed not to link from its Sidewalk city guides to pages deep within the Ticketmaster site. Instead, the guides will point visitors interested in purchasing tickets to the ticketing service's home page. Tom Pilla, a Microsoft spokesman, said the settlement terms included a non-disclosure agreement. But Conn said that in the settlement, Microsoft "agreed not to do that kind of deep linking anymore. So they can link, but not to deep pages." The case was expected to establish a legal precedent regarding the intellectual property rights of Internet companies, as no similar lawsuit has been fully resolved in court. But as a result of the settlement, Web publishers will remain without legal guidelines on the practice of so-called "deep linking." The distinction is important, as commercial sites such as Ticketmaster Online often generate substantial revenue by selling advertising on their front pages, typically the most highly-visited pages of any site. In early 1997, Microsoft had created links from its Seattle Sidewalk site to pages within the Ticketmaster Online site, meaning that users could potentially buy tickets without even noticing that they had left the Microsoft site. Ticketmaster filed suit on April 28, 1997 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, arguing that Microsoft had "pilfered" its content and therefore diluted its value. At the time it filed suit, Ticketmaster had recently signed an agreement with CitySearch, which, like Microsoft's Sidewalk guides, provides local news and information about merchants and entertainment in various cities. Through the agreement, CitySearch essentially paid Ticketmaster for the right to do what Microsoft was doing for free. Ticketmaster's online division merged with CitySearch in September; the company is a subsidiary of USA Networks. Microsoft, meanwhile, argued that Ticketmaster's stance breached an unwritten Internet code, whereby any Web site operator has the right to link to anyone else's site. In addition, Microsoft offered a defense based on its stated First Amendement right to publish public information. The outcome of the case was eagerly awaited by Internet and First Amendment scholars, as no legal precedent existed in this area. But with the settlement, filed in court on January 22, those looking for guidance were dismayed. "I'm sure it's in the best interest of the parties, but for the purpose of providing meaningful guidance to the Internet community, this is the worst news I've heard all day," Jeffrey Kuester, an Internet law specialist and a partner in the Atlanta law firm Thomas, Kayden, Horstemeyer & Risley, said when told of the settlement. "We were hoping to hear some good, broad, general language from the court," Kuester said. "Now, do we know if deep linking is bad? Is linking to a main home page O.K.? Is it just not O.K. to link? We don't know." In the wake of the settlement, Microsoft has reverted to a policy of offering links to Ticketmaster Online's home page for Sidewalk users who want to buy tickets. According to Martin Samson, a partner with the law firm Phillips Nizer in New York, it is a "rational" outcome. "There's definitely merit to Ticketmaster's position," Samson said. "If I've got three nuggets of real value on my site, and they drive ad revenue, I should be allowed to say that you've got to come through my front door to see them." Pilla, of Microsoft, declined to comment on the case, aside from saying that the parties reached "mutually agreeable terms. But I don't know why they're talking about it, since part of the agreement was to not talk about it." One person familiar with the agreement, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the suit "ran out of steam" when Fredric Rosen sold his interest in Ticketmaster to Barry Diller, chairman and chief executive of USA Networks. "Barry Diller wasn't particularly interested in pursuing the case," the source said. "At the same time," the source said, "Microsoft's priorities with the Sidewalk sites changed. They were more of a buying guide, with less of an emphasis on editorial content like links to entertainment. So the players changed and the priorities changed, and we all basically shook hands and walked away." Meanwhile, Conn, of Ticketmaster Online-CitySearch, said the company's relationship with Microsoft "is cordial now. They're good people. We're pleased to have it behind us." ---------------------- Bob Tedeschi at tedeschi@nytimes.com welcomes your comments and suggestions. Copyright 1999 The New York Times Company [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It seems to me the stance taken by Ticketmaster on this is very greedy. They do, after all, receive a commission on ticket sales, regardless of which direction the user comes to reach them. Now they want to insist that you have to see their advertisements first before you can spend even more money with them? Of course, the additional waiting period is required while you sit on their front page waiting for the advertisers' banners get loaded, etc. I do not understand, for the life of me, why the creators of this thing we call the World Wide Web back in the early 1990's did not obtain the neccessary legal protection for their work and place some strong and enforceable constraints on what was acceptable and what was not acceptable behavior using the standards netters had developed over the years as their guidelines. Then these *damn* companies which have moved in during the past four or five years and tried to take over the entire net as though it belonged to them, as though they invented it and the rest of us could go straight to hell would be unable to pollute things as badly as they do. There is not a day goes by I do not receive a phone call or email from some company or another wanting to put 'click-through' things in this Digest, or right on the front page of the Archives. I have told them I would list them with other sponsors on the sponsor's page in the Archives, but oh no ... they want it right up in front where users have to wade through a mine field of commercial links in the form of garish banners, etc before they ever get to the Archives itself. If it cannot be right up under your nose and stuck in your face as soon soon as you open a piece of email from me or click on the Archives then they don't want it. All to be paid at the rate of three cents per click or five cents per click. That is *NOT* what this net is about, nor what it was intended for. And that sort of thing is the reason if you want to download a simple file from the Archives you can count on it taking twice as long as it used to take. Maybe I will start playing the game along with everyone else. I'll put up a web page somewhere with some trival sort of content and then just load the page with clickers to everything I can find which will pay me three cents each. Maybe I will call it the Townson Click- through Shopping Mall or something. Just what we need on the net, eh? I am getting to the point I hate this entire net. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 08:31:39 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "I Love the Internet But I Want My Privacy Too" Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKILIWMP.RVW 990110 "I Love the Internet But I Want My Privacy Too", Chris Peterson, 1998, 0-7615-1436-8, U$16.95/C$25.00 %A Chris Peterson cpeterson@aol.com %C 3875 Atherton Road, Rocklin, CA 95765-3716 %D 1998 %G 0-7615-1436-8 %I Prima Publishing %O U$16.95/C$25.00 800-632-8676 916-632-4400 fax: 916-632-1232 %O mattj@primapub.com www.primapublishing.com %P 226 p. %T "I Love the Internet But I want My Privacy Too" My wife is the office Information Wizard. Not holding a technical job, she has her finger on the pulse of what goes on and who needs to know about it. She constantly amazes not only her co-workers, but also friends and family, by her ability, given only a name, to get into contact with a person or company within mere minutes. She uses that secret and arcane source of data known to its initiates only as-- the phonebook. Very funny, you say. Well, I have a serious point to make. Three of them, actually. The first is that there is a great deal of publicly available information about you. The second is that most people do not know how to effectively use such information, and so are easily startled by someone who does. Did you know that, given your address, I can find your name and phone number? No, I don't have to use the Internet. I go to the library and look in the "Criss-Cross" directory. Which brings me to my third point: the net is not the be- all and end-all snooping tool. Chapter one rambles over a variety of topics, seemingly concentrating on the fact that some people would like information about you, and that information is available on the Web. Proprietary, and thus not public, databases are discussed in chapter two. Chapter three talks about the information you may trail through cyberspace without knowing it. However, the material has a rather suspect technical background. Besides getting the number of IP addresses wrong, the text confuses chat rooms and Usenet newsgroups, and has a description of cookies that fails at several points. In addition, the "privacy profile" exercise uses a site that has a function dealt with by another site in an unrelated domain. No mention is made of the dangers inherent in this practice. Some stories about information gathering by employers starts out chapter four, but it moves on to a miscellaneous collection of instances of personal harassment and other unpleasantness. Medical information, unrelated to the Internet, is reviewed in chapter five. Chapters six and seven both look at children on the net. The material on pornography is definitely overhyped, to the point of decrying the loss of the Communications Decency Act, but the examination of commercial abuse of children's trust is rather good. A couple of drawbacks of blocking software is mentioned, though not the hidden agendas that some have. Chapter eight looks at some technologies that assist in maintaining privacy, such as anonimizing sites and encryption. The explanations contain a large number of small errors, and ultimately don't do much ot help non-specialists understand the issues. Some US regulations regarding privacy are discussed in chapter nine, although most is unrelated to the net. An Internet extension to the US Social Service Administration is reviewed in chapter ten. More US work on regulations is mentioned in chapter eleven. While the book does discuss a number of issues of privacy related to the Internet, it does so in a ragged and often disorganized manner. Much of the content of the book has nothing to do with the Internet, and some of the material is only just short of hysteria, with little attempt at balance. Technical discussions are either missing or incorrect, and this lack of background degrades the value of the book as a whole. Overall, the level is that of a general magazine article, and is unlikely to be of significant use to the Internet using public. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1999 BKILIWMP.RVW 9901101 Free electronic distribution permitted rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@sprint.ca robertslade@usa.net p1@canada.com Find virus, book info http://victoria.tc.ca/techrev/rms.htm Mirrored at http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~rslade/rms.htm Linked to bookstore at http://www97.pair.com/robslade/ Comp Sec Weekly: http://www.suite101.com/welcome.cfm/computer_security Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses, 0-387-94663-2 (800-SPRINGER) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 12:03:46 -0500 From: Angus TeleManagement Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #170, February 15, 1999 ************************************************************ * * * TELECOM UPDATE * * Angus TeleManagement's Weekly Telecom Newsbulletin * * http://www.angustel.ca * * Number 170: February 15, 1999 * * * * Publication of Telecom Update is made possible by * * generous financial support from: * * * * AT&T Canada ............... http://www.attcanada.com/ * * Bell Canada ............... http://www.bell.ca/ * * Lucent Technologies ....... http://www.lucent.ca/ * * MetroNet Communications ... http://www.metronet.ca/ * * Sprint Canada ............. http://www.sprintcanada.ca/ * * Telus Communications....... http://www.telus.com/ * * TigerTel Services ......... http://www.citydial.com/ * * * ************************************************************ IN THIS ISSUE: ** 911 Glitch Hits Payphones ** Revenue Slips at Teleglobe ** Bell Cuts FirstRate Overseas Rates ** Union Says Bell Spin-Off Illegal ** Newbridge Loses WIC LMCS Contract ** Nortel, Microcell Join in Wireless Data Venture ** Telus Mobility Upheld in Roaming Dispute ** BC Tel Provides Wireless/Landline Mailbox ** Videotron to Offer TV Internet Access ** Ottawa Seeks Comment on International Trade Law ** GlobalServe Bought by Primus ** EDS Buys SHL Systemhouse ** Alcatel to Close Montreal Plant ** Nortel to Equip Novus Local Network ** Axia NetMedia Buys Camtech ** Staples Plans Halifax Call Center ** Profits Up at Bruncor ** On-Site Workshops "Enlightening" and "Fun" ============================================================ 911 GLITCH HITS PAYPHONES: Toronto police have issued a warning regarding payphones not registered with 9-1-1 service, following an incident in which operators could not locate a Canada Payphone booth from which a 9-1-1 call had been made. MetroNet, which provides Canada Payphone's local service, blames a "software glitch," which has been fixed. REVENUE SLIPS AT TELEGLOBE: Teleglobe's fourth-quarter results, the first to include Excel Communications, show revenue of US$810 Million, a 9.4% decline from last year. Excel's revenue fell 9.7%. Excluding $262 Million in one- time charges, quarterly profit rose to $78 Million from $32 Million. BELL CUTS FIRSTRATE OVERSEAS RATES: Bell Canada's FirstRate long distance plan now offers rates to 28 overseas countries that do not change by time of day. Calls to the UK are now 22 cents/minute; to Japan, 64 cents. (See Telecom Update #168) UNION SAYS BELL SPIN-OFF ILLEGAL: The Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union, which represents 2,400 Bell Canada operators, has filed a complaint with the Canada Industrial Relations Board saying that Bell cannot legally spin off the operators' jobs while their union contract is in force. Bell says its labor contracts contain no such restriction. NEWBRIDGE LOSES WIC LMCS CONTRACT: Newbridge Networks has lost most of a contract valued at about $300 Million to supply LMCS (wireless broadband) equipment to WIC Connexus. NORTEL, MICROCELL JOIN IN WIRELESS DATA VENTURE: Saraide Inc., a joint venture launched February 8, aims to provide Internet access and other information services to wireless networks, using Nortel Networks technology. Among Saraide's sponsors is Microcell, which plans to offer its services this spring. ** Nortel has agreed to pay $9.5 Million for prepaid wireless software from NBTel Global. TELUS MOBILITY UPHELD IN ROAMING DISPUTE: An Alberta court has dismissed Microcell's claim that Telus Mobility was blocking Microcell calls from roaming on Telus' analog network in Calgary, in violation of the roaming agreement between the two companies. Microcell plans to appeal. BC TEL PROVIDES WIRELESS/LANDLINE MAILBOX: BC Tel's new Combined Voice Mail lets customers receive messages to both their wireless and landline numbers in a single voice mailbox. Price: $4/month. VIDEOTRON TO OFFER TV INTERNET ACCESS: Videotron Communications plans to provide TV-based Internet access in the Montreal region this year as an add-on to its digital TV service, which is to start up this month. OTTAWA SEEKS COMMENT ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW: The Federal Government has asked for input on the "scope, content, and process" of forthcoming international trade negotiations, including those that aim to establish a Free Trade Area of the Americas. Submissions are due April 30. ** The Information Technology Association of Canada asks those who want to help formulate an ITAC response to contact Bill Munson at 905-602-8510 x223. http://www.itac.ca GLOBALSERVE BOUGHT BY PRIMUS: Primus Telecommunications of McLean, Virginia, has bought GlobalServe Communications, a Toronto-based Internet provider with 30,000 customers, for $6.5 Million. EDS BUYS SHL SYSTEMHOUSE: MCI WorldCom has sold SHL Systemhouse, the Ottawa-based systems integrator, to Electronic Data Systems for US$1.65 Billion. ALCATEL TO CLOSE MONTREAL PLANT: Alcatel plans to close its cable manufacturing factory in Montreal and consolidate operations in Pennsylvania. NORTEL TO EQUIP NOVUS LOCAL NETWORK: Novus Telecom, a Vancouver-based Competitive Local Exchange Provider (CLEC) targeting multiple dwelling units, plans to buy equipment and consulting services for US$53 Million from Nortel Networks over the next three years. AXIA NETMEDIA BUYS CAMTECH: Axia NetMedia, a Calgary-based specialist in learning systems and information exchange, has bought Camtech Communications Systems, also of Calgary, a Lucent reseller. STAPLES PLANS HALIFAX CALL CENTER: Staples, Inc. says it will hire 300 employees this year for a new call center in Halifax serving its international office supply business. PROFITS UP AT BRUNCOR: Bruncor reports fourth-quarter revenue of $152 Million, a 10.4% rise that it attributed mainly to increased sales of IT products. Net income for the year grew 14% to $57 Million. ON-SITE WORKSHOPS "ENLIGHTENING" AND "FUN": Participants have lauded Angus Dortmans' on-site workshops as "enlightening," "meaningful," "well-organized," and "fun." Workshops are available on many topics of telecom and call center management, including: ** Fundamentals of Successful Incoming Call-Center Management ** Fundamentals of Successful End-User Telecom Management ** How to Develop and Present Telecom Business Cases to Senior Management ** Recent Telecom Regulatory Decisions and Trends ** Getting More for Less: How to Improve Telecom Vendor Relations To discuss your workshop needs, call Henry Dortmans at 1-800-263-4415 ext 300. ============================================================ HOW TO SUBMIT ITEMS FOR TELECOM UPDATE E-MAIL: editors@angustel.ca FAX: 905-686-2655 MAIL: TELECOM UPDATE Angus TeleManagement Group 8 Old Kingston Road Ajax, Ontario Canada L1T 2Z7 =========================================================== HOW TO SUBSCRIBE (OR UNSUBSCRIBE) TELECOM UPDATE is provided in electronic form only. There are two formats available: 1. The fully-formatted edition is posted on the World Wide Web on the first business day of the week at http://www.angustel.ca/update/up.html 2. The e-mail edition is distributed free of charge. To subscribe, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should contain only the two words: subscribe update To stop receiving the e-mail edition, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should say only: unsubscribe update [Your e-mail address] COPYRIGHT AND DISCLAIMER: All contents copyright 1999 Angus TeleManagement Group Inc. All rights reserved. For further information, including permission to reprint or reproduce, please e-mail rosita@angustel.ca or phone 905-686-5050 ext 225. The information and data included has been obtained from sources which we believe to be reliable, but Angus TeleManagement makes no warranties or representations whatsoever regarding accuracy, completeness, or adequacy. Opinions expressed are based on interpretation of available information, and are subject to change. If expert advice on the subject matter is required, the services of a competent professional should be obtained. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 10:41:37 -0600 From: Simon Chapman Organization: Aethos Communication Systems Subject: SS7 Release Link Trunk Info Sources? Can anyone point me in the direction of some technical (as tekky as possible) sources of info for the use of "Release Link Trunk" as it applies to SS7 please ? I'm especially interested in how a Service Node or Adjunct Switch is told about the termination of a call and whether this is covered in the "Release Link Trunk" feature or whether this is IS-41 operation wrappers, or whatever. I have the IS-41 specs, and bunches of books, but sources such as the excellent "SS7" book by Travis Russell do not appear to have info - and in fact contradicts some of the info I have. Enquiringly, | Simon Chapman | Mobile : +1-214-213-6507 | | Aethos Communication Systems, | Office Phone : +1-214-599-1000 | | 3535 Travis St., Suite 110, | Office Fax : +1-214-599-1001 | | Dallas, TX 75204 USA | www.aethos.com | ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #14 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Feb 16 16:45:39 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id QAA22038; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 16:45:39 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 16:45:39 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199902162145.QAA22038@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #15 TELECOM Digest Tue, 16 Feb 99 16:45:00 EST Volume 19 : Issue 15 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Young Developer Foils Browser Filter (Monty Solomon) Telephone Collectors International Link (Paul Wills) Re: You Call, You Pay (Richard D G Cox) Re: You Call, You Pay (Tom Betz) Re: Telemarketing by Playing Recordings (Richard D G Cox) Re: Telemarketing by Playing Recordings (Walter Dnes) Re: Telemarketing by Playing Recordings (Jim) Re: Telemarketing by Playing Recordings (Leonard Erickson) Re: DS-3 Signalling (Mel Beckman) Re: Ticketmaster and Microsoft Settle Linking Dispute (Barry Margolin) Re: Mystery Robocaller and the TCPA (Jim) Re: Validating the Format of an International Telephone Number (Roessler) Re: Validating the Format of an International Telephone Number (J. Levine) Re: Forwarding One Line Using Another? (David Willingham) Re: Forwarding One Line Using Another? (pastark@earl-grey.cloud9.net) Re: Winzip32.exe Missing From Computer (Bruce Wilson) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 415-520-9905 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, 16 Feb 1999 00:04:09 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Young Developer Foils Browser Filter http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,32388,00.html By Beth Lipton Staff Writer, CNET News.com February 12, 1999, 3:10 p.m. PT A 20-year-old software developer has created a way around Internet Explorer 4.0 and 5.0's content filtering feature, as he did with Netscape's browser last year. Brian Ristuccia, a computer science student at the University of Massachussetts at Lowell and an employee of Nortel Networks, in August posted instructions for disabling the NetWatch filtering feature in Netscape's Communicator 4.06. He now has done something similar with Microsoft's IE, both in its 4.0 version and in the beta version of 5.0. The filtering feature, dubbed Content Advisor, relies on Internet ratings standards set by the World Wide Web Consortium's Platform for Internet Content Selection (PICS). PICS lets Web sites rate their own content and Web browsers read those ratings. Ristuccia said he is cracking the security systems built into popular browsers because of free speech concerns. However, Content Advisor, which is listed on the browser under the "Edit" menu within "Options," is off by default and has to be activated by a user, according to a Microsoft spokesperson, who acknowledged the bypass. "In order to provide parents who have forgotten their Content Advisor password a way to continue using the feature, Microsoft created a way to recover the information, and has provided that information to certain individuals. Now an individual would like to publicize to children that they can exploit this same method to get around their parents' password, which is both regrettable (since PICS enables parents to provide a safe, useful, and enjoyable Web experience for their children) and at best a temporary workaround," Microsoft's spokesperson wrote in an email message to CNET News.com. "The software can be a dangerous tool for Internet censorship," Ristuccia said today. "Although it may have some legitimate uses, I think the risks outweigh the benefits." But Microsoft's spokesperson noted that the Content Advisor feature is "supposed to be useful for parents. It's meant to be helpful to them." Content Advisor is activated when a user clicks on it from the "Security" tab under "Options." It asks the user to set up a password and then rate the categories of Language, Nudity, Violence, and Sex based on the level of explicitness that will be allowed. Presumably, all the adults in a given household would know the password, so they could view Internet content freely. Children, who do not know the password, are blocked from viewing sites based on how violent or sexual they are, for example. Ristuccia said the feature "takes the responsibility out of [parents' and librarians'] hands and puts it into a piece of software -- and that's not a good idea." Net filtering and free speech have been contentious issues for years. Most recently, a federal court upheld a July 1996 law that prohibits any Virginia state employee from using state-owned computer equipment to access or store sexually explicit content, unless a person gets written permission from a supervisor to obtain the prohibited material. The ruling affects college professors, social workers, court clerks, and others. Last month, a California judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by an angry parent who wanted her local library to filter Internet access for all patrons after her 12-year-old son accessed pornography online at the library. Filtering technology itself has been proven less that foolproof on a number of occasions. The Microsoft spokesperson said that if Ristuccia's bypass is employed, parents will know the next time they log on because the password will have been changed. But Ristuccia argued that on his site "are two items entitled 'Toggle PICS Off' and 'Toggle PICS On' that would allow a user to enable/disable PICS without actually changing the password. It is possible to disable the Content Advisor censorware, visit restricted sites, and then turn it back on without the person who enabled Content Advisor finding out. "Also, while Microsoft may claim that the filtering software is designed to help parents, it is actually harmful to them because it provides for a false sense of security," he added. "Content Advisor blocks only a small percentage of sites that parents may find objectionable." The Microsoft spokesperson said that if the bypass causes concern among users, Microsoft "would consider creating a new workaround. The problem is that it would probably be more complicated, which means it would be more difficult for parents." For Ristuccia's part, he said he will continue to "do my best to see that none of these products are viewed as 100-percent effective." Copyright ) 1995-99 CNET, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy policy. ------------------------------ From: Paul Wills Subject: Telephone Collectors International Link Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 09:29:16 -0500 Pat, I recently took over the Telephone Collectors International web site. TCI is an association of telephone collectors, historians and general enthusiasts. Because of our special interest newsletter, Switchers Quarterly, there are also a number of people who specialize in historic telephone technology including switching equipment, trunk signalling equipment and test equipment. I would be happy to include a link on our links page and ask that you do the same on yours. http://www.voicenet.com/~tciplace Thanks, Paul Wills [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Consider it done, Paul. The next time I work on archives maintainence you will be listed. In the meantime, I hope readers will use the link included above to visit your delightful service. Why don't you add a few click-throughs at the very start of your page with some get-rich-quick advertising schemes behind them? The companies will pay you three cents each time you annoy one of your users in this way. I personally have never sold myself for three cents but you may wish to do so. For me, it would have to be a bit more than three cents. Please, dear readers, do not write and tell me what I am; everyone on the net has known for years what I am: all I do is quibble with people about the *price*. I even had one company offer to pay me ten cents per user; when a user called my URL it would redirect them to that company and when the company got finished with them, the users would be redirected back to me and the archives. How's that for having brass bedsprings? Anyway Paul, thanks for doing your part to keep the net the way it was intended. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 21:28 GMT From: Richard.Cox@Mandarin.Com (Richard D G Cox) Subject: Re: You Call, You Pay Reply-To: <>@cix.co.uk In TELECOM Digest V19 #11 Monty Solomon (monty@roscom.com) wrote: > Federal telephone regulators are preparing to let wireless carriers > charge people for making calls to cellular and PCS phones, hoping > to boost competition with land-based local phone networks. If anyone thinks it will _boost_ competition, they need to think again! Experience in the UK has shown how the rates for these calls are pushed high by the operators - in fact a recent enquiry by the UK Monopolies and Mergers Commission found that rates charged for calls _to_ mobiles were considerably higher than they should have been. The Regulator is currently amending licences to require that the rates be lowered. The reason is simple ... the person who takes the decision as to which network or Service Provider to go with, normally has no reason to be bothered how much it costs to place the calls to their mobile phones. So, given the choice between a mobile with high cost to call into and a low cost to call out, or one with a low cost to call into and a high cost to call out, the decision is almost made for them. That's the way the UK tariffs have been structured: for example certain UK phones now have a tariff of 3c/minute off peak for outbound calls, but a call to that mobile phone from a UK landline at the same time of day costs 30c per minute - ten times as much. Ironically a call from the US to a UK mobile would only cost the same as a standard call to the UK, which is usually less than UK callers would pay to call the same mobile - for no other reason than the lack of any mechanism to collect the extra money. In those circumstances the networks have to accept a lower payment for calls that originate internationally. As a result some enterprising LD operators in the UK have routed their UK mobile traffic out to the USA to be refiled back ... as that works out cheaper than delivering it direct. It would not surprise me if a similar technique were used to get round any new US mobile termination rate (or at least until the loophole got plugged!) Traditionally the UK has mixed mobile and landline numbers, but one of the benefits of the number change we are about to undergo here, is that all mobile numbers will be moved into ranges (0) 77, (0) 78 and (0) 79. This will make it very easy for callers to recognise expensive numbers before they call. Will NANPA need to allocate new easy to remember NPA codes such as 1-777, for calls to caller-pays mobile phones in the USA? The only good point about the UK mobile charges is that we can safely give mobile numbers to businesses we deal with, reckoning that if they were to sell on the lists of those numbers, any telemarketers who buys such a list will tend to delete all the mobile numbers first, to avoid having to pay the higher charges. Richard D G Cox Mandarin Technology, PO Box 111, PENARTH UK; Phone: +44 1222 311131 If sending genuine e-mail, omit the word "Office" from our address. ------------------------------ From: tbetz@panix.com (Tom Betz) Subject: Re: You Call, You Pay Date: 16 Feb 1999 13:20:14 -0500 Organization: Society for the Elimination of Junk Unsolicited Bulk Email Reply-To: tbetz@pobox.com And it's about time. This will make cellular valuable, finally. Cellular companies have been trying to compensate for "Receiver Pays" terms with "first minute free" and such like, but Caller Pays will let wireless services come into their own. We have tried ignorance | Tom Betz, Generalist for a very long time, and | Want to send me email? FIRST, READ THIS PAGE: it's time we tried education. | | YO! MY EMAIL ADDRESS IS HEAVILY SPAM-ARMORED! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 21:28 GMT From: Richard.Cox@Mandarin.Com (Richard D G Cox) Subject: Re: Telemarketing by Playing Recordings Reply-To: <>@cix.co.uk In TELECOM Digest V19 #13, jyoull@hotmail.com (Jim) quoted 47USC227(b)(1) > It shall be unlawful for any person within the United States ... to > use any telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send > an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine (snip) > (3) PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION.--A person or entity may, if otherwise > permitted by the laws or rules of court of a State, bring in an > appropriate court of that State ... (snip) ... an action to recover > for actual monetary loss from such a violation, or to receive $500 > in damages for each such violation, whichever is greater From May 1st this year, similar rules will apply in the UK. Has anyone considered how (or whether) somebody receiving such a call outside the USA, which was made from the USA, could take action or collect damages? It seems to me that there might otherwise be a considerable amount of fax traffic crossing the Atlantic in each direction, in order to avoid action under each country's domestic law. Richard D G Cox Mandarin Technology, PO Box 111, PENARTH UK; Phone: +44 1222 311131 If sending genuine e-mail, omit the word "Office" from our address. ------------------------------ From: waltdnes@interlog.com (Walter Dnes) Subject: Re: Telemarketing by Playing Recordings Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 07:02:24 GMT Organization: Interlog Internet Services On 12 Feb 1999 20:07:41 GMT, abuse@verrine.demon.co.uk Peter Corlett) wrote: > I've set up my employer's computer to phone my mobile > whenever various links fail. Since *YOU* set it up, I presume *YOU* obtained permission from *YOURSELF* and pre-arranged this type of call. If not, *YOU* could sue *YOURSELF* for the inconvenience. Walter Dnes procmail spamfilter http://www.interlog.com/~waltdnes/spamdunk/spamdunk.htm Why a fiscal conservative opposes Toronto 2008 OWE-lympics http://www.interlog.com/~waltdnes/owe-lympics/owe-lympics.htm ------------------------------ From: jyoull@hotmail.com (Jim) Subject: Re: Telemarketing by Playing Recordings Date: 15 Feb 1999 19:30:09 GMT Peter Corlett wrote: > TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Larry Conzett > : >> [...] If I or someone was here to first use the phone to 'request >> permission to play a recorded transmission' what need would I have >> for the alarm system? Are you certain in Tenessee that security >> alarms are not exempt from the requirement that a live person first >> get permission to play a message? [...] > I expect that the permission doesn't have to be granted in the same > call that initiates the transmission. It would certainly make more > sense this way than any daft requirement for there to be a human > being present at the time of playout. > > I've set up my employer's computer to phone my mobile whenever > various links fail. Now although this is more of a rhetorical > question, being based in the UK, but would this be allowed by said > law, given there'll be nobody in the office at 3am when it decides > there's a fault? Per the Federal law, prearranged calls are permitted in any case ... You oughtn't have your dialer call all your neighbors' phones and ask them to wake you, without their prior consent. ------------------------------ From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) Subject: Re: Telemarketing by Playing Recordings Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 04:22:01 PST Organization: Shadownet gifford@ns.net (James Gifford) writes: > Linc Madison wrote: >> There is a California state law that forbids such calls, but, of >> course, it only applies if the origin is within California. >> I got a couple of such calls, from the same telemarketing outfit, >> at 2:45 a.m. on Thanksgiving Day, and then at 4:45 a.m. on a Sunday. >> Yes, that's a.m. as in "wee hours of the morning," between midnight >> and dawn. The telco was absolutely unhelpful in giving me any way >> to deal with the problem, other than trying very aggressively to >> sell me Caller ID service, which I am 99.9% sure would be of no >> help in identifying the caller. > I've been getting them a couple of times a week, after not hearing any > for years. Did a law expire somewhere? Did some other loophole open up? > As far as identifying the culprit ... wouldn't listening to the message > long enough to get the contact info work? Last time *I* tried that, I ran into a new trick. The recording told me that I had to answer "yes" to "Are you interested in our service" before it'd give me anymore information! I wasn't about to get into *that* can of worms and hung up. Another weirdy I had (they seem to have *finally* stopped) was getting fax calls on my voice line. I was getting the CNG tones, but I never managed to get my fax modem to synch up with their equipment. Of course, all of these things are "unavailable" (aka "out of area") Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow) shadow@krypton.rain.com <--preferred leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com <--last resort [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think you can truthfully answer 'yes' to the question about being interested in their service. You are interested in finding out who they are, so you can sue them! Furthermore, expressing an interest in hearing more about some topic certainly creates no legal obligation to actually purchase whatever it is they are selling. Tell them yes, you want to hear more once you have a tape recorder attached to the line. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 21:42:57 -0800 From: Mel Beckman Subject: Re: DS-3 Signalling > On Fri, 12 Feb 1999 12:17:27 Baris Aksoy com> said: > I wonder is there any frames that can handle DS3 signals? I mean, @ > DS1 signal rate we can use T1 frames. I saw somewhere that there is T3 > frames. Is it only theoretical, or casn anybody use this type of frames? > Actually, I expect that DS3 --> DS1 --> T1 frames a flow like that. But > is it practical? Baris, DS3 is widely used, and can be treated as a single 44.7ish Mbps continuous channel or as 28 individual channelized T1s. It used to be that only telcos used T3s (and T1s for that matter) -- for interconnections between COs to carry digitized voice. That's whey the DS hierarchy is all based on multiples of 64 Kbps -- it supports the 64 Kbps digitized voice channels invented by AT&T back in the 1960s. Today DS3 gets used a lot in fractional forms. You might have a full DS3 pipe to a local CO, and from there split off a 10 Mbps fraction for Frame Relay, another 10 Mbps for dedicated point-to-point, and maybe even a fraction for voice. But this kind of hard-partitioned provisioning will eventually go away, in favor of high speed packet switching protocols such as ATM or switched IP. I could go on, but perhaps this gives you some answers. Mel Beckman ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: Ticketmaster and Microsoft Settle Linking Dispute Organization: GTE Internetworking, Cambridge, MA Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 19:46:27 GMT In article , TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Monty Solomon: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It seems to me the stance taken by > Ticketmaster on this is very greedy. They do, after all, receive a > commission on ticket sales, regardless of which direction the user > comes to reach them. Now they want to insist that you have to see > their advertisements first before you can spend even more money > with them? Of course, the additional waiting period is required while > you sit on their front page waiting for the advertisers' banners > get loaded, etc. Furthermore, for a fraction of the costs of the lawsuit, they could have implemented technology to foil the deep linkers. All you have to do is look at the Referrer header that the browser sends -- if it's not a URL on your own site, redirect the query to your home page. I've noticed that www.movielink.com does this. Actually, it appears that they have some pages that can be deep-linked (www.generalcinemas.com links to them in lieu of providing its own theatre schedule pages, is presumably paying MovieFone for this privilege, and I'm able to bookmark these links) and others that cannot (if I try bookmarking them, I end up at the home page instead). Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups. Don't bother cc'ing followups to me. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have noticed the same kind of behavior with bookmarks established in the Real Player. If you go through certain sites to find something to listen to, then attempt to save it as a Real Player bookmark when you go back later to listen again your Real Player gets an error message. You have to go back to the site where you found the radio/TV station in the first place and then link from there instead. When the xxxxx.ram sees you coming it looks at the referer and does not see either broadcast.com or its own front page, etc and refuses to let you listen. PAT] ------------------------------ From: jyoull@hotmail.com (Jim) Subject: Re: Mystery Robocaller and the TCPA Date: 15 Feb 1999 19:30:13 GMT Mark W. Schumann wrote: > Well, well, well. I seem to have caught a robocaller. An outfit > calling itself "Community Development Home Services" robocalls me > every few months with a sales pitch. I'm not complaining about their > robo-DIALER, which is annoying but not illegal in itself; I'm saying > that the first voice on the line when I answer is a recording. That's > illegal under 47 USC Whatever, and I'm entitled to $500 per instance > ... of which I've recorded three already. > This last time I hit *69 and _actually_got_a_number_. I logged it and > called the local public library for a lookup in the "criss-cross" > phone directory. They turned up nothing. Likewise the Internet-based > reverse lookup services failed. > I needed to identify the business or a responsible person in order to > bring my private action. Suing a John Doe might be satisfying, but > John Doe doesn't write checks. > So I called Ameritech's customer service, since the call came from > Cleveland. They were able to tell me that the line was paid for on a > residential account but that they were not allowed to disclose the > accountholder's identity. How about that -- they say it's a privacy > issue! I don't doubt the reasons for that regulation but it sure is > ironic as well as annyoing in context. > Anyway, I'd like to go forward with a small claims suit against these > jerks. My statutory damages are $1,500, the federal law grants > jurisdiction to local courts, and these calls originated and > terminated in the city of Cleveland ... all of which point to > jurisdiction in the Cleveland Municipal Court. (Good news: I'm 2-0 in > pro se cases in that venue.) > My whine and question for Telecom readers is this. What procedure > short of a subpoena or discovery motion will get me the identity of my > John Doe? When you file your small claims action, you will be naming Ameritech as an additional defendant and you will subpoena their records which will reveal the information that you require. Your action will name "john does 1 through ____" and Ameritech... then once you have the real name, you amend the filing and won't have to collect from John Doe. The small claims officials should help you somewhat with the technicalities. Congratulations. Go get 'em ... the law exists so that suits like this can be filed, which will either reduce the number of offenders, or line the pockets of those who choose to fight back with the money of those who choose to abuse. Good outcome either way. Pat's searches are also going to be useful, but the telephone company's records would be useful to avoid their attempting to claim that the phone number wasn't theirs when the offending calls were placed ... Had a nice pile of faxes from a lady in the next town advertising her accounting service. She was surprised to learn that we could all come after her for $500 per fax. There is a lot of ignorance out there -- high-powered equipment in the hands of amateurs. ------------------------------ From: Georg Roessler Subject: Re: Validating the Format of an International Telephone Number Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 15:18:34 +0100 Organization: Bosch Telecom Reply-To: robert@bonomi.com Robert Bonomi wrote: > I'm writing some software for, in-house use, that has to cope with > international (full world-wide) telephone numbers. There is an issue > of an unacceptly high rate of various kinds of data-entry error on > non-NANP numbers -- mostly because the people doing data-entry don't > know what all the 'foreign' numbers are "supposed" to look like. Your approach will not work for telephone numbers in Germany because we use variable length phone numbers. Even numbers within the same switch and starting with the same digits can have different lengths, as I discovered recently. My private phone number is +49-69-78802639, hence in a local call you dial 8 digits to reach me. My neighbour's number has 7 digits only, something like 7812345, and the plumber I called a few days ago has two 6-digit numbers like 784321. Sorry for the bad news, Mailto: Georg.Roessler@de.bosch.com Bosch Telecom, UC-PN/EL3 Tel./Fax.: +49-69-7505-3813/-3314 60326 Frankfurt am Main In der Theorie sind Theorie und Praxis dasselbe; in der Praxis nicht Herbert Franke ------------------------------ Date: 16 Feb 1999 19:45:12 -0500 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Validating the Format of an International Telephone Number Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > Is there a compendium of this kind of information,anywhere, for the > WHOLE WORLD ?? Or, failing that, for anywhere? Most immediate need > is Mexico (non-NANP), South America (all), various W. Europe, anc > Central America. No. In Germany, for example, many PBXes have direct inward dialing with variable length numbers, so the main number might be +49-234-567-0 and extensions might be +49-234-567-2345 and +49-234-567-34567. Italy also has variable length numbers within a single city. 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: 15 Feb 1999 03:59:10 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com From: we202c3f@aol.com (David Willingham) Subject: Re: Forwarding One Line Using Another? In Bellsouth territory, depending on type of C.O., you have the option of forwarding just the main number or the "Ringmaster" (distinctive ringing) numbers as well. (Option is programmed by the service rep. when you order the service.) As for the Radio Shack device, both the Hello Direct Ring Deciper unit and the Ring-Rite unit absorb the first ring to determine the proper cadence; but they do NOT answer the line then give fake ringback to the caller, rather they just channel the call to the correct device. For this reason I personally prefer these to the more common "fax-voice line sharing" devices, which do not require distinctive ringing: they answer the line and in absence of fax tone provide the fake ringback and rering voltage to the non-fax devices. The only possible drawback I can think of in Pat's suggestion to swap the 1-Ring (listed) number and the 2-ring ("private") number is that now the personal line number will be displayed on others' CID units. Of course by using a ring cadence deciphering unit, it would really not be necessary to have a separate line dedicated for the fax machine; connecting the fax as one of the distinctive ring numbers on the main line would "free up" the present fax line to be the personal line, which then could be forwarded using the basic call forwarding feature rather than the call extender box which has some loss on "trunk to trunk" conferencing, and causes billing for 2 calls if metered or toll. Another feature I like is "flexible call forwarding" which like remote call forwarding can be programmed from any touch-tone phone. It also has an audible call announce feature, which announces the name of the forwarded party. You can forward the line with this feature to another one that has an answering machine on it, and record the audible name of the person that called you. (In some ways better than caller ID because you can check remotely to see (hear) who has called.) David Willingham WE202C3F@aol.com (David Willingham) ------------------------------ From: pastark@earl-grey.cloud9.net Subject: Re: Forwarding One Line Using Another? Date: 15 Feb 1999 21:37:15 GMT Organization: Posted via RemarQ, http://www.remarQ.com - Discussions here! TELECOM Digest Editor noted, regarding a the Radio Shack distinctive ring device: > What the Radio Shack device does is (after listening to a couple of > rings) take the line off hook, i.e. the call is answered, and then > it in turn sends ringing voltage through the output to whatever is > out there. As it turns out, that is not entirely correct -- it does not take the line off hook, but merely redirects the ringing voltage to the appropriate output. If the device being rung does not answer, then the RS device merely keeps ringing it, without taking the line off hook. Pete pastark@cloud9.net ------------------------------ Date: 16 Feb 1999 13:19:02 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com From: blw1540@aol.com (Bruce Wilson) Subject: Re: Winzip32.exe Missing From Computer > Considering Winzip is shareware that should be paid for, this is > probably not a good idea. It's the nature of SHAREware that it can be freely copied and the copies passed around at no cost to the recipients for the software. That's got nothing to do with the issue of registration (payment) if one chooses to keep and use the software. In fact, the term "shareware" encompasses both software for which a fee is charged and that for which there's no fee ("freeware"). Bruce Wilson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #15 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Feb 16 20:12:19 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id UAA03115; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 20:12:19 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 20:12:19 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199902170112.UAA03115@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #16 TELECOM Digest Tue, 16 Feb 99 20:12:00 EST Volume 19 : Issue 16 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson AT&T-MCI Merger, According to CNET (Nevin Liber) Hallmark Computer Glitch Sends Intimate Greetings (Monty Solomon) Watching Web Speech (Monty Solomon) Employment Opportunity: Principal Software Engineer (Robertson-Surrette) Re: Mystery Robocaller and the TCPA (Derek Balling) Re: You Call, You Pay (Adam H. Kerman) Re: You Call, You Pay (John Nagle) Re: Forwarding One Line Using Another? (David Wilson) Re: Bad Email from MCI (John McHarry) Time For That Song Again! (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: 415-520-9905 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: nevin@CS.Arizona.EDU (Nevin Liber) Subject: AT&T-MCI Merger, According to CNET Date: 16 Feb 1999 14:00:04 -0700 Organization: University of Arizona CS Department, Tucson AZ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Instead of the occassional 'Last Laugh' item I put at the end of some issues of the Digest, this time I decided to saved the best for first. PAT] ----------------- Imagine my surprise when I got the follwing headline from CNET News Dispatch (their email service for news of the day): CNET NEWS.COM DISPATCH Tuesday, February 16, 1999 30 new stories as of 1:15 PM PT [...] TODAY'S TOP STORIES -- AT&T-MCI merger faces deadline http://www.news.com/News/Item/0%2C4%2C32441%2C00.html?dd.ne.txt.0216.02 And I thought that their upcoming merger with that cable company was a big deal... :-) This sure looks like a *human* one-byte error for once. Nevin ":-)" Liber (312) 855-1000 x199 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 00:27:19 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Hallmark Computer Glitch Sends Intimate Greetings http://www.techserver.com/noframes/story/0,2294,17514-28909-212134-0,00.html Hallmark computer glitch sends intimate online greetings into public cyberspace Copyright ) 1999 Nando Media Copyright ) 1999 Associated Press KANSAS CITY, Mo. (February 12, 1999 7:50 a.m. EST http://www.nandotimes.com) - The lovers and flirts sending e-mail Valentines and other notes on Hallmark Cards' online site no doubt intended their musings to be perused only by that special someone. Unwittingly, they had a potential audience of millions. A programming error at hallmark.com allowed anyone with a computer and some curiosity to search the Web site for private love notes - and, in many cases, the senders' name, home and e-mail addresses and place of employment. The security breach surprised customers and executives at the Kansas City-based company, which this week scrambled to modify the computer program after The Kansas City Star reported the problem. Technicians have since deleted all of the old messages. A Hallmark official said the problem involved only greetings sent a year or more ago. "It was a programming error," company spokeswoman Julie O'Dell said. "We certainly are committed to providing privacy." The recipient of a cyber Hallmark greeting card first gets an e-mail from the company, including a password. Then he or she clicks on a Web address to view the card. But until this week, all those messages were available to anyone who used the site's search engine, the newspaper reported. That means if the word "bear" was typed, for example, Hallmark's computer would have given you a list of Web pages including that word - including one page featuring a sweet message from "Teddy Bear" to his "Honey." "I had no idea," said Gary Harders of Chicago, who sent one of the cards to his wife. "I assumed it was private. "It defeats the whole purpose of sending somebody a personal card if everybody and his brother is going to get ahold of it. It could be embarrassing." O'Dell said she had no idea how many people might have clicked through the greetings. "This new system has, built in, a new standard to ensure this kind of thing doesn't happen again," she said. "We don't want a lot of people worried. None of the recent electronic greetings were in that file." According to the Star, some of the messages were obviously not meant for mass consumption. Among them: - "Gary & I have been having secret cyber sex via computer." - "I've seen you swing a sledge hammer and the way your muscles ripple ... is amazing." - "You deserve an extra foot massage tonight!" Another writer e-mailed an intimate message and a photo of a flower to a woman friend, trying to entice her into a romantic rendezvous. "You will have the greatest time you've had in 15 years," he assured his friend - unless the other man in her life persuaded her to stay home with him and their children instead. Copyright ) 1999 Nando Media ------------------------------ Reply-To: Monty Solomon From: Monty Solomon Subject: Watching Web Speech Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 17:11:12 -0500 http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/990215/15inte.htm U.S. News 2/15/99 Watching Web speech Conflicting court decisions on pornography and abortion test the rules of the E-road BY JAMES MORROW Once considered a wild frontier, the Internet is being tamed with every passing day. Sort of. Two court decisions last week on opposite sides of the country and opposite sides of the law make clear that nobody's quite sure what the rules of the information superhighway should be. In one case, a judge ruled that Web site operators' free-speech rights had been trampled; in the other, a jury said they had gone too far. In both cases, though, the underlying question was the same: When does speech on the Internet become the cyberequivalent of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater? "The principle that emerges is that speech doesn't enjoy any special rights just because it takes place online," says Steven Shapiro, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union. Agrees John Perry Barlow of the Electronic Frontier Foundation: "As people become more aware of the social space of the Internet, they will also become more aware of the need to protect it from the zealotry of those who would control it." But control is what an Oregon jury imposed when it awarded pro-choice activists and abortion doctors $107 million after finding that the operators of a Web site called The Nuremberg Files encouraged their murder. The operators are refusing to pay damages or close down the site, which lists the names and addresses of physicians who perform abortions under the heading "baby butchers." The name of Barnett Slepian, a Buffalo gynecologist, was crossed out after he was murdered last fall. In Philadelphia, meanwhile, a federal judge tossed out a law designed to block children's access to online smut. "Perhaps we do the minors of this country harm if First Amendment protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their protection," wrote U.S. District Judge Lowell A. Reed Jr. The decision was a blow to the Clinton administration, which is considering an appeal. The 1998 Child Online Protection Act was the government's second attempt to keep minors from visiting sexually explicit commercial Web sites. (The Supreme Court struck down a 1996 law.) COPA required operators of such sites to get credit card numbers from customers to verify they were 18 or older. Experts say neither case will end with last week's rulings. The most immediate impact: Parents will keep pondering ways to keep kids from surfing the proliferating sex sites. Parry Aftab, author of A Parent's Guide to the Internet, suggests buying filters to screen out the sexy stuff. But some, like Carole Palmer of Alameda, Calif., say that's not enough: "While we want to protect our unalienable rights, we [also] owe protection to our kids." ------------------------------ From: Robertson-Surrette Subject: Employment Opportunity: Principal Software Engineer Organization: Robertson-Surrette Inc. Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 14:57:50 GMT Communications Systems Principal Software Engineer If the prospect of applying leading-edge commercial voice and data communications technology to highly reliable, ruggedized and muti-level reduncy based military products sounds challenging, read on: On behalf of one of the Ottawa region's most innovative system solutions providers, we are currently conducting a search for a Principal Engineer, Software Development. This organization has established a worldwide reputation for designing and manufacturing state-of-the-art advanced communications products. As part of an advanced development team, this individual will play a key role in defining the "next generation" of the company's leading-edge system. To be ideally suited for this role, you have a strong communications and telephony background with extensive ATM and ISDN design experience. Your network management expertise will serve you well in designing multimedia delivery capabilities using state-of-the-art technologies such as JAVA, for use in very specialized military environments. Experience with ADA Programming and/or VxWorks will be considered an assets. You possess a bachelor's degree in either Computer Science or Engineering. Having worked in the technology field for at least 7 to 8 years, you are ready for a challenging role where a small team setting fosters mentoring and learning. Here, every team member understands the difference his or her contribution makes to the product. The position requires an individual who loves to be challenged. If you, or someone you know is interested in pursuing this unique opportunity further, please contact Jim Harmon at 'jharmon@robsur.com' or by fax at (613) 749-9599. We would also welcome your call at (613) 749-9909. You can find more information about this role on our web site at 'www.robsur.com'. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 17:51:09 PST From: Derek Balling Subject: Re: Mystery Robocaller and the TCPA > This last time I hit *69 and _actually_got_a_number_. I logged it and > called the local public library for a lookup in the "criss-cross" > phone directory. They turned up nothing. Likewise the Internet-based > reverse lookup services failed. > So I called Ameritech's customer service, since the call came from > Cleveland. They were able to tell me that the line was paid for on a > residential account but that they were not allowed to disclose the > accountholder's identity. How about that -- they say it's a privacy > issue! I don't doubt the reasons for that regulation but it sure is > ironic as well as annyoing in context. Make the call on your long-distance calling card. At the end of the month, dispute the charge. Ask the customer service rep if you can get the name of the called party "to jog your memory". Frequently, they will disclose it to you in order to convince you to pay the bill. (Otherwise, most will comp it off in the name of customer service). Derek J. Balling | "Bill Gates is a monocle and a white dredd@megacity.org | fluffy cat from being a villain in the http://www.megacity.org/ | next Bond film." - Dennis Miller ------------------------------ From: ahk@chinet.chinet.com (Adam H. Kerman) Subject: Re: You Call, You Pay Date: 16 Feb 1999 14:11:46 -0600 Organization: chinet In article , Monty Solomon wrote: > http://www.wired.com/news/print_version/business/story/17843.html > You Call, You Pay > Reuters > Federal telephone regulators are preparing to let wireless carriers > charge people for making calls to cellular and PCS phones, hoping to > boost competition with land-based local phone networks. . . . > But Federal Communications Commission Chairman William Kennard said > Tuesday that he had studied so-called 'calling party pays' system in > use in Europe and was ready to move forward with a similar system for > the United States. . . . > "Only 5 percent of all calls are now made on mobile phones. I think > that number would increase dramatically with a calling party pays system." Please explain. We already have "calling party pays" when a call is made from a mobile phone. Such a system would have no effect on the number of calls made from mobile phones. I have no objection to calling party pays on inbound calls to mobile phones IF a special area code is used. I have a strong objection if existing area codes are used for this service. ------------------------------ From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) Subject: Re: You Call, You Pay Organization: ICGNetcom Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 03:02:42 GMT "Monty Solomon" writes: > http://www.wired.com/news/print_version/business/story/17843.html > You Call, You Pay Uh oh. There had better be an announcement with a rate clearly stated up front, or we're going to have ultra-high-priced cellular resellers - "your phone free, callers pay you". And what about calls to Iridium or, worse, INMARSAT phones? Those are hideously expensive. There needs to be a cap on caller-pays, maybe at $0.10/minute. John Nagle ------------------------------ From: david@uow.edu.au (David Wilson) Subject: Re: Forwarding One Line Using Another? Date: 16 Feb 99 23:31:12 GMT Organization: University of Wollongong, Australia TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman): > This confused me at one point also. I had > distinctive ringing and call forwarding on the same line. I would > call forward my line, and callers to the first number were forwarded. > When someone called the second number it was as though the call- > forwarding instruction was ignored totally. It would just ring > through anyway. The reason is, all outgoing calls (including the > administrative command to forward calls) is associated with your > first, main number. There is no way when dialing out to make the > telco switch somehow think it is talking to your second number. Here in Australia, if you have distinctive ringing, any feature you add to your primary number is also added to the second number as well. There is a prefix you add to dial out on your second number and this prefix also allows you to turn the second number's features on and off. You could have both numbers call forwarded to different locations. David Wilson School of IT & CS, Uni of Wollongong, Australia david@uow.edu.au ------------------------------ From: mcharry@erols.com (John McHarry) Subject: Re: Bad Email From MCI Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1999 01:02:22 GMT On Wed, 10 Feb 1999 06:29:56 GMT, bdoreste@copland.udel.REMOVE_THIS.edu (Brian A Doreste) wrote: > Want to know who has been calling you and hanging up when you answer the > phone? Visit http://216.71.16.113/hangup.htm to find out. It is not correct that ISDN is how this is done. CLID works fine with ISDN. Probably most of these calls come from trunks directly connected to an IXC. For any company using more than about six outgoing interexchange lines at once, which is pretty small, this is cheaper than using the local carrier. These trunks don't even have numbers. They can't get them even when they want them. Also, they are usually outgoing only since the only calls that can be routed back this way are "800" calls. The rest of the numbers belong to the LEC, which charges the IXCs big time to terminate the calls. All that being said, this is quite handy for the telescum. The suggestion that you almost always get CLID on legitimate calls is not correct either. The technology is pretty dicey, even taking into account blocking. This may vary with where you are. ------------------------------ From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Time For That Song Again! Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 19:00:00 EST Once in a while I like to reprint articles from our archives which have, as my competitor {Reader's Digest} would say, enduring significance. Such is the case today, with this reprint from TELECOM Digest which first appeared here in Volume 3, Issue 39, dated Monday, July 18, 1983. The index line line in that issue was 'A Song of the Times'. In that issue of the Digest sixteen years ago, subscriber Lauren Weinstein lamented the death of 'Ma Bell', the old AT&T Bell System. I am, ummmm, painfully aware that a sizeable percentage of the population in the United States today was not even born and/or was too young to remember this event in our history, and thus may find some of the lyrics printed below to be mysterious. It is doubtful if anyone less than 25 years old knows much about or even cares that telecommunications = AT&T = Bell System = that's all there was until the US Department of Justice broke up the Bell System monopoly over a process of a few years that finally came to fruition in 1983. TELECOM Digest had already been around a couple of years at that point, and there were many, many articles about the divestiture both pro and con which were printed during 1982 and 1983. Lauren Weinstein was a charter member of our mailing list and is still on it today, with a handful of other readers who have subscribed since the very first issue. Occassionally, Lauren still writes to the Digest but not as much as he used to. The younger readers here -- and we have several teenagers -- may not make much sense of what follows, but to those of us who remember when Direct Distance Dialing first started, and the massive conversion of manual to automatic calling which went on during the 1950-60's era, the message which follows will bring back old memories. PAT -------------------- DO **not** USE THE OLD, OBSOLETE EMAIL ADDRESSES SHOWN BELOW TO CONTACT LAUREN OR THIS DIGEST !!! 12-Jul-83 09:14:32-PDT,4930;000000000001 Return-path: <@LBL-CSAM:vortex!lauren@LBL-CSAM> Received: from LBL-CSAM by USC-ECLB; Tue 12 Jul 83 09:12:46-PDT Date: Tuesday, 12-Jul-83 01:18:19-PDT From: Lauren Weinstein Subject: "The Day Bell System Died" Return-Path: Message-Id: <8307121614.AA17341@LBL-CSAM.ARPA> Received: by LBL-CSAM.ARPA (3.327/3.21) id AA17341; 12 Jul 83 09:14:35 PDT (Tue) To: TELECOM@ECLB Greetings. With the massive changes now taking place in the telecommunications industry, we're all being inundated with seemingly endless news items and points of information regarding the various effects now beginning to take place. However, one important element has been missing: a song! Since the great Tom Lehrer has retired from the composing world, I will now attempt to fill this void with my own light-hearted, non-serious look at a possible future of telecommunications. This work is entirely satirical, and none of its lyrics are meant to be interpreted in a non-satirical manner. The song should be sung to the tune of Don Mclean's classic "American Pie". I call my version "The Day Bell System Died"... --Lauren-- ********************************************************* *==================================* * Notice: This is a satirical work * *==================================* "The Day Bell System Died" Lyrics Copyright (C) 1983 by Lauren Weinstein (To the tune of "American Pie") (With apologies to Don McLean) ARPA: vortex!lauren@LBL-CSAM UUCP: {decvax, ihnp4, harpo, ucbvax!lbl-csam, randvax}!vortex!lauren ************************************************************* Long, long, time ago, I can still remember, When the local calls were "free". And I knew if I paid my bill, And never wished them any ill, That the phone company would let me be... But Uncle Sam said he knew better, Split 'em up, for all and ever! We'll foster competition: It's good capital-ism! I can't remember if I cried, When my phone bill first tripled in size. But something touched me deep inside, The day... Bell System... died. And we were singing... Bye, bye, Ma Bell, why did you die? We get static from Sprint and echo from MCI, "Our local calls have us in hock!" we all cry. Oh Ma Bell why did you have to die? Ma Bell why did you have to die? Is your office Step by Step, Or have you gotten some Crossbar yet? Everybody used to ask... Oh, is TSPS coming soon? IDDD will be a boon! And, I hope to get a Touch-Tone phone, real soon... The color phones are really neat, And direct dialing can't be beat! My area code is "low": The prestige way to go! Oh, they just raised phone booths to a dime! Well, I suppose it's about time. I remember how the payphones chimed, The day... Bell System... died. And we were singing... Bye, bye, Ma Bell, why did you die? We get static from Sprint and echo from MCI, "Our local calls have us in hock!" we all cry. Oh Ma Bell why did you have to die? Ma Bell why did you have to die? Back then we were all at one rate, Phone installs didn't cause debate, About who'd put which wire where... Installers came right out to you, No "phone stores" with their ballyhoo, And 411 was free, seemed very fair! But FCC wanted it seems, To let others skim long-distance creams, No matter 'bout the locals, They're mostly all just yokels! And so one day it came to pass, That the great Bell System did collapse, In rubble now, we all do mass, The day... Bell System... died. So bye, bye, Ma Bell, why did you die? We get static from Sprint and echo from MCI, "Our local calls have us in hock!" we all cry. Oh Ma Bell why did you have to die? Ma Bell why did you have to die? I drove on out to Murray Hill, To see Bell Labs, some time to kill, But the sign there said the Labs were gone. I went back to my old CO, Where I'd had my phone lines, years ago, But it was empty, dark, and ever so forlorn... No relays pulsed, No data crooned, No MF tones did play their tunes, There wasn't a word spoken, All carrier paths were broken... And so that's how it all occurred, Microwave horns just nests for birds, Everything became so absurd, The day... Bell System... died. So bye, bye, Ma Bell, why did you die? We get static from Sprint and echo from MCI, "Our local calls have us in hock!" we all cry. Oh Ma Bell why did you have to die? Ma Bell why did you have to die? We were singing: Bye, bye, Ma Bell, why did you die? We get static from Sprint and echo from MCI, "Our local calls have us in hock!" we all cry. Oh Ma Bell why did you have to die? ------------------------------- [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thank you again, Lauren. And to whoever is publishing this Digest fifty years from now, I hope you will see this in the archives and use it every year or so as I do, just as a reminder of how things used to be. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #16 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Feb 17 15:48:08 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id PAA18345; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 15:48:08 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 15:48:08 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199902172048.PAA18345@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #17 TELECOM Digest Wed, 17 Feb 99 15:48:00 EST Volume 19 : Issue 17 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Ticketmaster and Microsoft Settle Linking Dispute (Ed Ellers) Re: Mystery Robocaller and the TCPA (Terry Knab) Re: Winzip32.exe Missing From Computer (Al Varney) Re: You Call, You Pay (Ralph Hyres) Re: You Call, You Pay (Michael J. Ellis) Re: You Call, You Pay (Matthew Black) Re: You Call, You Pay (Robert Wiegand) Re: You Call, You Pay (Ken McLeod) Re: DS3 Signalling (Mel Beckman) Stepper Switch Wanted (Bob Zeidman) Privacy Advocates Step up Fight Over Pentium III Chip (Monty Solomon) Last Laugh! Revenge of the Telemarketers (Monty Solomon) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * 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: 415-520-9905 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: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: Ticketmaster and Microsoft Settle Linking Dispute Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 02:19:46 -0500 Organization: Posted via RemarQ, http://www.remarQ.com - Discussions here! Barry Margolin wrote: > Furthermore, for a fraction of the costs of the lawsuit, they could > have implemented technology to foil the deep linkers. All you have to > do is look at the Referrer header that the browser sends -- if it's > not a URL on your own site, redirect the query to your home page." Ticketmaster did exactly that, directed against Sidewalk, shortly after they filed the suit; if you tried to go deep into their site from a Sidewalk link they redirected to a page saying not only that Sidewalk was violating Ticketmaster's rights but reminding users that they could access Ticketmaster directly without going to Sidewalk first! [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It seems to me Ticketmaster was wrong for getting the users involved in the middle of this. They could have continued to serve the users while they were fighting with Microsoft over the issue. Web sites should *never* take their battles with other web sites to the user level. If they are so insistent on getting all the money the can from all directions then they could have simply redirected the user to their top page and let it go at that. Sites like 'sidewalk' generate enough traffic as a result of new users joining the net (via msn.com and similar large ISPs) that *anyone* they point to is going to benefit as a result. Heck, I wish 'sidewalk' had a link to the Digest/Archives, and I frankly would not care where they chose to enter. Oh, it would be nice if they came right up to the front page so my counter and stats program would capture them as I wish and so they could read whatever I had to say that day, but how could I insist on something like that? It does not look well at all for any site to bad-mouth another site in specific terms with names mentioned. If I really felt the user should be at my front door I would quietly redirect him there in a transparent way, not flash a screen at him telling how my rights were being violated. Anyway, I think for advertiser's purposes, a quality customer is one who seeks out the 'sponsor page' on his own, when he wishes to do so. That should tell the advertiser he is at least somewhat interested, and wants to read more about the product. That's a nice way to greet a customer isn't it; by sending him a message saying how your rights are being violated by him being on that page at that point in time without having jumped through your hoops to get there ... especially now that we are seeing more and more users who have been on the net for a grand total of two days or two weeks ... and they are coming on line en-masse. Please people, maybe we can try not to screw up this 'media for the people' the way CB Radio got so completely messed up as everyone started climbing on board in the early 1980's. PAT] ------------------------------ From: tknab@nyx.net (Terry Knab) Subject: Re: Mystery Robocaller and the TCPA Organization: The Home Office Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 06:19:50 GMT Derek Balling wrote: >> This last time I hit *69 and _actually_got_a_number_. I logged it and >> called the local public library for a lookup in the "criss-cross" >> phone directory. They turned up nothing. Likewise the Internet-based >> reverse lookup services failed. >> So I called Ameritech's customer service, since the call came from >> Cleveland. They were able to tell me that the line was paid for on a >> residential account but that they were not allowed to disclose the >> accountholder's identity. How about that -- they say it's a privacy >> issue! I don't doubt the reasons for that regulation but it sure is >> ironic as well as annyoing in context. > Make the call on your long-distance calling card. At the end of the month, > dispute the charge. Ask the customer service rep if you can get the name > of the called party "to jog your memory". Frequently, they will disclose > it to you in order to convince you to pay the bill. (Otherwise, most will > comp it off in the name of customer service). In Chicago, Ameritech used to offer a service that would allow a customer to call 796-xxxx (I forget the last 4 digits) and an operator would tell you the name a phone was registered to. Quite useful :) Dunno if its available elsewhere. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Oh yes, {312/630/708/773/847}-796-9600. Now-days it is totally automated, with a limit of two inquiries per call. It costs 75 cents per call from within any of the above area codes, and one database serves all the above areas. Dial any area code above to inquire about any number within any of them. But it is for published numbers only. Non-pubs are not available, and depending on how the entry was first put in, many times the back numbers on PBX systems are not available. With DID and Centrex numbers sometimes the response is meaningful and sometimes not. That is an *old* service, dating back to the 1920's when you got the same information by calling {specific exchange}-2080. You reached a clerk in the Chief Operator's office for that exchange who would look in a box of index cards on her desk. 'Two-oh-eight-oh' services, as they were known all eventually were merged into 312-796-9600, but you got a live person answering. It has been totally automated for many years with a synthetic voice givng all the responses. I have never heard of any telco other than Ameritech, nee Illinois Bell, nee Chicago Telephone Company which offered its CNA (Customer Name and Address) Bureau to the public. PAT] ------------------------------ From: varney@ihgp2.ih.lucent.com (Al Varney) Subject: Re: Winzip32.exe Missing From Computer Date: 16 Feb 1999 23:22:40 GMT Organization: Lucent Technologies, Naperville, IL Reply-To: varney@lucent.com In article , Bruce Wilson wrote: >> Considering Winzip is shareware that should be paid for, this is >> probably not a good idea. > It's the nature of SHAREware that it can be freely copied and the > copies passed around at no cost to the recipients for the software. By that definition, Winzip is not SHAREware. You get to use it for a limited time for evaluation -- paying for it is not "optional" after that. And certainly distributing ONE .DLL from the whole set (the original request) is not permitted. Al Varney ------------------------------ From: rhyre@medplus.com (Ralph Hyres) Subject: Re: You Call, You Pay Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 13:31:36 -0500 I object to any additional hidden 'toll' capability without a corresponding 'toll-alerting' mechanism. In Cincinnati, we have traditionally enjoyed 1+ dialing to indicate a 'toll call'. Designating special area codes is not that useful, given that certain areas in the Carribean (809?) look like 'regular' NANP numbers, but cost $3.00/minute. Cincinnati already has a 'calling party pays' system here (with Cincinnati Bell and Airtouch), which uses 1+ for toll alerting. If you leave out the 1+, you get a message giving the 'dial 1 before the number' instructions. This is the only reasonable solution with number portability. Otherwise, how would my callers know from one day to the next that calls to me are at basic LD rates (5 cents/minute) or at Cell Phone rates (99 cents/minute)? IMHO, greed is the only reason telcos won't implement useful customer services like 'toll alerting', they just want to maximize the revenue per circuit, regardless of who pays. [Alternative carriers note: this is a business opportunity for those of you emphasizing customer friendly services.] ------------------------------ From: Michael J. Ellis Subject: Re: You Call, You Pay Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 00:53:13 +1100 > I have no objection to calling party pays on inbound calls to mobile phones > IF a special area code is used. I have a strong objection if existing > area codes are used for this service. That's why area code 917 was such a good idea. Until the FCC nixed it. ------------------------------ From: black@csulb.NOSMAP.edu (Matthew Black) Subject: Re: You Call, You Pay Date: 17 Feb 1999 15:11:53 GMT If cellular/mobile phone companies decide to charge callers rather than subscribers, I'll probably NEVER call my friends on their cell phones. It seems very odd that the caller should pay for another user's convenience. Caller pays may attract stingy subscribers but will significantly reduce traffic (read revenue). Many business with their own PBX are likely to block cell prefixes due to the added cost per call. Some readers have expressed their approval by saying, "It's about time." What's next ... charging bus riders higher fares for all those solo auto commuters NOT riding the bus? [if you want to send me e-mail, remove obvious item from my address] -----------------------------(c) 1999 Matthew Black, all rights reserved-- matthew black | Opinions expressed herein belong to me and network & systems specialist | may not reflect those of my employer california state university | network services SSA-180E | e-mail: black at csulb dot edu 1250 bellflower boulevard | PGP fingerprint: 6D 14 36 ED 5F 34 C4 B3 long beach, ca 90840 | E9 1E F3 CB E7 65 EE BC [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Actually Matthew, the way it turns out is people driving automobiles -- and everyone else for that matter -- sees a certain portion of their tax money go to subsidize public transportation because very seldom are bus riders willing to put in the farebox what the ride actually costs. I think federal government regulations say that public transit companies have to meet about half of their expenses from fares collected in order to get tax subsidies to pay the rest of their expenses. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Robert Wiegand Subject: Re: You Call, You Pay Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 03:48:42 +0000 Organization: Motorola CIG Tom Betz wrote: > And it's about time. > This will make cellular valuable, finally. Cellular companies have > been trying to compensate for "Receiver Pays" terms with "first minute > free" and such like, but Caller Pays will let wireless services come > into their own. Sorry, but I don't see how Caller Pays would make cellular more valuable. It might actually *decresase* the number of calls if people refuse to call cell phones because of the high rates. Both Owner Pays and Caller Pays systems have advantages and disadvantages and I really don't see that either is much better than the other. Regards, Bob Wiegand bwiegand@sesd.cig.mot.com ------------------------------ From: Ken McLeod Subject: Re: You Call, You Pay Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 18:17:17 -0700 Organization: CSG Wireless I don't see the problem. I have had calling party pay on my mobiles since the early nineties here in Phoenix. Not once have I had someone complain. And business is growing. Ken McLeod ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 21:42:57 -0800 From: Mel Beckman Subject: Re: DS3 Signalling On Fri, 12 Feb 1999 12:17:27 Baris Aksoy said: > I wonder is there any frames that can handle DS3 signals? I mean, @ > DS1 signal rate we can use T1 frames. I saw somewhere that there is T3 > frames. Is it only theoretical, or casn anybody use this type of frames? > Actually, I expect that DS3 --> DS1 --> T1 frames a flow like that. But > is it practical? Baris, DS3 is widely used, and can be treated as a single 44.7ish Mbps continuous channel or as 28 individual channelized T1s. It used to be that only telcos used T3s (and T1s for that matter) -- for interconnections between COs to carry digitized voice. That's whey the DS hierarchy is all based on multiples of 64 Kbps -- it supports the 64 Kbps digitized voice channels invented by AT&T back in the 1960s. Today DS3 gets used a lot in fractional forms. You might have a full DS3 pipe to a local CO, and from there split off a 10 Mbps fraction for Frame Relay, another 10 Mbps for dedicated point-to-point, and maybe even a fraction for voice. But this kind of hard-partitioned provisioning will eventually go away, in favor of high speed packet switching protocols such as ATM or switched IP. I could go on, but perhaps this gives you some answers. Mel Beckman ------------------------------ Date: 16 Feb 1999 01:33:56 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com From: zeidman@aol.com (Bob Zeidman) Subject: Stepper Switch Wanted Does anyone know where I can get a stepper switch like the ones used in old telephone switching equipment? Please email me. Thanks, Bob Zeidman bob@ZeidmanConsulting.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 23:25:24 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Privacy Advocates Step up Fight Over Pentium III Chip http://www.techserver.com/noframes/story/0,2294,18804-30963-223635-0,00.html Copyright ) 1999 Nando Media Copyright ) 1999 Associated Press By TED BRIDIS WASHINGTON (February 15, 1999 9:38 p.m. EST http://www.nandotimes.com) - Days before the debut of the fastest computer processor the world has ever seen from Intel Corp., the chip's critics sought Monday to widen their boycott and enlist the government in opposing the new technology, which they say will allow easy tracing of Internet users. The organizers of the boycott, Junkbusters Corp. of Green Brook, N.J., and the Washington-based Electronic Privacy Information Center, sent letters to privacy and consumer groups, encouraging them to get the Federal Trade Commission involved. Intel, the world's largest computer chip-maker, announced last month that its upcoming Pentium III chip will be able to transmit a unique serial number internally and to Web sites that request it. This could be used to verify the identity of Web site users. The company said the technology will help online merchants eliminate fraud, but some privacy groups contend it gives companies unprecedented ability to trace a consumer's digital footprints as they wander the Web. The Pentium III will be launched officially Feb. 26, but the company has invited reporters and industry analysts to talk with executives about the technology Wednesday at a preview conference in San Jose, Calif. On Monday, the protest groups sent letters seeking support from the American Civil Liberties Union, Center for Democracy and Technology, Center for Media Education, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Consumer Project on Technology and others active in the industry. The letters asked these groups to urge the FTC to consider stopping Intel from distributing its new technology and to warn the industry's largest computer makers expected to sell machines using the new chip. FTC Chairman Robert Pitofsky has already indicated he doesn't believe that his agency, which normally fights consumer fraud and deceptive trade practices, can require Intel to stop selling its Pentium III chips. "As things stand, I don't think we have the authority to do that," Pitofsky told The Associated Press. In a separate letter to Pitofsky, the groups warned that consumers will not participate commerce over the Internet because they fear their privacy could be compromised. The Pentium III technology "will move reality much closer to these consumers' worst fears," the groups wrote the FTC. An Intel spokesman, Chuck Mulloy, said, "They certainly have the right to write letters to anyone they want. We think we've given consumers enough choice - consumers choice and choice for the (computer makers)." After the planned boycott was announced last month, Intel officials said they will include software that allows consumers to turn off the new technology and that the company will encourage computer makers to turn it off by default in machines they sell. The privacy groups argued that some Web sites will require the technology be turned on and that some companies will mandate its use to prevent software piracy. "Experience shows that consumers will be coerced into submitting to the tracking mechanism," they wrote to the FTC. Intel has said it expects to spend $300 million worldwide promoting its new processor, which will feature 70 new built-in instructions that will boost the performance of graphics, multimedia and voice-recognition software. The company supplies roughly 85 percent of the world's computer processors and had $26.2 billion in sales last year. Copyright ) 1999 Nando Media ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 14:25:04 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Last Laugh! Revenge of the Telemarketers Phone Researcher Dials 'R' For Revenge WINNIPEG (Reuters) - A Canadian artist has struck back at people who were rude to him when he worked as a telephone marketing researcher. Les Newman of Winnipeg, Manitoba, has opened a show at a local art gallery that consists of pages and pages of telephone numbers of people who were not nice when he called to seek their opinions on various consumer products. "The show doesn't have a title. But it's subtitled, "All the phone numbers of rude a------- who tried to make me feel like s--- while I tried to make my living as a telephone market researcher in October 1998," Newman told Reuters Tuesday. The growing amount of market research and business solicitation by telephone in recent years has sparked some debate among Canadians, many of whom say they resent receiving the calls at home or at work. "People were put on the list if they would go out of their way to be particularly mean or rude," said Newman, 26. "It's an opportunity for petty revenge," he said. Newman is currently on holiday from his job. He said he was not sure he still would have a job to return to once his employer heard about his art show, set to run for the next month. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #17 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Feb 22 17:53:05 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id RAA08489; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 17:53:05 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 17:53:05 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199902222253.RAA08489@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #18 TELECOM Digest Mon, 22 Feb 99 17:53:00 EST Volume 19 : Issue 18 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Cyber Sleuths Have More Than Your Number (Monty Solomon) Telecom Update (Canada) #171, February 22, 1999 (Angus TeleManagement) US West Glitch Deletes 5500 Users' Messages in Seattle Area (Tad Cook) Digital Data Transmission Question (Rehan Hameed) Lengthy Voice Mail Messages and Multiple Calls (srravi007@hotmail.com) Octothorp: M-W's Word of the Day (Tony Vullo) 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: 415-520-9905 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: Cyber Sleuths Have More Than Your Number Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 14:39:39 -0500 http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/bigstory/022199/privacy.html By Andrew Alexander Cox Washington Bureau Washington -- "You're kidding!" my wife exclaimed when I told her that someone had gained access to our private bank records, lifted our account number and recorded our balance. There was more. They had also tracked our recent long-distance calls, identifying those we had telephoned by name, address and occupation. And they had compiled dossiers on us, complete with Social Security numbers, property holdings and financial dealings. "That's incredible," she said. "How can they do that?" Easily, it turns out, in the computer age. "They," I finally confessed, was actually my Cox Newspapers Washington Bureau colleague Elliot Jaspin, a Pulitzer Prize-winning high-tech wizard who had delved into our personal lives at my invitation. He was trying to come up with a way for our reporters to use computer databases to do background checks on little-known figures who suddenly break into the news, quickly learning about pending lawsuits or long-concealed arrests. Start with only my name, I suggested, and see what you can get. He hit pay dirt within a few days. Given more time -- and a little money -- he soon would have been able to obtain confidential records of my credit card purchases, salary, stocks, bonds, credit history, life insurance policy, recent air travel, whether I had ever been nailed for speeding, and even my medical records going back 10 years. While the popular notion is that a computer linked to the Internet is a key that unlocks all kinds of personal secrets, most databases on the Internet are dull as dishwater. Switchboard, for example, will allow you to instantly discover Uncle Edgar's telephone number in Dubuque. But then, calling information will get you the same thing. The Internet, however, carries ads for a burgeoning and largely uncontrolled industry of "information brokers" that -- for a fee -- will reveal the most intimate details of your life, right down to that birthmark on your backside or ancient records of psychological treatment. For fees as low as $40 per search, they will disclose non-published telephone numbers or track down the owners of private aircraft. Corporate Investigative Services of Huntsville, Ala., has a Web site that also allows you to listen to the theme music from "Mission Impossible" while you link to hundreds of other sites. Some companies, like AutoTrack, have assembled massive computerized databases containing several billion public records. Using sophisticated database software, information is quickly plucked from scores of different files, and within minutes is woven together into a report. AutoTrack files are interesting, but not nearly as revealing as companies that use what they politely term "pretexts" to shoehorn information from banks, phone companies and anyone else you may do business with. The major weapon here is a huckster's patter rather than a computer. Judging from information broker ads, everything is up for grabs. That includes the location of your safe deposit box, your bank deposits anywhere in the world, and even your bank account history, including dates and amounts of deposits, checks written or wire transfers. As privacy expert Robert Ellis Smith of Rhode Island noted, "Every fact about you is on record somewhere," and information brokers see that as fair game. Posing as a forgetful husband, telephone repairman or bank clerk, a private investigator can often get this information by outwitting low-level clerks at the phone company or some obscure branch of a major bank. There are few laws forbidding disclosure. "It's our company policy not to release any customer information without a court order or some legal document," said Sandy Arnette, a spokeswoman for Bell Atlantic in Baltimore. "But there is no state or federal law against disclosure." In fact, the House Banking Committee found only three states -- Connecticut, Illinois and Maine -- with laws making it a crime to induce an employee of a financial institution to disclose data about a customer's account. And there are no federal statutes against using "pretexts" to wangle private data from financial institutions. Rep. James A. Leach, R-Iowa, chairman of the House Banking Committee, tried unsuccessfully to get the practice outlawed last year, and he has introduced the same bill again this year. But who cares if you have a checking account in Duluth and own 40 acres of scrub land in Texas? Creditors do. Banks, who need to collect on bad credit card debts, routinely turn to lawyers who specialize in collections. And these lawyers, in turn, use information brokers to find assets they can attach. "We do a lot of credit card collection. Thousands of cases a week," said Mike Martin of Advanced Research Inc. The American Bankers Association supports Leach's proposed legislation to outlaw fraudulently obtaining information from banks. But ABA member banks "hire us to do exactly what it is they're trying to shut down," Martin said. Information brokers also will chase deadbeat dads. "Very often, it gets used for good purposes," private investigator Edmund Pankau of Houston said. "Not long ago," he recalled, his firm traced the financial dealings of a Houston man who had left his family. The information allowed them to locate the man in another city. "He had skipped out on his ex-wife," Pankau said, "but they needed to find him because his daughter needed a bone marrow transplant and he was the only one who could help." Some in the press also use information brokers to snoop. Al Schweitzer, a controversial private investigator -- he pleaded guilty in 1992 to illegally buying Social Security records -- became a legend by compiling detailed dossiers on Hollywood stars for the National Enquirer. After actor Kiefer Sutherland split from Julia Roberts, Schweitzer used her phone records to locate him at his ranch in Whitefish, Mont. He used the same method to track down Marlon Brando's daughter in Tahiti. But there is a darker side of riffling through private information. Federal officials express growing concern about "identity fraud" or "identity theft," in which a con artist uses purloined personal financial information to assume your identity, then loots your bank account or makes costly purchases with your credit card number. The extent to which Americans are actually harmed by this is unclear. A report last year by the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, suggests a startling rise in identity fraud. Trans Union, a leading credit reporting firm, told GAO that the number of inquiries about credit fraud it receives each year jumped from 35,235 in 1992 to 522,922 in 1997. Two-thirds involved identity fraud. But in the same report, GAO acknowledged that it could find "no comprehensive statistics on the prevalence of identity fraud." Pressured by the Federal Trade Commission and the threat of restrictive legislation, some large data collection firms have begun self-regulation. Several such companies represented by the Individual Reference Services Group recently agreed to abide by rules limiting unauthorized disclosure of information. But hundreds of other firms remain essentially unregulated, including the bulk of information brokers. A decade ago, only a handful existed. Today, said Evan Hendricks, editor of the Washington-based Privacy Times newsletter, there may be as many as 2,000. The explosion of the Internet and higher-powered computers means we've entered an era where "nothing is private," Pankau warned. "I can't think of anything that's private," agreed Smith, who publishes Privacy Journal, a monthly newsletter that monitors how new technology affects privacy. But the extent of actual financial harm is difficult to gauge. My wife was most troubled by the notion that someone could so easily obtain information we thought was private. Disclosure, she conceded, does not automatically mean damage. "But I would argue that just the mere unauthorized access [to private information] is one form of harm," Hendricks said, "and psychological harm is very real." ================== [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The technique called 'pretexts' as well as what some term 'social engineering' does not work as well as it used to, but sadly it still works well enough in some companies to get the information desired. One of the largest credit bureaus, Trans-Union Credit Information Corporation, takes the problem of 'social engineering' and 'pretexts' seriously enough that for a number of years its larger customers -- for example banks and credit card processing centers, or anywhere there might be several clerks working all day long doing nothing but pulling credit bureau reports for other departments, etc -- were supplied with large posters to place on walls in the office which warned about this problem. The poster showed a very stern-looking Uncle Sam, with top hat and appropriately striped trousers, etc. With a frown on his face and fingers in front of his lips the caption said, 'Please do not violate our trust in you. You are entrusted with files from the credit bureau as a specific part of your job. It is against federal law to retrieve information without a specific and legitimate reason for doing so. It is against the law to deliberatly place incorrect information in a bureau file. Both of these crimes are punishable by a fine of up to XXX dollars, or ten years imprisonment, or both, as a court of law would direct. "DO NOT BE DECEIVED by a telephone call you might receive, or a 'favor' asked of you by a co-worker! You will NEVER be contacted by the credit bureau asking you to reveal a password or information you saw in a bureau file. If a person claiming to be a superior at your company calls and tries to get you to provide this type of information you should disconnect the call and tell your supervisor immediatly. The executives at your company would never ask you to do something like that. They would go through 'channels' to obtain the information they legitimatly need from our files. "If you would like to talk to us about one of our employees at the credit bureau or about an incident which happened to you in your present employment, you can speak with us in confidence by calling 800-xxx-xxxx. No one will ever know you called, and we will take what actions are needed after our own investigation. THANK YOU FOR KEEPING THE TRUST WHICH HAS BEEN PLACED IN YOU." Across the top of the poster in larger block letters, "Uncle Sam Wants You to Keep the Trust." A most effective poster and constant reminder (Uncle Sam with pursed lips staring at you all day) that innocent looking situations could be serious problems. More and more people are getting wise to this: do not believe what you hear just because it was said on the phone; stay in control of your phone calls; never allow a phone caller to pressure you into revealing things. I am not recommending that when you get a phone call from someone you have never met before who claims to be in authority that you tell him he is full of sausage; I am just suggesting that you not be that concerned about being considered 'uncooperative' or 'antisocial'. Someone from the 'phone company' will deal with their contact person at your company, not you. Someone from the credit bureau or the computer network, etc will deal with their contact at your company, not you. And how shall I say this bluntly, yet in a form suitable for this family-rated e-journal? If you suddenly find yourself with a new girl friend or a new boy friend as happened to me many years ago when this new 'friend' discovers that you work for a large credit card processing center or the credit bureau or a large national ISP or the phone company/bank/government in a sensitive position, give careful consideration whether he wants you for your body, your wit and your charm, or if all that love-bombing, melt in your arms tenderness is intended as a way to get a bit more. Does he want to get in your pants, or does he want to get in your desk drawer at work? . Especially if he already knew about your employment before he discovered how madly in love he was with you. And before you unlock that desk drawer at work in exchange for that momentary fling, consider well what you have to gain, and what you have to lose. No matter how smart you are, there is always someone smarter who can catch you at what you did. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 11:43:58 -0500 From: Angus TeleManagement Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #171, February 22, 1999 ************************************************************ * * * TELECOM UPDATE * * Angus TeleManagement's Weekly Telecom Newsbulletin * * http://www.angustel.ca * * Number 171: February 22, 1999 * * * * Publication of Telecom Update is made possible by * * generous financial support from: * * * * AT&T Canada ............... http://www.attcanada.com/ * * Bell Canada ............... http://www.bell.ca/ * * Lucent Technologies ....... http://www.lucent.ca/ * * MetroNet Communications ... http://www.metronet.ca/ * * Sprint Canada ............. http://www.sprintcanada.ca/ * * Telus Communications....... http://www.telus.com/ * * TigerTel Services ......... http://www.citydial.com/ * * * ************************************************************ IN THIS ISSUE: ** Sprint Lowers Overseas Rates ** Executive Changes at AT&T ** Bell Launches Local Winback Promotion ** Bell Nexxia Sets Start Date ** Telesat Builds Brazil Network ** Revenues, Losses Rise at Microcell ** Call-Net Posts Increased Loss ** Telus (Edmonton) Price Cap Implementation ** MTS Offers Package of U.S. Minutes ** BC Tel Mobility Tries Out Wireless Internet ** Lucent Buys Sybarus ** First Telecom to Buy Vancouver Telephone ** Clearnet Raises $100 Million ** Lucent, Nortel Announcements ** Bonus Explains Telecom's "Tips, Tricks & Traps" ============================================================ SPRINT LOWERS OVERSEAS RATES: Sprint Canada has lowered international rates on most of its long distance plans by up to 15 cents/minute. Calls to the UK are 22 cents (formerly 28 cents), to Hong Kong 24 cents (formerly 39 cents). EXECUTIVE CHANGES AT AT&T: AT&T Canada Corp. has named George Harvey, Don Morrison, and Larry Hudson as Executive Vice- Presidents leading a "smaller, more efficient executive structure." Vice-Presidents David Craig, Jack Hubley, Monty Richardson, Albert Silverman, and Andy Woyzbun have left AT&T "to pursue other opportunities." (See Telecom Update #167) BELL LAUNCHES LOCAL WINBACK PROMOTION: Bell Canada has the CRTC's OK for an offer of free installation for business line and Centrex customers returning from an alternate provider. The offer runs from February 25 to June 30. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/internet/1999/8045/04/o99-0133.htm BELL NEXXIA SETS START DATE: Bell Nexxia says it will be operational in the second quarter and will start selling corporate services in Alberta by May. Nexxia will be headquartered in Calgary. ** Bell Nexxia has struck a five-year deal to provide network services to New York-based Prism Communication Services. Prism plans to provide high-speed Internet access, using the Nortel 1-Meg modem, in Montreal, Toronto, and several U.S. centers. TELESAT BUILDS BRAZIL NETWORK: Telesat Canada has launched a high-capacity network between three cities in aBrazil, which will supply telephone trunking and data links to local carriers and businesses. Telesat is also bidding for one of Brazil's satellite orbital slots. REVENUES, LOSSES RISE AT MICROCELL: Microcell's fourth-quarter revenue rose to $56 Million from $13.8 Million the previous year. Losses also rose, to $125 Million (last year: $92.5 Million). Microcell ended the year with 282,000 subscribers. CALL-NET POSTS INCREASED LOSS: Call-Net Enterprises, parent of Sprint Canada, reports fourth-quarter revenues of $352 Million, 40% higher than last year. Minutes billed reached 2.0 billion, a 75% increase. Call-Net's loss on the quarter was $79 Million, $3 Million higher than the previous quarter. TELUS (EDMONTON) PRICE CAP IMPLEMENTATION: CRTC Telecom Decision 99-1 sets final 1998 contribution and wireless access rates for Telus Communications in Edmonton and in Alberta as a whole and resolves other issues related to implementation of price cap regulation in Edmonton. (See Telecom Update #161) http://www.crtc.gc.ca/internet/1999/8045/02/d99-01en.htm MTS OFFERS PACKAGE OF U.S. MINUTES: Manitoba Telecom Services has introduced First Rate Freedom U.S., which offers 300 free minutes anytime to the U.S. plus unlimited off-peak calling in Canada for $39.95/month. BC TEL MOBILITY TRIES OUT WIRELESS INTERNET: BC Tel Mobility is conducting a trial of an Internet-based wireless data service provided by the Vancouver-based EDispatch.Com and running over BC Tel Mobility's CDPD wireless data network. LUCENT BUYS SYBARUS: Lucent has acquired Sybarus Technologies, an Ottawa-based semiconductor design company specializing in SONET integrated circuits. FIRST TELECOM TO BUY VANCOUVER TELEPHONE: First Telecom Corp. of Vancouver has agreed to purchase Vancouver Telephone, a reseller and equipment provider with 15,000 BC and Toronto customers. CLEARNET RAISES $100 MILLION: Clearnet Communications has raised $100 Million from a bond issue. Also, Clearnet has begun PCS service in Barrie, Ontario. LUCENT, NORTEL ANNOUNCEMENTS: During the past week: ** Lucent announced WaveStar AllMetro optical networking equipment, which will transmit locally at 400 gigabits/second. Availability: fourth quarter. ** Nortel Networks announced the Succession Network, which will enable carriers to implement unified IP networking on existing networking infrastructure. Ship date: fourth quarter. ** Nortel reported a successful trial in France of a packet-switched third-generation wireless data network transmitting at 384 Kbps. BONUS EXPLAINS TELECOM'S "TIPS, TRICKS & TRAPS": Until March 30, new subscribers to Telemanagement receive a bonus: "Tips, Tricks and Traps: Managing Business Telecom Today," by Ian Angus, Lis Angus, and Henry Dortmans. Tips, Tricks and Traps contains 22 reports on how to solve practical problems of telecom management, including: ** How to Sell Your Telecom Projects to Senior Management ** Long Distance Deals: Rates Aren't Everything ** Twelve Tips for Better RFPs ** How to Waste Money on a Consultant ** To subscribe to Telemanagement (and receive the 22 reports in Tips, Tricks and Traps) call 1-800-263-4415, ext 225 or visit http://www.angustel.ca/teleman/tm.html. http://www.angustel.ca/teleman/tm-ttt.html ============================================================ HOW TO SUBMIT ITEMS FOR TELECOM UPDATE E-MAIL: editors@angustel.ca FAX: 905-686-2655 MAIL: TELECOM UPDATE Angus TeleManagement Group 8 Old Kingston Road Ajax, Ontario Canada L1T 2Z7 =========================================================== HOW TO SUBSCRIBE (OR UNSUBSCRIBE) TELECOM UPDATE is provided in electronic form only. There are two formats available: 1. The fully-formatted edition is posted on the World Wide Web on the first business day of the week at http://www.angustel.ca/update/up.html 2. The e-mail edition is distributed free of charge. To subscribe, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should contain only the two words: subscribe update To stop receiving the e-mail edition, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should say only: unsubscribe update [Your e-mail address] COPYRIGHT AND DISCLAIMER: All contents copyright 1999 Angus TeleManagement Group Inc. All rights reserved. For further information, including permission to reprint or reproduce, please e-mail rosita@angustel.ca or phone 905-686-5050 ext 225. The information and data included has been obtained from sources which we believe to be reliable, but Angus TeleManagement makes no warranties or representations whatsoever regarding accuracy, completeness, or adequacy. Opinions expressed are based on interpretation of available information, and are subject to change. If expert advice on the subject matter is required, the services of a competent professional should be obtained. ------------------------------ Subject: US West Glitch Deletes 5500 Users' Messages in Seattle Area Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 23:42:31 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) By Helen Jung, The Seattle Times Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News Feb. 18--Remember that cute guy you gave your number to? He might have called on Valentine's Day after all. But if you've got U S West voice mail, you may never know for sure. Local telephone company U S West lost thousands of phone messages for 5,500 customers in the Ballard area who use the telecommunications company's voice-mail service. Those messages include some calls made between Sunday night and 6 a.m. Monday and some old messages that customers saved. The problem stemmed from a malfunction in one of the seven drives that store messages for those customers, said U S West spokeswoman Laurie Johnson. U S West and its vendor were unable to retrieve the messages from the failed drive. The other six drives were functioning fine, she said. U S West crews installed a new drive Sunday night, she said, correctly storing incoming messages after 6 a.m. Monday. U S West will issue service credits for one month's service to customers who lost messages, Johnson said. The carrier's voice-messaging service," at $6.95 a month, is the Colorado-based company's most popular extra service, she said. But U S West didn't offer a service credit when Klaus Lendzian, a voice-mail customer, called Monday to complain about losing messages, he said. Lendzian, a Ballard resident, said he was upset that he has lost some of his messages -- some personal and some business-related -- but is angrier about U S West's response to his complaints. He learned there was a problem when he tried to retrieve his voice mail Monday and a recording alerted him that messages had been deleted. He then called the voice-mail customer-service center three or four times to find out what was going on, Lendzian said. Except for one woman, the representatives were unsympathetic, he said. Another customer, Tamara Adams, said she plans to drop U S West's service after it deleted at least one of her messages. "It bothers me a lot," she said. "I don't feel comfortable having my calls automatically deleted." U S West regrets what happened and the inconvenience to customers, said Johnson. U S West plans to install backup systems later this year to guard against lost messages. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 11:10:52 PST From: Rehan Hameed Subject: Digital Data Transmission Question Hello! I am a student of electronics engineering, I visited your chat room but no one was there so I am writing this directly to you. I am looking for a simple and cheap way to transmit digital data over a short range. I have to transmit at a rate of 32Kbps or more within a radius of 100m or so. The FSK IC's available operate at a maximum of 1200 bps. I want to avoid using any of the more advanced modulation IC's like GMSK etc. due to cost and availability factors. Please tell me if it is possible to use a simple technique like if I just use ASK using a high frequency carrier and simply transmit it, shouldn't it work? Also if I try to generate FSK by taking a VCO and setting it up to give different frequencies at 0 and 1, would it work at this rate or would it be unable to switch at such a high speed. e.g if I just take a VCO which can generate a frequency of something like 80MHz and configure at say 75MHz for 0 and 76MHz for 1, then I apply my data to it and attach its output (after ampication) to the antenna, shouldn't it work. Please reply as soon as possible. Rehan Hameed (rnhameed@yahoo.com) ------------------------------ From: sravi007@hotmail.com Subject: Lengthy Voice Mail Messages and Multiple Calls Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 08:10:33 GMT Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Hello Everyone, I am in need of developing a foolproof system which can handle multiple people calling in to one toll free number and leaving their messages. The system should be able to handle multiple calls at the same time. And the messages can be 1 hr long. Also the voice mail software should handle the possibility of pausing while the caller who is leaving the message, can pause, and attend something more important, and come back to continuing the message. Please advice on software and hardware required. I am open to all kinds of suggestions. you can email me or post it here. Thanks, Srini ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 00:23:31 -0500 From: Tony Vullo Subject: Octothorp: M-W's Word of the Day FYI. Thought that you would enjoy Merriam-Webster's take on the octothorp. The Word of the Day for February 13 is: octothorp \AHK-tuh-thorp\ (noun) : the symbol # Example sentence: "Please enter your zip code number followed by the pound sign," instructed the voice mail recording, so I obediently punched in 0-1-1-0-2-octothorp. Did you know? Stories abound about who first called the # sign an "octothorp." Most of those tales link the name to various telephone workers in the 1960s, and all claim the "octo-" part refers to the eight points on the symbol, but the "thorp" remains a mystery. One story links it to a telephone company employee who happened to burp while talking about the symbol with co-workers. Another relates it to athlete Jim Thorpe, and a third claims it derives from an Old English form of a Danish word. If the plethora of theories leaves your head spinning, you might want to take the advice of the wag who asked (poetically), "Can we simply just say, / Ere it spoils your day, / It's the thorp between seven and nine?" Brought to you by Merriam-Webster Inc. http://www.m-w.com Visit http://www.m-w.com/service/subinst.htm to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the Word of the Day mailing list. To subscribe to the list by email, send a blank email to mw-wod-subscribe-request@listserv.webster.m-w.com. To unsubscribe via email, send a blank email to mw-wod-signoff-request@listserv.webster.m-w.com. If you have questions about your subscription, write to mw-wod-request@listserv.webster.m-w.com. Send other questions or comments about the Word of the Day to word@m-w.com. (c) 1999 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The octothorpe or 'pound sign' has been covered in this Digest in the past in some detail. I refer interested readers to these files: http://telecom-digest.org/history/octothorpe.gets.its.name http://telecom-digest.org/history/octothorpe.the.real.story The first of these files includes two issues of TELECOM Digest, Volume 8 issue 187 and Volume 8 issue 190 dated November 29 and December 1, 1988 respectively, plus a few other stray messages on the topic. The second of these files is dated November 28, 1995, about seven years to the day later with an interesting bit of history I recommend you read, and Merriam-Webster as well. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #18 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Feb 23 15:28:26 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id PAA29332; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 15:28:26 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 15:28:26 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199902232028.PAA29332@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #19 TELECOM Digest Tue, 23 Feb 99 15:27:00 EST Volume 19 : Issue 19 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Protect Privacy, or Let Chips Fall Where They May (Monty Solomon) Book Review: "1999 Canadian Internet New User's Handbook" (Rob Slade) Ring in the Values: Old Phones are Major Collectibles (Tad Cook) AT&T Loses Appeal Over Cellular Phone Billing Suit (Monty Solomon) New Networking Pro Web Site (Mike Patterson) WE/AT&T Paint & Process (Tony Pelliccio) E911 Illinois Requirements (Wrong Number) Alternative to Telco Voice Messaging (Joseph Singer) Baudot Sequence Logic (Donald Seeley) 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: 415-520-9905 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, 22 Feb 1999 22:30:51 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Protect Privacy, or Let Chips Fall Where They May http://www.bergen.com/biz/geb0222199902222.htm Monday, February 22, 1999 By ROBERT GEBELOFF It's one thing to bend the truth, to put a little spin on things. But it's another when marketers go off the deep end -- like the computer commercial where a guy buys a new PC and then uses it to order a vintage motorcycle from a Web site. Yeah, right. Or those ads for sugary breakfast cereals, where the most tooth-rotting, attention-span-numbing concoctions with sprayed-on vitamins are passed off as "part of a nutritious breakfast." Then they flash a still on the screen, showing a bowl of cereal next to a plate of bacon and eggs, a side of toast, and glasses of juice and milk. I used to wonder if all the other kids at school feasted on just such a spread each morning while my mother starved me with a solitary bowl of Raisin Bran. As recently as 1996, Kellogg's sponsored a Web site featuring cereal-box stars Snap, Crackle, and Pop, in which Snap tells children that "sweet foods can no longer be classified as bad for our teeth" because "the conditions that cause tooth decay are complex." Well, whoever devised the marketing plan for the sugary cereal industry has apparently taken a new job with Intel, the leading maker of PC processors. Intel is about to spend $300 million promoting its Pentium III chip, a slightly faster version of its predecessor, the Pentium II. The Pentium II topped out at 450 processing "cycles" per millisecond; the first Pentium IIIs are going to churn at 450 and, by summer, ship in a 550 megahertz version. That's not much of a difference. So to persuade consumers to buy PCs featuring the P-III, Intel will have to come up with another gimmick. Already, the company's Web site includes such purported benefits as more "convenient and powerful" on-line shopping, and "new ways" of surfing the Net. Essentially, Intel claims that the new chips contain a new design that allows software developers and Web site designers to include enhanced multimedia in their products, a claim that sounds strikingly similar to the supposed enhanced performance of its MMX chip. In a sneak preview last week in San Jose, Calif., Intel and the search-engine Excite showed off a three-dimensional search tool version that allows users to "glide" over kiosks that display previews of Web pages returned as part of a search. Whether this would be impossible using the Pentium II at 450 megahertz was not mentioned in most trade press accounts. So basically, Intel is going to gloss over the relative lack of performance enhancement and rely on the mass bombardment of a superficial message to sell its new chip. Sure, the chip is another step forward, but to leave consumers with the impression that they won't be able to accomplish a whole slate of tasks with a slightly less powerful chip is disingenuous. And that's not the worst of it. Intel will also inundate the airwaves and the Web with boasts about its new "security" feature. Intel is embedding a unique serial number on each chip. While serial numbers etched into the sides of most electronics devices allow the police to find your stolen stereo at the crooked pawn shop, these serial numbers can be accessed remotely by Web site operators and conceivably enable the wholesale tracking and monitoring of what individual PC owners see and read on line. Intel steadfastly denies that the serial number will be used in that manner. Yet Intel doesn't really explain how the system enhances security, either. Intel, on its Web site, claims that the boom in e-commerce is "raising PC users' concerns about the confidentiality and integrity" of on-line transactions. "Since computers are the primary connections to the Internet, they are the logical place for companies to add security features." Whether this statement is a non-sequitur or just plain doublespeak is hard to determine. It's true that users don't want hackers to intercept their credit card number. It's true that users don't want outsiders to eavesdrop on e-mail. But Intel's solution does nothing to address these real-life fears. Computer security experts predict it will be fairly easy to "spoof" serial numbers, so if Intel believes the serial number will be used to verify credit card transactions, nobody should be comforted. The price for this half-baked nod toward security is anew round of snooping by Madison Avenue, the government, and whoever else might have an interest in tracking your on-line behavior. Privacy advocates are so up-in-arms over this feature that they've called for an Intel boycott, a boycott that undoubtedly will fail because the world just can't resist the latest, even if it has the devil inside. Critics have even set up a Web site mocking Intel's famed logo: www.bigbrotherinside.com Intel has backed down slightly since announcing the new feature, agreeing to allow savvy computer users software to block Web sites from reading their serial number. Whether the average user will even be aware of this option is highly debatable. If you're comfortable with Intel's claims that the computer industry will voluntarily abide by an honor code not to abuse this feature, I can point you to the brilliant 1992 book about consumer privacy, "The Naked Consumer," in which author Erik Larson -- writing before the dawn of the Internet age -- lays out the laws of "data dynamics." Among them: Data will always be used for purposes other than originally intended; data will always be merged with complementary data to enhance its value; and, most importantly, confidential data is confidential only until somebody says it's not. This isn't paranoia; there is a full-blown direct marketing industry built on personal data, data that combines disparate sets of information -- for the right price, you can find people who subscribe to golfing magazines and spend more than $150 a week with their supermarket affinity card. It's also data that wasn't collected with the direct consent of consumers. Sure, you know that when you buy a house, your name is bound to end up on 90,000 direct marketing lists. But none of those pesky telephonic salespeople bother to show up at the closing to ask your permission. And your personal privacy is always subject to the whims of the people holding data about you. A company that collects personal data about consumers might not even think about selling the information for anything but providing good customer service -- until a marketing company stops by with a big check in hand. Studies show that most consumers don't actually care about having their privacy invaded, just so long as they get something in return -- a few cents off at the supermarket, a chance to win a sweepstakes, etc. What bears watching, however, is whether the tide of consumer sentiment will change as technology makes surveillance more pervasive. We're rapidly moving toward a society where all of our gadgets and appliances are going to be tied into The Network, fully capable of communicating and combining information about where we drive, what we eat, what we watch, and what we read on the Web. In recent weeks, I've written about the microwave oven that has an Internet connection, and the VCR that has an Internet connection, and before that, there were alarms raised over automatic toll systems, such as E-ZPass. All these devices use personal information about users to provide more customized service and convenience. But none come with any guarantees that the information won't be re-used for another purpose at some later date. Voluntary regulation, as Intel proposes for its new technology, just won't cut it in the long run, with so many devices collecting so much data about people. In an interview with {The San Jose Mercury News} last month, Vice President Al Gore restated his belief that Congress needs to enact new privacy legislation. "We need to do more to protect privacy," he said. "When you have individuals filling a prescription at the drugstore, and the information is immediately downloaded into a computer network, and then sold to the marketers of other medicines, that patient's privacy has been ravaged. And it's not fair and it's not right." For the time being, however, it's the way things are. Robert Gebeloff welcomes your questions. Send e-mail to gebeloff@bergen.com or write to: Robert Gebeloff, c/o The Record, 150 River St., Hackensack, N.J. 07601. Please include your phone number. Copyright 1999 Bergen Record Corp. ------------------------------ From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 08:28:58 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "1999 Canadian Internet New User's Handbook" Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKCAINUH.RVW 990123 "1999 Canadian Internet New User's Handbook", Jim Carroll/Rick Broadhead, 1998, 0-13-974957-8, C$16.95 %A Jim Carroll jcarroll@jimcarroll.com www.jimcarroll.com %A Rick Broadhead rickb@sympatico.ca www.rickbroadhead.com %C Scarborough, Ontario %D 1998 %G 0-13-974957-8 %I Prentice Hall Canada %O C$16.95 800-576-3800 416-293-3621 www.phcanada.com %P 246 p. %T "1999 Canadian Internet New User's Handbook" As rabidly and chauvinistically patriotic as I am, I find it difficult to recommend this book. Chapter one is basically a sales pitch for the net, although, at the same time, it suggests that media hype has distorted perceptions of the Internet. The material does not address specific deceptions but does mention a few minor examples of how the net can be used. The obligatory list of Web sites is given in chapter two. Rather oddly, the specific URLs (Uniform Resource Locators) are not given in the individual writeups (and, in one case, seem to have been deliberately expunged from screen shots) although they are collected at the end of the chapter. Some items that *do* have their URLs included are the tips, but a number of those in this chapter are not Canadian. Despite the promise of the title, there is no real explanation of the net in chapter three, which simply contains a few more examples of things you can do (if you know how) as a kind of addition to chapter one. Chapter four seems to make the same commitment, but the most telling statement is the first of the "Understanding the Internet in 10 Easy Steps" at the end: "You do not need to know how the Internet works behind the scenes in order to use it." There is a minor exposition on the hierarchical naming convention of the Domain Name Service (DNS), but that is about it. Chapter five talks about getting connected to the net, but only really says to buy the right (unspecified) hardware and the right (unspecified) service. The actual connection is left as an exercise to the reader. (There is a list of Web sites of national service providers that can be very helpful--if you are already on the net and don't need it.) The Web, email, and news are introduced in chapter six--but only barely. I am glad to see that the issue of etiquette gets some space in regard to email and news, although the points are brief and relatively simple, and mailing list etiquette is not dealt with at all. Searching the Web is generally covered very badly in most books: Carroll and Broadhead at least note the difference between directories and search engines in chapter seven. Building a Web site is a serious undertaking, and chapter eight's coverage only scratches the surface. Chapter nine concludes with a quick precis of the book, and yet another iteration of chapter one (a few more things you can do on the net). Even as a quick starting guide to the net, this book does not have anywhere near the basic information of, say, "Zen and the Art of the Internet" (cf. BKZENINT.RVW), let alone the depth of understanding that the slightly longer "Internet Book" (cf. BKINTBOK.RVW) is able to provide. As for Canadian material, while there are a number of Canadian sites listed by way of example, the CRTC might have difficulty in allowing this as CanCon. I did not want to mention the self-promotional tone of the book, since to do so is to sail dangerously close to making an ad hominem attack. However, the fact that the book opens with eight pages of advertising for the authors, and closes with seven more, is one of the lesser examples. The stream of overinflated quotes of congratulatory hype (with no apparent relation to the topic at hand) and claims to specialist expertise seemingly solely on the basis that one is famous is extremely annoying, and, well, not very Canadian. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1999 BKCAINUH.RVW 990123 rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@sprint.ca robertslade@usa.net p1@canada.com Find virus, book info http://victoria.tc.ca/techrev/rms.htm Mirrored at http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~rslade/rms.htm Linked to bookstore at http://www97.pair.com/robslade/ Comp Sec Weekly: http://www.suite101.com/welcome.cfm/computer_security Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses, 0-387-94663-2 (800-SPRINGER) ------------------------------ Subject: Ring in the Values: Old Phones Are Major Collectibles Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 15:21:17 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) By Richard Chang NEW YORK (Reuters) - As the telephone moves toward the Internet age, with videos, headsets and all kinds of special buttons becoming the norm, more and more collectors are seeking obsolete or cute ones that remind them of simpler times. "It's probably one of the most widely used instruments of technology that we possess," said Rainbow Hirsch, owner of 20th Century Vintage Telephones in Boulder, Colo. (888-212-FONE, www.hollywoodphones.com). "More and more people are paying attention to the design, that it's durable, and a kind of cultural history that's fun to own and use." Ever since Alexander Graham Bell invented the "magneto telephone" (essentially a generator) in 1876, the voice box has evolved into candlesticks, long-distance transmitters, battery wall sets, black Art Deco desksets seen in old movies and now, Bugs Bunny, pianos, ruby red lips and Internet units. Plenty of old phones are calling for scourers at flea markets, antique fairs and Internet auction sites who, out of nostalgia, seek the finishing touch for their Art Deco living room, or want to bump up their collection of McDonald's, Superman, Peanuts, Coca-Cola or other memorabilia. The earliest phones do not come cheap. One-of-a-kind coffin-style phones -- boxes with magneto generators and gears that need to be cranked -- cost $15,000 to $20,000. These historical treasures, of course, are hard to find and appeal more to museums and serious collectors, rather than the enthusiast who wants a working instrument for home display. Candlestick and Art Deco cradle phones from the 1920s through 1940s are more common, and often usable, helping generate demand that has steadily grown and pushed prices up 100 percent over the last 10 years, says Richard Mountjoy, author of "100 Years of Bell Telephones" (Schiffer Publishing, 610-593-1777). The earliest "combined telephone" desktop sets with a turnbutton dial -- the ones in black and white movies -- are now easily worth about $400. The design was the brainchild of Henry Dreyfuss, a prominent industrial designer, who spent six years making the rounds with Western Electric phone repairmen before unveiling the classic shape in late 1936 in basic black. Colors became available the following years, and remained unchanged until 1954, when more shades were added. A red one with a fabric-wrapped cord, circa 1947, is worth about $350. Later models from the 1950s through 1970s range from $40 to $100, according to Mountjoy's price guide in his book, which was compiled in 1995. "In some cases prices have gone up 50 percent, others maybe only 20 to 30 percent, and some have doubled," he said. The design of the Dreyfuss phone evolved, but remained basically unchanged until U.S. government rulings stripped American Telephone & Telegraph of its phone equipment monopoly in 1968 and allowed rivals to enter the market. Another government antitrust suit in 1974 led to the historic 1984 settlement that spun off the seven Baby Bells. Among the earliest new designs were Mickey Mouse, Snoopy, Kermit the Frog and Winnie the Pooh produced by the Bell System in 1976. These probably cost $35-$40 at the time, but Winnie now fetches $400-$600 and Kermit $250-$300, said James David Davis of Pops Collectibles, author of Collectible Novelty Phones (Schiffer). Snoopy and Mickey are worth $50-$125 because they were more popular and are therefore now easier to find. Among the most expensive novelty phones are Superman with a cloth cape, at $1,100-$1,500 in the original box, or $200-$300 less without the box. Only about 300 of the phones were made in China for Allied Telecommunications before DC Comics Inc. put a stop to it for trademark violations in 1978. Besides, the boxes were so big that stores were reluctant to stock them, Davis said. A year later, DC Comics authorized another Superman set, with a molded plastic cape that holds the handset, manufactured for ATE Electric. This does not come any cheaper, though. Woody Woodpecker, if you can find one of the estimated 20 in the limited edition, costs $1,800 to $2,200. Novelty phones that are less rare, which you saw just last year at the store, it seems, have also shot up in price. A Pepsi-Cola Can by Tectel Inc., made in Taiwan under license in the 1980s, costs $95-$140. The Pillsbury Dough Boy phone is worth $450-$600. The Rolling Stones Tongue phone made for Tristar International Ltd. in 1983 can fetch $250-$350. But new collectors with limited budgets need not be discouraged. "Novelty phones just keep coming on and are cheap enough so that anyone can buy them," Davis said. Many recent designs can be bought for close to their original prices. The common Organ phone, circa 1992, is worth $50-60; Hot Lips (Telemania), $30-$40; See-Through (ITT Corp.), $60-$70; and Time Magazine alarm-clock phone, $15-$30. Davis predicts that a limited edition Michael Jordan phone, expected to come out in the fall, will easily be worth far more than its expected $100 price tag. Many novelty phones are cheap and poorly made. So serious collectors should keep them in the box, away from sunlight, Davis advises. And in time, they'll still ring, all the way up to the cash register. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I just recently added a new link in the Telecom Archives for people who like collecting old phones and talking about the subject with others. If you have not yet checked it out please visit http://www.voicenet.com/~tciplace for a great coll- ection of old pictures of phones and as a way to meet others with similar interests. Personally, its not my thing. If your main intended use for a phone is utilitarian -- using it as a way to communicate -- then the old ones really are bad news. The transmission quality is poor because the components used are from another era. Yes, it is fun to use them now and then (I am talking about genuine Bell stuff from the 1930-40's) but try hooking a modem in series with one of them sometime and see how far you can get. As for all the specialty phones in recent years with Mickey Mouse, etc, you can keep them. This reminds me of 'old time radio' and the abundance of tape recordings on the market in recent years of shows that were so popular in that same time period. We listen to them with their hissing and crackling noises in the background with some amusement, but would you really be happy with that sort of audio quality 24 hours per day? The people listening to radio and using the telephone in the 1930's were content with it; they had nothing better. Should we be satisfied with it today? If all you want to do is collect and trade old phones that's fine; if you want to use them, then forget it. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 22:33:47 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: AT&T Loses Appeal Over Cellular Phone Billing Suit By James Vicini WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court rejected Monday an appeal by an AT&T Corp. subsidiary that argued that a class-action lawsuit on behalf of its cellular phone customers should be dismissed. The justices, without any comment or dissent, let stand a ruling by a Washington state Supreme Court that reinstated a 1995 lawsuit against AT&T Wireless over its billing practices. The Supreme Court's action cleared the way for the lawsuit to go forward. The lawsuit accused AT&T Wireless of breach of contract for unlawfully "rounding up" bills to the next minute, rather than billing customers for actual airtime used. It included other state law claims of misrepresentation, fraud, and violations of the state consumer protection act on the grounds that AT&T Wireless did not adequately disclose its practice of charging customers in full-minute increments. A King County Superior Court dismissed the case in 1996 on the grounds that the federal law governing telephone carriers took precedence over state consumer protection laws. But the state Supreme Court held in September that an award of damages to consumers was not the equivalent of rate-making, which is the sole domain of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission, and that the state law was not preempted. Lawyers for AT&T Wireless said the decision contravened the intent of Congress, promised increased regulatory uncertainty and will have "a profound, adverse impact on the wireless industry" if allowed to stand. "Virtually every major wireless carrier in the country has been the target of class-action lawsuits attacking how their calls are charged," they said, adding that more than 45 cases were filed seeking hundreds of millions of dollars in damages. The lawyers cited a "patchwork of conflicting and confusing decisions" interpreting the federal law regulating wireless telecommunications services, and told the Supreme Court the Washington state case would be "ideal" to resolve the issue. Congress in 1993 amended the law, which says, "No state or local government shall have any authority to regulate the entry of or the rates charged by any commercial mobile service or any private mobile service." But the law says states were not prohibited from regulating the other terms and conditions of commercial mobile services. The Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association strongly supported the appeal by AT&T Wireless. The trade group said the Washington Supreme Court decision incorrectly allowed state regulation of wireless rates and that consumers have a federal forum to redress their grievances. But Steve Berman, a lawyer for those customers who brought the lawsuit, urged the Supreme Court to deny the appeal. "The Washington Supreme Court decision simply requires AT&T to charge the rate it promised," he said. ------------------------------ From: mikepattersonSPAM@SPAMmindspring.com (Mike Patterson) Subject: New Networking Pro Web Site Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 03:21:28 GMT Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Reply-To: mikepattersonSPAM@SPAMmindspring.com Are you a networking professional? Know LAN, WAN, protocols, hardware, routers, switches, firewalls, etc.? * I NEED YOUR HELP! * I am building what I hope will become "The Mother Of All Networking Sites". I want this to be the page that network pros set up as their "start page" because it's so useful. I want this to be a sort of information clearing house for anyone who's into networks. Why? Because I've spent too much time searching the web for answers that I KNOW are out there, but aren't easy to locate. I want to set up a site where I (or anyone else in the business) can go to have a reasonably good chance of finding what they want on the first pass. I plan to have several sections: - ONLINE LINKS TO: telecommunications equipment manufacturers carriers professional services providers technical training resources technical white papers and articles trade ezines, magazines, etc. - CLASSIFIED ADS - JOB LISTINGS - BBS and/or CHAT Please take a look, make a suggestion or comment. I'm just getting this thing started, so be gentle! http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Circuit/2026/ Oh, and if it's already been done, please let me know! Mike Patterson Ph:770-993-5010 Senior Consultant Ext: 729 Internetworking Practice DID:770.645.7729 Predictive Systems www.predictive.com 20 Mansell Court Suite 200 SPAMmike.patterson@SPAMpredictive.com Roswell, GA 30076 con?sult'ant n. 1. one who gives professional or technical advice 2. mental prostitute [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well Mike, there are 'start pages' galore on the web these days. The idea of putting up a web page with a humongous number of links going in all directions -- a sort of one size fits all approach -- has been tried and is still a very common thing. Be prepared for a constant battle keeping the links all up to date. Go a month or so without checking your work and you will find a half-dozen that lead to a 404-type response. I do not want to sound disparaging, but unless you are really into web page design and have a lot of time to spend on the maintainence of the page itself -- as opposed to actually *using* the page -- I would not recommend this. I would leave the searching and linking to the professional search engine/link-making people. By my publi- cation of your request, I suspect you will receive lots of email asking you to add links to your page, which you will spend time entering only to never use again. You'll receive requests to make links to all sorts of vested interests disguised as important links for telecom professionals, etc. One thing I personally do not like is having my browsers start making an outgoing phone call before I have decided what I want to do. If your browser start page is on someone else's site then that always happens. My personal preference is to have a small, fairly simple start page of my own, on my own computer, with links also on my own computer to the templates of several search engines. I click on my own links, bring up the template of the search engine I wish to use, fill in the blanks, and then make the phone call. So while those folks who let Microsoft or Netscape or Infoseek or whoever provide their start pages, replete with advertising and graphics that make the start up itself into a long affair, I get to look at clouds.bmp and listen to pictures.mid while I fill in the blanks on a template I designed. The best searching script I have found is one that accepts your query then goes out and 'splashes' it to several search engines at the same time, gathers up the results from all of them, tries to eliminate duplicates, presents the consolidated search results on your screen allowing you to pick and choose those you want to read in detail. In the meantime I look at the .bmp of my choice in the background and listen to the .mid of my choice, preferably something of Handel or Bach. One such script which uses the 'splash/gather/ consolidate' approach -- calling on five or six of the major search engines all at once to gather up what they have and send it back -- is 'Infoseek Express'. When you get that script, just tweak it up a bit, getting rid of their ugly advertisements and all the non- sensical categories in which you would have no interest whatsoever, add the .bmp and .mid files of your choice and use that as your personal search engine instead. That way, they do the searching and linking while I do the viewing and listening. And Infoseek Express has one other good feature: while you are viewing one page of the consolidated results, it is busy pre-loading more pages for you on your own computer, so there is no waiting. I wonder if there would be a need on the net today for such a product ... goddess knows there are enough garish, ugly and time- wasting 'start pages' available for the newbies to pick from. One that queried six or eight engines at once, and accidentally dropped all their advertising and cookies in the bit bucket on the way back with the results nicely presented in a font that was transparent on a background of clouds.bmp with a symphony piped through the sound card. I've not developed mine enough to offer it to anyone, but surely it could be done. It might be an outstanding gift to the net from the folks at the Free Software Foundation. (hint hint!) PAT] ------------------------------ From: nospam.tonypo@nospam.ultranet.com (Tony Pelliccio) Subject: WE/AT&T Paint & Process Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 17:46:53 -0500 Organization: The Bit Bucket Hello! I'm new to restoring telephones and am curious about how the folks at Western Electric/AT&T used to recondition the finish on the bakelite phones. Can anyone point me in the right direction? Thanks, Tony ------------------------------ From: Wrong@home.net (Wrong Number) Subject: E911 Illinois Requirements Date: 23 Feb 1999 00:42:04 GMT Organization: Your Organization Reply-To: badams@infi.net Help !!! Just found out about an Ill law, passed in 1994 which gives Business's untill June 1999 to have exact station location information show up on 911 calls. The way I understand it a PBX I have in Alsip Il. has to provide the PBX ext. number and location (i.e. Rm 212, 2ed floor) whenever anyone dials 911 from behi8nd the PBX. Anyone know about this law? And if so ... any suggestions? I'm looking at $5500 for pbx Equ. and an additional $260/month to the LEC for Cama type trunks. Anyone know the cost of ISDN from the LEC or other local service provider? Any insight, help, and/or information would be greatly appreciated. Bill badams@infi.net ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 22:16:11 -0800 From: Joseph Singer Subject: Alternative to Telco Voice Messaging USWest offers telephone company provided voice messaging at $6.95 per month, but there is another company in Seattle which offers free voice messaging service. If you combine it with USWest's busy/no answer service at $2.40 per month you save yourself $4.55 per month. They also use a flavor of the Octel voice messaging software. The tradeoff is that you have to listen to a five second advertisement when you go to retrieve your messages. The service also allows you to make 25¢ flat rate calls to Tacoma, Everett and Portland. The service is called "Tele-helper" or the local signup line in Seattle is 206-621-7805. Tele-helper has recently expanded to the Portland area as well. Joseph Singer Seattle, Washington USA [ICQ pgr] +1 206 405 2052 [msg] PO Box 23135 Seattle WA 98102-0435 USA ------------------------------ From: Donald Seeley Subject: Baudot Sequence Logic Date: 23 Feb 1999 05:07:06 GMT Organization: EnterAct, L.L.C. Apologies in advance if this is off topic, but I have been unsuccessfully trying to determine the logic to the sequence of the Baudot character set. This is what I mean: ASCII Dec Baudot Dec A 65 A 03 B 66 B 25 C 67 C 14 D 68 D 09 E 69 E 01 Can anyone confirm that the sequence is that of the typebars on a Teletype machine? Something else? I await your resolution to this puzzle and my subsequent [pun intended] restful nights. TIA, Don Seeley Daring Designs Typography - Graphics - Layout http://www.daringdesigns.com/~dschi/ dschi@daringdesigns.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #19 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Feb 24 15:46:07 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id PAA27876; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 15:46:07 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 15:46:07 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199902242046.PAA27876@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #20 TELECOM Digest Wed, 24 Feb 99 15:46:00 EST Volume 19 : Issue 20 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Privacy Hack on Pentium III (Monty Solomon) Always a New Product ... (Deborah Bryant) Re: Ring in the Values: Old Phones Are Major Collectibles (lwin) Help Needed with Ionospheric Propagation (pederiska@hotmail.com) California ISDN Users' Group Newsletter (Bob Larribeau) Cordless Phone Causes Huge Phone Bill (dlore@iname.com) Re: E911 Illinois Requirements (Bruce Larrabee) Re: Baudot Sequence Logic (David Clayton) Re: Baudot Sequence Logic (Dik Winter) Re: Baudot Sequence Logic (Reed) Re: Baudot Sequence Logic (James Gifford) Re: Baudot Sequence Logic (Fred Goldstein) Re: Baudot Sequence Logic (Rich Osman) 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: 415-520-9905 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, 23 Feb 1999 23:41:12 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Privacy Hack on Pentium III http://www.wired.com/news/news/technology/story/18078.html by Leander Kahney 12:00 p.m. 23.Feb.99.PST A German computer magazine claims to have found a way to hack the controversial serial number in the forthcoming Pentium III chip. Computer Technology, or c't, says that contrary to Intel's claims, the identifying Processor serial number in the Pentium III can be secretly turned on and off without the user's knowledge by a small software program. Intel included the number in the chip to provide a secure identifier for e-commerce and help system administrators keep track of large networks. But an outcry from privacy activists, who said the ID number would make it impossible to remain anonymous on the Internet, forced Intel to recommend that computer manufacturers ship systems with the identifying number turned off. Intel claims this is secure because once turned off, the number cannot be turned on again without a hardware reset, typically when the computer is shut down and rebooted -- a feature Intel said was designed to make it near-impossible for the serial number to be reset without the users' knowledge. Pentium III machines will come with a special software utility to let users turn the number on and off. "We have proven that this is wrong," said Christian Persson, editor in chief of c't, a bi-weekly magazine based in Hannover. "We must ask if there is any use for the serial number any more." According to Persson, the magazine's on/off hack exploits the Pentium III's deep sleep mode, a form of hardware reset that doesn't actually turn the system completely off. The serial number is reset when the chip is woken up. Persson says the reset can be done over the Internet, via a Direct X control, or better, implemented as a Trojan horse in a software installer. "To do it in a good way, you have to hide it from the user," Persson says. "It's best to do it during installation of software, as a Trojan horse. Then you can read the number, store it anywhere on the computer, and send it at any time." Persson said the flaw was discovered by Andreas Stiller, a hardware editor and the magazine's resident chip expert. Persson said Stiller worked out the hack from published plans of the chip and system architecture. "It was only a question of time before crackers used this procedure because it is not based on secret information." Persson said. Persson said Intel in Germany confirmed that the chip's serial number can indeed be reset this way and now recommends computer manufacturers put a special on-off switch in the system BIOS -- a layer of control inaccessible to most users -- to prevent the serial number being switched on by software. However, Intel in the US stood by its claims that the serial number can only be re-enabled after a hardware reset and that it has recommended all along that manufacturers put another switch in BIOS for extra security. "The way we designed it was to make it difficult for someone hacking or sending a virus over the Internet to reset the serial number without your knowledge," said spokesman Tom Waldrop from Intel's Santa Clara, California, headquarters. "It is conceivable that a control utility can be hacked or a serial number read but it's very difficult. And you have to ask what would be done with the number after it was read? What good is it to anyone anyway?" Waldrop said that the deep sleep mode is only a feature of chips for mobile systems, which will not be available immediately. Further, Waldrop says Intel's on/off utility polls the CPU every 15 seconds to make sure the chip's status corresponds to the utility's default setting. If the default setting is off but the serial number has been secretly turned on, the utility will reset the serial number after 15 seconds. The chip does not have to be hardware reset to turn the serial number off, Waldrop noted. The Electronic Privacy Information Center, which helps organize the BigBrotherInside boycott campaign, called for a recall of the chip. "It looks like a pretty serious flaw," said Dave Banisar, EPIC's policy director. "It's been one disaster after another for Intel. It was inevitable that someone would discover how to do something like this. All of Intel's claims that people's privacy was going to be protected was built on a house of sand." However, Persson says that while he understands the importance of privacy issues, he doesn't think the Pentium III serial number is a serious invasion of privacy. Persson pointed out that there are unique serial numbers on a lot of hardware, especially hard disks, that could also be used for ID purposes if anyone cared to. "Really this is not such a big issue," he says. "I must say, I do not understand all the fuss. I think people do not like Intel so much and use this to kick their ass." Copyright ) 1994-99 Wired Digital Inc. All rights reserved. ========================= [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: He raises a good point in mentioning that there are all sorts of serial numbers on the hardware installed in a typical computer, and that most of these are easily accessible by someone simply asking the computer what they are. This of course assumes the user knows *which locations in the computer's memory* to query. And what about every fresh installation of Windows which asks the user to enter his name, etc? What about cell phones which always transmit their (presumably unchangeable) ESN on every transmission? Just as people learned how to fix things so the ESN could be changed on cell phones, I am sure before long ways to change the serial number on the Intel chip will be known, and those people who have serious concerns about privacy will learn how to do it. One would think also that modems have serial numbers or other unique identifiers they could pass along on the sneak when requested, etc. Of coruse you can change modems for your computer easier that you change change other internal parts, but still ... PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 14:40:07 -0800 Subject: Always a New Product ... From: Deborah Bryant Pat: Another "anti-product" from one of the LECs. I know the perennial pain-in-the-butt telemarketing calls is one of your favorite peeves ... leave it to US West to find a way to make 6.95 a month "thwarting" the calls. This is from a recent press release put out by US West. Thanks always for a great digest. Deborah Bryant ******* U S WEST Launching Additional Services to Help Customers Disconnect From Unwanted Sales Calls --Two New Services Deter Telemarketers While Letting Important Calls Through-- DENVER - Anyone who has ever had their dinner or other family time interrupted by a sales call can now put an end to unwanted disruptions. U S WEST will be offering two new ways to give telemarketers the boot. * To eliminate unwanted telemarketing calls U S WEST is expanding its No Solicitation SM service in 11 of its 14 states. No Solicitation is designed to deter phone solicitors while letting other, more important calls through. No Solicitation is available to both residential and small business customers. * Additionally, U S WEST soon will be offering a second feature called Caller ID with Privacy + SM which requires telemarketers to identify themselves. "I don't know anyone who hasn't been frustrated, at one time, by unwanted sales calls and wished they had a way to block them from their lives," said Liz Fetter, vice president and general manager of US WEST's Consumer Services Group. "If family or personal time is going to be interrupted by a phone call, customers can now choose whether they want that call to be from a telemarketer. These services give control of their phone service back to the customer." With No Solicitation, all but designated callers, between 8AM and 9PM, will hear the message - "You have reached a number that does not accept solicitation. If you are a solicitor, please add this number to your do not call list and hang up now. Otherwise please press 'one' or stay on the line." Customers can select up to 25 friends, family members and other frequent callers to bypass the No Solicitation message automatically. "No Solicitation can help protect valuable family time from unwanted sales calls, which have become a frustratingly common occurrence," said Mike Rouleau, vice president of marketing for U S WEST !NTERPRISE Networking. "No Solicitation sends a clear message to telephone solicitors that their calls are not welcome at any time." No Solicitation is available to U S WEST customers in Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, Nebraska, Oregon, South Dakota, Washington and Utah for $6.95 per month. Interested customers should check for availability in their area. The service can be ordered by calling 1-800-244-1111 or on U S WEST's website at http://www.uswest.com. Caller ID with Privacy + helps to eliminate telemarketing calls by requiring callers whose names appear as "Unavailable" on Caller ID units to identify themselves. This service requires these unidentified callers to identify themselves by sending their Caller ID data or recording their name allowing the subscriber to choose whether to accept the call. U S WEST expects to introduce Caller ID with Privacy + within the next two months in selected cities across its 14-state region. U S WEST's suite of Call Management products also includes Do Not Disturb, which allows customers to block incoming calls; U S WEST Dial Lock SM, that blocks all outgoing calls, except for emergency 911 calls, from being completed. U S WEST CallCurfew SM, blocks both incoming and outgoing calls, except to 911, during set periods of time. Products may not be available in all areas and some restrictions may apply. ------------------------------ From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (lwin) Subject: Re: Ring in the Values: Old Phones Are Major Collectibles Date: 23 Feb 1999 23:23:34 GMT Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS Per Pat's comment regarding the usefulness of old phones: I use a 302 set (WE 1948), and I find audio quality of that indistinguishable from contemporary phones. The only disadvantage is that the handset is very heavy and is tiring to hold and the ringer is non adjustable. [The 300 series, which came out in 1938, predated the 500 series which came out in 1950.] Many of the older 200 series (the original "french style" phones of the 1920s) were retrofitted with 300-type handsets. Also, many candlestick phones were retrofitted with 300 elements. As such, the phones were able to remain in service for many years. A component of audio quality for candlestick and 200 style phones is if they're hooked up with a good "network" and anti-sidetone circuit. Without one they sound lousy. The 300 series and later phones had the network and ringer box built into the base of the unit. ------------------------------ From: pederiska@hotmail.com Subject: Help Needed with Ionospheric Propagation Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 12:14:54 PST Hello! I am a Msc student in communication engineering, and I have come accross your great internet site, so I was wondering if you could tell me where on net I can find some general info on ionospheric propagation. Any help is greatly appreciated. Thank you. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Anyone who cares to answer this person directly feel free to do so. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Bob Larribeau Subject: California ISDN Users' Group Newsletter Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 20:26:47 -0800 Organization: InterNex Information Services 1-800-595-3333 The latest California ISDN Users Group Newsletter is now available on our web site at http://www.ciug.org/newsletter/ With this newsletter we are announcing major changes in the organization, including a new name and mission. We are going to call ourselves the California Broadband Users' Group or CalBUG. We are extending our mission to include not only ISDN, but also DSL, cable modems, broadband wireless, and anything else that comes down the road. We are also announcing our Broadband Access Technologies conference to be held on June 15 & 16 at the Santa Clara Convention center. This issue also includes following articles: Pacific Bell misses CPUC Quality Goals Pacific Bell introduces $39 ADSL Wavepath Wireless Service NorthPoint expands Wireless Service Bob Larribeau Chairman ------------------------------ From: dlore@iname.com Subject: Cordless Phone Creates Huge Phone Bill Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 23:01:20 +0200 Organization: NetVision Israel Hi! Can anyone explain to me the following? I just received an outrageously high phone bill. It is extremely unlikely that I made all the calls. A friend of mine told me that she had the same problem -- a very high bill with calls she definitly did not make. She told me that it most probably had to do with my using a portable phone inside my house (as oppposed to a phone with a cord from the handset to the base). She said that somehow someone else's calls were being charged on my bill as a result of their porta-phone and my porta-phones airwaves or channels getting mixed up (I live in an apartment building). I know that it is possible to eavesdrop on a porta-phone but how EXACTLY (Please Explain!) is it possible for someone else's calls to go on my bill. Is it only on outgoing or also incoming calls? Is it charged even if I only speak for a second or do I have to speak longer than they speak? How can I prevent this? Thanks for your time. dlore@iname.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There are lots of things to answer here, so let's get the easy answers out of the way first. The alleged interception of your phone line by other parties has nothing to do with when/where you use your cordless phone. Inside or out, it makes no difference. The base unit of your cordless phone is triggered, or taken off hook, when it receives signals of a certain radio freq- ency from the handset. If you are using an older style cordless phone without additional security features built into it, then your base unit will quite likely respond to other cordless phones from nearby places which happen to be on the same frequency. Newer cordless phones allow you to set a 'code' -- typically one out of about 65,000 possible combinations -- which make this situation almost impossible. Any type of phone call which can be made using a 'regular' (or corded) phone -- incoming, outgoing, long distance, local, premium surcharge, etc -- can be made using a cordless phone. Years ago, when all cordless phones were on one single frequency, a game played by phone phreaks was known as 'cruising for dial tone'. They would drive up and down streets with only a cordless handset, which they held to their ear listening for dial tone as they came within transmission range of someone else's base unit. They would place a call and the other person would get the bill. And as cordless phones became more widely in use with several in a single apartment complex for example, there needed to be no malicious intent at all; the receivers and base units frequently 'heard each other' and 'talked to each other' out of confusion due to the strength of the radio signal. Thus, the addition of several different frequencies for use by cordless phones and the addition of 'security coding' to help the base units identify the proper handset, etc. **I do not think this is your problem.** It might be, but you need to look a bit further. First, have you yet disputed the bill with your telecom authority? Begin by doing that, and paying some portion of the bill which you believe is reasonable. Ask for a print out of the calls billed to your account for the period in question. Examine this print out (you may already have this if you received a detailed phone bill with calls listed, etc) as follows: Immediatly mark off those numbers you recognize, regardless of the time of day or length of call. Assume you made those calls and be responsible for them. It is unlikely anyone who intercepted your line would have called the same people. Now go through the detailed list a second time, and look at the calls made during the times of day and days of the week when you likely would have been at home and could possibly have made the call even if you have forgotten about it. Look for slight variations in the digits indicating a call which was misdialed, but off hook long enough for charging to begin. If necessary, use a cross-reference or 'criss cross' style style directory to try and jog your memory with names, etc. Finally, note any remaining calls made at times when you could not possibly have made them; i.e. calls in the middle of the day when you are always at work/school; calls at 5 AM when you are always asleep, etc. Look for recurring patterns, the same number dialed more than once, always about the same time of day. Have the detailed list of calls organized in this way when you have further discussions with the telecom office. Be prepared to pay immediatly for all those calls you recognize, as a way to encourage telecom to work with you on the rest of it. Try unplugging the base unit except at those times when you are at home and specifically want to use your cordless phone. If the problem is with unauthorized calls through your base unit via someone else's handset this should not only cure the problem but also identify it as the reason for the high bill you did receive. If the problem ends at that point, then you lose :( ... you are responsible for the use of your instruments on telecom's lines; your cordless device failed to properly identify who was and was not authorized to make calls. What immediatly caught my eye however was your mention of living in an *apartment building*. If unplugging your base unit except when you are there to supervise its operation does NOT solve the problem -- that is, the unidentified calls continue to appear on your bill each month -- then perhaps -- perhaps! -- you win :) I am going to assume at this point you do not have any children, roomates, etc who would make calls when you were not around. I assume no one has access to your living quarters when you are not around. If this is not the case, then you might want to investigate those possibilities as well. Again, examining your phone bill closely might give you some clues about the problem. So what is it then that makes 'apartment building' of importance in all this. I do not know where you live, but in many large cities with older apartment buildings of considerable size, the cables from the phone company are notorious in their placement and wiring. Over the years many changes in the cable and wire pairs within the cable will have been made, many times without the proper notations being made in 'plant' (or central office exchange) records, and many times these changes will have been incorrectly or incompletely finished. The phone company does not literally have five million wire pairs for a city of five million people. It has what it needs looped around in such a way that it can open and close the wire pairs to a customer and then use the same wire pairs for another customer (opening or closing the pairs at some other point in the loop) at a different time. These opening/closing points in the cable are often referred to as 'multiples'. The 'pair' to your apartment for example might be 'multipled' elsewhere in the apartment building or even in an apartment building across the street. Imagine a library for example: I borrow a book from the shelf, read it and return it. While I am using it you have to find a different one. When I return it, now you can have it. While you are hooked up to the telephone network on a pair of wires, no one else can use those wires. When your phone service is discontinued, the pairs become available for someone else to use. In *theory* all other points on the cable where a multiple appears are supposed to be 'opened' -- that is, made unavailable for use. In *actual practice* sometimes a phone technician putting in new service forgets to go around and 'open' all the sub-loops or multiples on the wire except for his new installation. Or maybe the computer records tell him this has already been done, or maybe the records tell him that no one else is assigned to the wire pair being assigned to you, but in fact there is a subscriber already using it. Telephone company 'outside plant' records are notoriously incorrect. Watch a telephone technician working on a pole or at the main demarc point for an older (large) apartment building as he sometimes struggles to find a 'good working pair' for a new installation being done. Sometimes unethical people who are sophisticated in telephone company wiring practices will deliberatly go to a demarc and connect wires allowing them to use someone else's service. If the wire pair has been assigned to you and someone else enters the pair at a multiple secretly, then any direct dialed calls billed to your number are going to appear to the telephone switch as though you made them. Sometimes there is no malicious intent; telecom just gives two subscribers the same pair by accident. So this may be a defense you have also against the charges on your bill, but the context here is all-important, ie the kind of building you live in, its age, how the wiring to the building is done, etc. A single house in a new housing development in the past few years is not nearly as likely to have this occurrance as someone who lives in a thirty or forty year old highrise building in an inner-city neigh- borhood with a shortage of phone wire pairs. If your problem of a high phone bill with unidentifiable calls only happens once, telecom is likely to accept your payment, write off the balance as goodwill and say no more. It is not worth the trouble to find out what happened. If the problem persists more than a single billing interval and keeping your cordless base unit unplugged when not needed and under close supervision when it is plugged in does not solve the problem, then your repeated requests for credit and/or adjustment is going to pique someone's curiosity at telecom and get them to looking other places for a solution. The first thing *they* are going to tell you is that the problem is with your cordless phone, your children, people you allow in your home, your spouse, etc. Have all these possibilities eliminated before you insist that they look further on their end. They also love to place the blame on computer modems by the way; 'your computer must have made that call while you were asleep/away from home/using the computer but thought you were making another call, etc', so it might be helpful to know for sure that your computer is not making some calls it should not be making when you walk away leaving it turned on or the modem connected to the phone line. Good luck tracking it down! PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 24 Feb 1999 14:57:35 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com From: larb0@aol.com (Bruce Larrabee) Subject: Re: E911 Illinois Requirements I seem to remember that the deadline for that ICC policy was postponed? You could check with the ICC itself (http://www.state.il.us/ICC). I assume you're speaking of ISDN PRI, since you have a PBX. Ameritech should be able to help with pricing. You could also check with competitive carriers such as Focal, Nextlink, MFS, etc. I think these offer PRI ... Bruce Larrabee ------------------------------ From: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au (David Clayton) Subject: Re: Baudot Sequence Logic Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 08:09:10 GMT Organization: Customer of OzEmail/Access One Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia Reply-To: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au Donald Seeley contributed the following: > Apologies in advance if this is off topic, but I have been unsuccessfully > trying to determine the logic to the sequence of the Baudot character set. > This is what I mean: > ASCII Dec Baudot Dec > A 65 A 03 > B 66 B 25 > C 67 C 14 > D 68 D 09 > E 69 E 01 > Can anyone confirm that the sequence is that of the typebars on a Teletype > machine? Something else? The only logic I could determine from the ole' International Telegraph Alphabet No. 2 is that the layout of the "qwerty" keyboard mapped to a mechanically easy way to produce the punch tape patterns on the original machines. Apart from that it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I do remember being told a story that the "querty" keyboard layout was designed to slow down the typing to a speed the first machines could handle by making the layout as counter-productive as possible! Regards, David Clayton, e-mail: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Still think the 20th century ends after 1999?, check this URL: http://riemann.usno.navy.mil/AA/faq/docs/faq2.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 11:08:35 MET From: Dik.Winter@cwi.nl (Dik Winter) Subject: Re: Baudot Sequence Logic Actually, although called Baudot, this is the Murray code (International Alphabet 2). Baudot code (International Alphabet 1) is completely different. But neither has any relation to the typebars on a Teletype. Both are based on less bits on for frequent letters. The pairing with non-alphabetics *was* based on what was on the typebars. dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131 home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/ ------------------------------ From: Reed Subject: Re: Baudot Sequence Logic Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 20:02:16 -0700 Organization: None whatsoever There is some interesting background info on Baudot code etc at http://www.vmeng.com/minow/papertape/papertape.html ------------------------------ From: James Gifford Reply-To: gifford@ns.net Organization: Heinlein Central | CT Magazine Subject: Re: Baudot Sequence Logic Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 22:00:27 GMT It was invented by a Frenchman, and what's worse, a turn-of-the-century one. You expect LOGIC to be a factor? Clearly, you've never watched a Truffaut movie, worked with SECAM or tried to fix a Citroen. :) Seriously, I know that some of the early binary encoding techniques were designed to minimize the number of bit changes from one character to the next. That might be a factor here. I can't find a chart of the Baudot digits to confirm, but try looking at the binary sequencing and see if there's a pattern. | James Gifford | | Associate Editor, Computer Telephony Magazine | | = Speaking only for myself in this case = | ------------------------------ From: fgoldstein@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: Baudot Sequence Logic Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 22:09:53 GMT Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion I may have been the 1975 edition of the RTTY Handbook (which I edited) that contained a description of how an olde Teletype worked. There were five horizontal bars, some combination of which would be lifted by the five bits following the start bit. A motor moved contacts past the actuators for each bar, so the bits literally set the bars. And they in turn set the type wheel's position, so the hammer would strike it after the stop bit arrived. Of course the layout of the letters on the type wheel was done to match the Baudot code's action on the bars, so it was still perhaps arbitrary. My guess is that it had to do with minimizing the wheel motion on the most common letters. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 04:44:41 -0600 From: Rich Osman Reply-To: oz@hex.net Organization: Paranoia was Overcome Subject: Re: Baudot Sequence Logic I believe that it was selected to minimize the number of transitions in average text. Baudot was a code conceived for mechanical transmission, and so letter frequency was used to select codes to minimize mechanical wear and tear for frequently used letters I don't have an authoritative reference for this, it's just something I remember hearing back when I was doing ham radio teletype with model 14's, 15's, 19's, and a 28. Oz@hex.net Rich Osman +1 972-879-2301 (Pager) POB 93167; Southlake, TX 76092 (Near DFW Airport) ARS: WB0HUQ ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #20 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Feb 24 17:38:02 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id RAA03913; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 17:38:02 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 17:38:02 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199902242238.RAA03913@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #21 TELECOM Digest Wed, 24 Feb 99 17:37:00 EST Volume 19 : Issue 21 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Junk E-Mail Filters Spawn a Suit Against Microsoft (Monty Solomon) "Science: The Endless Frontier" and the ICANN/IANA Problem (Ronda Hauben) Virginia Law Would Make Internet Spamming a Crime (Monty Solomon) Caller Pays and Code Calling (David Chessler) Re: You Call, You Pay (Massimiliano Scagliarini) Re: You Call, You Pay (Robert L. McMillin) 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: 415-520-9905 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: Junk E-Mail Filters Spawn a Suit Against Microsoft Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 17:23:18 -0500 http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/02/cyber/cyberlaw/19law.html By CARL S. KAPLAN Last November, near the peak of the holiday greeting card season, executives at Blue Mountain Arts discovered something odd. The Colorado-based company runs a popular Web site which lets people create free personalized electronic greeting cards. It found that a program by Microsoft was blocking some e-mail messages telling greeting card recipients to pick up their cards at the site. That discovery sparked a closely watched lawsuit that is pitting the rights of a software company to innovate freely against the rights of a company that says its business was disrupted because its notices were labeled as junk e-mail. There are many wrinkles in the case, including allegations that Microsoft engaged in illegal tactics to protect its own virtual greeting card business. But the most significant aspect of the lawsuit is that it could be the first of many cases that ask courts to consider the damage caused when e-mail is unfairly or inadvertently blocked by increasingly sophisticated filtering technology, legal experts say. "This is an early lawsuit in what will become a classic grievance," said Blake Bell, a lawyer who specializes in Internet issues at the New York office of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett. "Filters of all kinds will increasingly have a substantial impact on a company's ability to conduct e-commerce, and the [blocked] company will have a desire to assert legal claims in order to secure an unfettered ability to compete." According to legal papers filed in California Superior Court, Santa Clara County, Microsoft created an electronic greeting card site last November that competed with Blue Mountain's site, which is among the most popular sites on the Web. Around the same time, the company began offering a new trial version of its free browser, Internet Explorer. The browser included an e-mail component, Outlook Express, with a new filter for junk mail, also known as "spam." When the program was first installed, the filter was turned off. But when turned on and operating under its default settings, it routed Blue Mountain's greeting card notifications to a "junk mail" folder. At about the same time, Blue Mountain discovered that the e-mail system at Microsoft's WebTV subsidiary had blocked the receipt of thousands of Blue Mountain greeting cards, according to legal papers. Blue Mountain protested to Microsoft, and the block was removed after about eight days. Frustrated at what it later said was Microsoft's refusal to fix the filter immediately, Blue Mountain filed a complaint against the company in early December. The suit accused Microsoft of unfair competition under state law, intentional interference with Blue Mountain's business relationships, trade libel -- for labeling its e-mail as "junk" -- and other wrongs. At the heart of the suit was the allegation that Microsoft changed its junk mail filter to purposely derail the greeting card business activities of a competitor. "I think anybody in the business of making a filter has to be very diligent in ensuring their filter does not discriminate against competitors," Jared Schutz, executive director of Blue Mountain, said in an interview this week. For its part, Microsoft said in court papers that the unit that developed the junk mail filter was totally separate from and uninfluenced by the unit that created its electronic greeting card business. Moreover, the company said the early version of the filter inadvertently snagged the notification messages for Microsoft's own electronic greeting cards, as well as the messages from Blue Mountain and other greeting card companies, because they matched some of the common characteristics of junk e-mail. Microsoft said it tried to help Blue Mountain solve the problem in late November by suggesting changes in the notification messages. Courts and lawyers should expect more cases brought by parties who claim they have been silenced by software. Judge Robert A. Baines of California Superior Court has been sympathetic to Blue Mountain's arguments so far. Late last month, he issued a preliminary injunction that broadly bans Microsoft from distributing or selling any product that impedes the delivery of Blue Mountain greeting cards or notification messages to the intended recipient's in-box. The injunction becomes effective on February 27, and Microsoft has 30 days to appeal the order. Although Blue Mountain says that the latest version of the Microsoft filter is letting its e-mail through, both sides say a trial for past damages is still likely. In issuing his preliminary injunction on January 28, Judge Baines pointedly expressed his view -- based on sealed evidence including Microsoft e-mail and other documents -- that it was "beyond coincidence" and "difficult if not impossible to accept" that the Microsoft employees developing the filter were unaware of the electronic greeting card area of Microsoft's business or that the filter was developed without any input from the greeting card group. "I realize Microsoft is large, but I simply have a difficult time accepting the fact that one hand didn't know what the other was doing to that extent," the judge said. He added later: "So I do believe that there was some intent on [Microsoft's] part ... not only to filter out spam generally, but that there was some concern or outright targeting of Blue Mountain or similar outfits that were in competition offering electronic greeting cards." In another part of his decision, the judge noted that based on evidence presented by both sides, Microsoft tried to buy Blue Mountain, or at least explored the possibility of buying it, before November 1998. Linda Norman, a senior corporate lawyer for Microsoft, said in an interview that the judge's tentative conclusions concerning Microsoft were unfortunate. "At a trial we will present the full story," she said. "We never intended to target Blue Mountain" with the filter, she said. Norman added that a trial verdict against Microsoft could also set a bad precedent, because there is no guarantee that a software feature will work perfectly. If Microsoft is held to a standard of perfection by the courts, "it will become impossible to design anything that's innovative," she said. Gary L. Reback, a lawyer for Blue Mountain, said in an interview that Blue Mountain put a lot of sealed evidence in front of the judge "which led the court to conclude as it did." "Beyond that, I can't comment specifically on the evidence," he said. Experts say junk mail filters can be a convenience given the ever-increasing volume of unsolicited commercial e-mail, but they can be risky. After all, they involve letting a machine decide which e-mail messages are important and which are not. "You can potentially do a lot of damage with spam filters," said Paul Hoffman, director of the Internet Mail Consortium, a trade group that includes Microsoft. "I'm not particularly happy with the court telling Microsoft what to do, but I don't have a better solution to propose" in the Blue Mountain case, he said. Some experts believe the Blue Mountain case may not have wide ramifications because the company performing the filtering is a competitor with a dominant market position. "Microsoft has a problem because of its large market share and its labeling of a competitor's product as junk mail," said Anthony Lupo, an Internet expert and lawyer in Washington. A more straightforward case in the future -- involving non-competitors who agree that the filtering was inadvertent -- could press harder on the notion of business libel or misrepresentation, rather than unfair competition, he said. In any case, courts and lawyers should expect more cases brought by parties who claim they have been silenced by software. "I can also see this spreading to other contexts, such as 'smart' search engines that omit certain major companies" because of fee arrangements, said Bell of Simpson Thacher. "This case is a harbinger of things to come." Carl S. Kaplan at kaplanc@nytimes.com welcomes your comments and suggestions. Copyright 1999 The New York Times Company ------------------------------ From: rh120@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Ronda Hauben) Subject: "Science: The Endless Frontier" and the ICANN/IANA Problem Date: 24 Feb 1999 17:25:36 GMT Organization: Columbia University Reply-To: rh120@mailrelay2.cc.columbia.edu On Vannevar's Bush's "Science: The Endless Frontier" and the ICANN/IANA problem: Following are some thoughts on trying to put what is happening with the U.S. government transferring ownership and control over essential points of control of the Internet into a private sector entity controlled by who knows whom, and currently called ICANN (i.e.giving away the Internet's controlling functions of the IP numbers, DNS system, port numbers, protocols, etc.) Recently I read Vannevar Bush's proposal about "Science The Endless Frontier". I have found "Science the Endless Frontier" quite fascinating in the argument it makes for the importance of U.S. government support for basic science and technology research. It is helpful to see the description of why such research is so important to the well being of the economic and social life of society. And it puts the research on defense questions within a broader context of social questions and proposes that there be one scientific entity within U.S. government to support this broader range of science (which would include defense related research). It makes it seem as if ARPA is the prototype of a broader form of entity that is needed so that the social context is the framework for the support of basic science and technology research, including defense basic research. The real problem with the Internet is that the U.S. government doesn't seem to be supporting research about how to provide for the scaling of it. And the U.S. government's effort to transfer ownership and policy over IANA functions which include both control over the Internet as well as the scaling mechanism of the Internet, to some hidden entity (hidden behind ICANN) seems a great problem for those who care about the continued well being and development of the Internet and are dependent on the Internet for real life needs and especially for communication. In this context it would seem there is a need for the U.S. government to support the scaling and further development of the Internet, and particularly the IANA functions. As the important development of research by IPTO/ARPA under the Dept. of Defense provided the basis for a public communications structure, this leads to looking back at Bush's recommendations as they have proven to be the inspiration for important developments like the Internet. (Also this leads to realizing that in fact good communication among the people of a nation are indeed what sets the basis for defense of the people of that nation. And that good communication among people around the world is a real weapon in the battle against the forces that want to enslave any people. So that the Internet is indeed the kind of development that is the proper and valuable kind of activity for the defense agencies of the governments of the peoples of nation/s around the world.) Bush proposed that the defense related research be carried out by a U.S. government entity in the context of a broader social framework for scientific research. He also proposed that other forms of scientific research along with the defense related scientific research be part of the new science research agency he was proposing. Bush develops a broad set of arguments about why science and technology work have to be done for the economy to develop. I had been following some leads to figure out what is behind the ICANN and got back to the Office of Inspector General's Report of 1997 where she proposed the need to maintain scientific and government expertise in administering and setting policy for IANA functions. However, it seem that she lost her job as a result of such recommendations, and instead the Framework for Electronic Commerce was written and ICANN set up to give IANA away to those who promote "market" activity. So it seems that the contest is between: 1) seeing the Internet as the confirmation of the power of Bush's recommendation on the importance of government supporting basic research in science and technology; versus 2) the contrary view that says that the market will create all that the society needs and government has to help the market to function. #1 seems to be the line of forward direction, and #2 and the ICANN developments and the effort, to reverse this forward direction. The important developments at IPTO/ARPA over the past 30 years are a demonstration of the fact that what Bush proposes is not just a theory, but has in fact been demonstrated. Hence the great importance of increasing government support for basic science and technology research. But instead the U.S. current government policy is in the opposite direction. And the U.S. government support for ICANN the weathervane of that harmful policy. Ronda ronda@panix.com Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook also in print edition ISBN 0-8186-7706-6 ------------------------------ Reply-To: Monty Solomon From: Monty Solomon Subject: Virginia Law Would Make Internet Spamming a Crime Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 14:47:54 -0500 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/daily/feb99/valaw23.htm The Associated Press Wednesday, February 24, 1999; 10:11 a.m. EST RICHMOND, Va. Legislation that would make it a crime to clog the Internet with unsolicited junk e-mail cleared the General Assembly and is on its way to Gov. Jim Gilmore. The House of Delegates on Tuesday approved a bill aimed at Internet users who advertise products by sending thousands or even millions of e-mail messages, or "spam," to other users all throughout a computer network. Gilmore has said he will sign the bill into law. Virginia would become the second state to criminalize spamming. California enacted such a law last year, said Neil Osten of the National Conference of State Legislatures. Spammers frequently promote sexually explicit Web sites, and sometimes the spam output is so massive that it causes backups or crashes on the networks of Internet service companies. "Spam is a scourge on legitimate Internet commerce," said David Botkins, a spokesman for Attorney General Mark Earley, who supported the bill. "This legislation is crucial to the high-tech community, and the attorney general is prepared to help enforce this law when and where appropriate." The Senate had already approved the bill, and the House agreed to Senate amendments to it. Other states have passed laws making spamming grounds for a lawsuit, but Virginia is the first to approve legislation making it a crime. Many spammers use false online identities to send the mass e-mailings to avoid being kicked off of the Internet. The legislation would make that a misdemeanor. Violations could rise to the level of a felony if spamming is caused by a "malicious act" and results in more than $2,500 in damage to the victim. It also would make it illegal to own software that helps people falsify their online identities. The legislation also creates civil penalties for spammers whose e-mails cause a computer system to crash. The fines would range from $10 per message to $25,000 per day. Dulles-based America Online, which has more than 16 million subscribers, supports the legislation. "In general, our customers strongly dislike spam," said Randall Boe, associate general counsel the nation's largest online services company. AOL is already going after spammers using existing state laws where possible, Boe said. But the hard part is getting damage awards. "We have only been able to recover the cost of sending e-mail," which is a very small amount, Boe said. The American Civil Liberties Union sees the legislation as a violation of the constitutional right to free expression. "Expression is protected in the commercial context as well as the noncommercial context, and no one has yet to come up with a valid or compelling state interst in limiting the way e-mail is sent," said Kent Willis, executive director of the ACLU in Virginia. Copyright 1999 The Associated Press ------------------ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So if it becomes illegal to own or use software which allows the sender of email to conceal his true identity then what happens to unix admins who have sendmail on their site with its ability to set -f by (in unix parlance) trusted users? What happens to those sites which still maintain open mail relays? (Yes, there are a few) ... I do not think there should be a law against spam as such; the law should be directed against any email to which the recipient has no recourse. Existing laws which pertain to sending regular 'paper' mail should be automatically amended to include email, i.e. postal fraud; theft or intervention of mail not intended for the person who 'opens' it, etc. Sending spam for fraudulent purposes should be handled like any regular mail sent for fraudulent purposes. Sending spam that is legal is nature (regardless of how obnoxious or boorish and foolish it may happen to be) should be protected and subject only to peer pressure from others on the net. I have always believed that as long as we are able to identify *who* sent the email -- a legitmate and meaningful identification of the user or at the very least the site where it originated -- that we as users can deal with the rest of the problem. If the government wants to have more laws -- and don't they always? -- then it should be sufficient to amend existing laws pertaining to paper mail to include email and let it go at that. Add to that something saying that users who deliberatly falsify their identity and system admins who refuse to take reasonable efforts to stop this from happening after being notifed of such a user will be punished. And of course all of this has to be taken in context. A large site with hundreds or thous- ands of users which took sophisticated efforts to stop spam yet had a user slip through now and then with it would not be treated in the same way as some site with one or two users and an 'admin' who whined that he had no way to control his users, etc. I think I would also strongly encourage admins to work together in identifying and isolating those users who had sent the unidentifiable mail. An admin could if desired refuse for privacy reasons to identify the offending user, and that would be fine, one time only per offending user. I am not saying anything that is new or not frequently in practice now. If anything I would simply codify the requirement for identifica- tion of and absolute recourse to users who send massive amounts of unsolicited email, then let the net community deal with that user. To protect the privacy rights of all users, some threshold would have to be crossed in terms of the volume of mail sent out before a demand could be made to identify the user's actual name, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 00:26:31 -0500 From: David Chessler Subject: Caller Pays and Code Calling I find interesting the recent discussion of the possibility that, if "caller-pays" were adopted for cellular and PCS telephones in the US, the cellular and PCS companies would vie to offer the lowest rates for calls the cellular user originates, and would gain their revenues by charging very high rates for incoming calls. However, I do not see any discussion of "code calling." In some areas of the country, calls from a first location (usually a city) to a second (usually a distant suburb) were charged at a low rate as a local call under extended area service (often "free" under flat rates), but the calls from the second area to the first were charged as expensive short-distance toll calls. The result was that customers in the second area "code called" the first, so they could be called back. This might have been a simple "if there is one ring, call home," or it might have been an explicit "this is X; call me back." Nowadays, paging, built into most PCS systems, and readily available everywhere, makes this easier. Code calling was always a limitation on asymetrical extended area service, and probably contributed to most such plans having been abandoned. It will be interesting to see whether "caller pays" systems with asymetrical rates will survive in this country. From what I know of European telephone tariffs, most or all calls from land-line phones are charged, usually at relatively high, timed rates. Thus, Europeans make calls in the expectation that they will be charged for them. This is not generally the case in this country; there are few places where local calls are timed (New York City is an obvious exception). Thus, resistance may be higher than advocates of "caller pays" realize. Charging high rates per minute also runs counter to recent trends in telephone pricing. At the time of the divestiture toll rates had four rate elements: Distance, Duration, Time of Day (and day of the week), and "Setup" (the first minute of the call was charged more than additional minutes). For the next few years, some pundits would predict "postal pricing." Postal pricing (dropping of the distance rate element) was delayed. However, now, under most popular calling plans, as the FCC finally gives up (or, at least, reduces) charging by the minute for the access costs that it considers "non-traffic-sensitive," and per-call fees for public telephones, both elements effectively required by the FCC). And the price per minute has dropped. Twenty-five or thirty cents a minute was common a few years ago; now everyone is offered prices under a dime in every day's mail. Rates from the US to most European countries are also dropping rapidly, and the higher rates for calls toward the US are dropping under regulatory pressure from the FCC and economic pressure (that is, competition) from "call back" operations. The growing expectation on the part of the public that the price of a telephone call be nearly free, and essentially flat-rate, is further nurtured by another trend: the flat rates most people pay for internet access -- access that may, even now, include the capability to provide voice communications in competition with telephone. Studies repeatedly show that the actual cost of a local telephone call is negligible -- a few hundredths of a cent per minute. The cost of a toll call is higher, yet the prevalence of rates of five cents per minute on Sundays (and now Saturdays) and rates as low as seven cents per minute on weekdays, even though the average access charges are about four and one-half cents per minute, suggests the direction in which telephone rates are headed. It will be difficult for cellular and PCS operators to run counter to this trend, and it will be interesting to see them them try. ____ ____ David Chessler, Ph.D., President | | | ' David Chessler and Associates |_/ & \_, Economic, Telecommunications, Statistical, ____ and Antitrust Consulting /____\ Phone: +1-301-229-9514 / \ Fax: +1-301-229-3984 chessler@capaccess.org chessler@usa.net ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 13:38:18 +0100 From: Massimiliano Scagliarini Subject: Re: You Call, You Pay From an European point of view, the debate that is going on about who should pay for cell-phone calls is very strange. Here in Italy, where having to pay as high as 1.1 USD per minute to call a "family" cell phone is considered normal, a lot of people see these kind of calls to be the most relevant part of their phone bill. And also, i find that our sistem is the most reasonable one: i couldn't imagine myself paying for every person that decides to tell me something while i'm not at home! Our telephone system (in Europe, I mean) is based on the caller-pays principle and so cell-phones are no exception to this rule. Of course cellulars have a different area code, so you know in advance that you are calling a mobile phone (with a different cost than normal calls). The objection moved by Mr. Matthew Black, that a cellular phone owner has always convenience to be called (and so, should always pay for the call), is very questionable: imagine, for example, the cases where you have to call a technician or a doctor, or are simply trying to date a girl! In my humble opinion, cellular phones billing should be treated the same way as traditional telephone service. The actual American system is too similar to toll-free line, and it does not give to cell-owners the right to be always available that is the main reason to buy a mobile phone. I can easily understand why my american friends are not so happy to give away their cell number, and this is also unacceptable because personally I own a cell phone to be in touch with people, and when I don't want to I simply switch it off. Surely, with the caller-pays system you will see the same cell-mania that we have here: with cheap cellular fees, every person will be glad to spend two or three hundreds dollars to have a ringing machine in his pocket that helps him to feel "important". But that's, together with the infamous "butta la pasta" call (see Wired February issue, in Rants&raves), is another story ..... ------------------------------ From: Robert L. McMillin Subject: Re: You Call, You Pay Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 17:20:22 -0800 Organization: Syseca, Inc. Tom Betz wrote: > And it's about time. > This will make cellular valuable, finally. Cellular companies have > been trying to compensate for "Receiver Pays" terms with "first minute > free" and such like, but Caller Pays will let wireless services come > into their own. The sticking point being, who handles billing? What the LECs don't want is to have to remit payments to the cellphone companies. Having a bad taste in their mouths from 900/976 carriers, slammers, and crammers, the idea of yet another service wanting to use them as an intermediary (regardless of the quality of that service) can't be appealing. This is why we won't see it anytime soon. Robert L. McMillin | Not the voice of Syseca, Inc. | rlm@syseca-us.com Personal: rlm@helen.surfcty.com | rlm@netcom.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #21 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Feb 25 13:12:27 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id NAA17700; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 13:12:27 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 13:12:27 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199902251812.NAA17700@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #22 TELECOM Digest Thu, 25 Feb 99 13:12:00 EST Volume 19 : Issue 22 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson "Old" Telephones and "Old Time" Radio (Mark J. Cuccia) @Home Document Raises Privacy Concerns (Monty Solomon) "Caller-Pays" Cellular/Wireless (Mark J. Cuccia) Re: You Call, You Pay (quonk@my-dejanews.com) Re: Virginia Law Would Make Internet Spamming a Crime (John LeBlanc) Re: Virginia Law Would Make Internet Spamming a Crime (James D. Wilson) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 415-520-9905 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, 24 Feb 1999 19:49:41 CST From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: "Old" Telephones and "Old Time" Radio Pat, I have to DISagree with you, and instead AGree with Lee Winson regarding the old WECo/NECo phones. As a collector of REAL WECo/NECo telephones from the 1920's thru mid-60's (all PRE-modular), I can say that "the telephone company" (Western Electric for the US and Northern Electric for Canada) built these phones to LAST FOREVER. Some "sloppiness" began to enter in the later 1960's (as just about EVERYTHING in life and society became "sloppy" in the late 1960's), and even MORE "sloppiness" began to enter construction of WECo phones in the 1970's when modular connections were introduced, and more things plastic instead of metal or bakelite. But the REAL phones do _NOT_ seem to emit any RF (most of todays manufactured phones, with all of their "whistles and bells" and integrated circuit chips emit significant "RF"), the REAL phones don't "fall apart" in the way that today's phones are known to, even the carbon mic's (when the carbon granules are 'loose') IMO are FAR superior to the electronic mic of today's phones. And, when trying to pick-up a distant radio station, or a local 250-Watt station that I have difficulty picking up, I can ALWAYS wrap wire around the ferite bar area of the AM Radio, and hook the other end of the wire to the metal "dial-fingerstop" of the telephone. The telephone's insides of the older REAL Western/Northern equipment, while not "putting out RF", DO help out as an ANTENNAE for HELPING me pick-up AM Radio! As for "Old Time Radio" ... Much of the "scratchiness" you are referring to is how the program was RECORDED for posterity at the time it was broadcast (usually live) from back in the 1930's-50's. Most of the programs back then were TRANSCRIBED on acetate disks, similar to wax phonograph records. Many of them were 16-inches in diameter and also usually rotated at 16 rpm. Sometimes you started the program with the needle on the outer part of the disk (as in a usual phonograph record), but some transcription disks were started with the needle at the INSIDE and travelled outwards as the program played. Sometimes, the disk was to rotate clockwise, other times counterclockwise. But it depended on HOW WELL the transcription disk was produced AND STORED for over the decades! I have heard that live network radio feeds (even for pre-recorded programs) from back then, at least for mid-size and major markets (where the NETWORK paid AT&T for the transmission circuits of 5Khz bandwidth) as opposed to more rural markets (where the local affiliate had to pay the local telco for the circuit to hook-up to the nearest network 'trunk' feed - therefore the affiliate usually paid only for lower quality 3Khz bandwidth), and also considering the quality of the radio receiver's construction and 'wear/tear', as well as weather condiitions in the local station's market... that the quality was just as good (or even better) than today's (live) radio. And IMO, the acoustic quality when VACUUM TUBES are used over transistors or integrated circuits, is FAR superior! As for the 'deterioration' of older transcription disks of the network (and syndicated) radio broadcasts of the 1930's thru 1950's/early 60's (and the 1950's reel-to-reel tape which was being introduced), many of today's collectors are running their collections through DIGITAL CORRECTORS and ENHANCERS. Even programs from the 1930's that may have had a transcription that 'deteriorated' over the decades, can now be "cleaned up" to where the acoustic quality is nearly PERFECT. And even programs recorded at that time CAN sound nearly PERFECT if the transcription disk or reel of tape was taken good care of. As I type this, I'm listening to GUNSMOKE, starring William Conrad as Matt Dillon, US Marshall, this episode originally broadcast in the early 1950's over the CBS RAD))|((O NETWORK, and brought to you by Chesterfields and L&M Filters (both regular and kings- "They Satisfy")! I'm listening to it from "Yesterday USA", a 24-hour/7-day "Old Time Radio" service available via satellite (C-Band, audio subcarrier of whatever video transponder), participating Cable-TV companies (as an audio service), low-power AM/FM (I don't know if Y-USA yet has a shortwave affiliate), AND IN REALAUDIO VIA THE 'NET. The quality is excellent! With each individual tape or disk of "Old Time Radio", it all depends on how well the collector has taken care of the copy. Incidently, for those who are fans of "Old Time Radio" (and have Real Audio), Yesterday-USA's URLs: The Y-USA HomePage is: http://otr.uwsp.edu/ The Y-USA page at Broadcast.com is: http://www.broadcast.com/radio/oldtime/yestrday/ And the initial URL for the Real Audio stream is: http://www.broadcast.com/radio/ram/yestrday28.ram But, Pat, even if the acoustic quality of a particular "Old Time Radio" broadcast isn't all that superior, the CONTENT of the program is what counts! I just cannot find myself enjoying boring contemporary network Television programs, when I have an opportunity to hear "old time radio", as well as watch CLASSIC Movies (American Movie Classics on Cable-TV) and CLASSIC Television programs on TV-Land, Nick-at-Nite, etc., even for 16-mm scratched BW film prints, or 'fuzzy' 16-mm filmed kinescopes off a TV screen of an originally LIVE telecast. 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: Thanks very much for passing along that URL for a continuous feed of old time radio. I've already bookmarked it on my Real Player. I'll grant you most of today's 'over the air' television is the way Newton Minnow described it thirty years ago: a vast wasteland. There is a guy in Chicago who does an old time radio show for four hours every Saturday afternoon. (WNIB 97.1 FM from 1 to 5 pm, hosted by Chuck Shaden.) He has done his 'Golden Age of Radio' program for about 30 years now, longer than the golden age of radio itself even lasted, if we assume the commonly used dates of 1930-55. Since it is so popular, why can't that general style of programming find a place in 'modern' broadcasting? Imagine that kind of wonderful programming, but using today's audio/video advances which in the 1940- 50's era was unheard of? Quality programming combined with today's quality modes of presentation. What a novel idea, eh? PAT] ------------------------------ Reply-To: Monty Solomon From: Monty Solomon Subject: @Home Document Raises Privacy Concerns Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 17:49:22 -0500 http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,32834,00.html By Corey Grice Staff Writer, CNET News.com February 24, 1999, 4:25 a.m. PT Tele-Communications Incorporated will issue a letter to explain a revised service agreement for its @Home Network after consumers claimed several clauses could infringe on their rights as users. The legal document -- similar to the user agreements of other Internet service providers -- contains language that some customers have said could allow TCI to republish information sent via email or to release users' personal information to third parties. Although the revised policy raised a few eyebrows, TCI said it has only its customers in mind. "Customers rights and their privacy is a top priority," said TCI spokeswoman Katina Vlahadamis. "A lot of things were included to protect the customers as well as the company." Vlahadamis said the planned letter, intended to better explain what the new user agreement means for its Net access customers, would be sent "shortly," possibly as early as this week. TCI admitted, however, that consumer concerns could have been avoided with some careful planning and more tactful language. "The way that it's worded isn't maybe as consumer-friendly as we would have liked," Vlahadamis said. One clause in the new TCI agreement authorizes TCI to "reproduce, publish, distribute, and display ... worldwide" any content that was published, transmitted, or distributed over the @Home high-speed Net service. But TCI said the controversial clause is simply intended to protect the company from violating any copyright laws when it delivers its customers' data packets. "We don't plan to intentionally distribute this information to unintended persons," Vlahadamis said. "It's not 'publish' in the everyday use of the word; it's 'publish' in the legalese way. It gives us the copyright protection to distribute emails and the information customers want us to." Scott Greczkowski, moderator of the Connecticut @Home Users Group, is organizing a protest this weekend over the new agreement and recent performance problems that have plagued @Home in Hartford. Greczkowski plans to protest @Home's service at a hands-on trial the company is planning in Bristol, Connecticut. The revised agreement applies only to TCI @Home users, not users of @Home through other operators such as Cox Communications or Comcast. @Home has a separate "acceptable use policy." Under some interpretations of intellectual property law, mirroring content on a Web server -- as happens with @Home's and other ISPs' caching systems -- potentially violates the author's copyrights, said Dave McClure, executive director of the Association of Online Professionals. But the language in TCI's subscriber agreement may go beyond what it needs to safeguard this function, McClure added. "If this is a poorly worded contract, it should be brought to their attention," McClure said. "This is the kind of issue that can become huge." @Home said privacy is a top priority for the Internet company. "Privacy is of the utmost importance to the Internet industry and to the cable industry," said @Home spokesman Matt Wolfrom. "Cable is even more aware and under the scrutiny of privacy laws since the beginning of pay-per-view days." Cable television is governed by the Cable Privacy Act, a federal law that regulates interactive transactions. The law protects consumers from receiving product solicitations based on their pay-per-view, or other cable preferences. TCI officials said it revised the document last week in response to the impending deployment of Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification (DOCSIS)-compliant modems, and other contractual issues. But many of the objectionable clauses were in the old document, executives said, and some users that have complained may have been reading the agreement for the first time. "There were a lot of changes to the document but we hadn't updated the document since we first launched the service," Vlahadamis said. News.com's John Borland contributed to this report. Copyright 1995-99 CNET, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy policy. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 18:04:52 CST From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: "Caller-Pays" Cellular/Wireless For the most part, Cellular phones are _NOT_ listed in the local telephone directory, nor available through (the legitimate Bell/GTE/etc) LEC directory assistance (information). Cellular phone number, BY DEFAULT are usually considered to be NON-published. I think that the FCC and/or FTC have enforcement procedures against telemarketers which call NPA-NXX codes uniquely assigned to cellular/wireless/etc. (of course, there are rural areas, small towns, and the original cellular/wireless customers which still have the SAME wireless number they've had for a LONG time, back when wireless and wireline could share the same NPA-NXX code, wireless vs. wireline services differentiated by the 'thousands' blocks of the line-number -xxxx last four digits). More cellular companies are offering unlimited (two-way) airtime packages (though not available when 'roaming'), or discounted or specials on incoming airtime. When airtime is charged for incoming, a cellular-to-cellular call, even in the same local city, whether using the same cellular system or each party on differing cellular systems, except for special packages of airtime, EACH party pays whatever wireless company some form of airtime - the call-ING cellular customer, as well as the call-ED cellular customer. I see a MAJOR problem if new wireless services offer ONLY calling- party-pays. In Canada, there is a special area code, 600. It is used for (or is intended to be used for) "calling party pays the airtime", calling to (existing? future?) satellite mobile phones in Yukon/NWT/Nunavut Territories, DATA services (such as the Stentor LEC's "DataLink"), and it WAS used for TWX (until Stentor discontinued TWX in Canada in late 1994). This 600 SAC was opened up in October 1993, as a 'swap' when Canada gave up the 610 TWX SAC for the 600 SAC. NANPA (still Bellcore at the time) wanted to assign NPA 610 to the split of NPA 215 in southeastern Pennsylvania. In Canada, where Special Area Code 600 is used for Caller-Pays-Airtime, I think that the cellular customers _STILL_ have a "POTS" or "geographically-based" NPA-NXX telephone number. They don't have to give that number out to anyone else if they don't want to. But if they won't be paying incoming airtime, they could always give out the "paired" 600 number for people to call them. But some problems with Caller-Pays-Cellular in the NANP, particularly in the US, but also could extend to Canada ... Long Distance to a cellular -- exactly how is this going to be billed, and how could potentially GOUGING rates be BLOCKED from access (with special NPA-NXX codes) by the calling party ... Are there going to be "tariffed toll rates" (or whatever discount plan one calls on, and if that discount plan for toll is "unlimited Sprint Weekends", does that mean that calling a long-distance cellular would be FREE?) ... is there going to be toll (if applicable) PLUS a cellular airtime charge? Cellular to Cellular (particularly if each 'local' cellular is on a different cell company); Calling Card use when calling a cellular, either locally or long distance; COCOT payphones (on local calls to a cellular); PBX originating to a cellular (locally), etc. And if this "caller-pays-the-airtime" madness extends here in the US to become the 'norm', Canada now has COCOTS :-( so the problems here can easily extend over the border. When one buys a cellular, they KNOW that there is a potential for paying for incoming airtime. Your cellular number is usually default NON-PUBBED. (I think there are some places which allow you to have your cellular number published in the printed directory, but it would be YOUR decision). Digital cellulars now have inbound Caller-ID, so the cell customer can choose to pick up (and pay airtime) on the call if they choose to. Most (I don't know about all) cellular companies which provide voicemail service on unanswered inbound calls, usually do NOT bill pseudo-airtime for calls to the voice-mail message box -- ONLY on calls where the called party actually answers the call on his cellular. UNLESS there are DEDICATED and user-restrictable NXX c.o.codes within the 'home' NPA code of the cellular having "caller-Pays-airtime", and to call that, one would HAVE to dial _1+_ then the (home) NPA, and then the seven-digit number (with the caller-pays NXX c.o.code in that 7-digit number) ... then I see a MAJOR can of worms opened up. Consumer groups, State Regulatory, etc. are all going to have some things to say about this. And aren't the actual rates for inbound airtime itself going down more and more, anyhow!? I agree with what Robert L. McMillin said in his earlier reply post on this subject - and to me, "Caller-Pays-Airtime" (as the only option) will just REEK of 900, 976, slamming, cramming, COCOTs, gouging operator/card platforms (used by COCOTs and so-called 'hospitality' systems, i.e. Hotel/Motel), etc. However, while it would (IMO) be a waste of numbering/code resources, it if we are going to have "Caller-Pays-Airtime" options (and I would hope this would only be an OPTION), wireless customers could have TWO numbers associated with their phone- one for "Caller-Pays-Airtime", and another (POTS-based) number for them to pay inbound airtime. 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: quonk@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: You Call, You Pay Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 04:41:11 GMT Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Remember when 500 numbers were first introduced? While phone company operators and sales representatives were still denying that such things existed, the hot-talk and psychic information industries were already busy reformatting their ads to add 500 numbers to the list of 900, 800, 700, and expensive international numbers. If this comes true, I predict there will promptly be $4.99 per minute caller-pays numbers being marketed by resellers. And through the miracle of call forwarding, the psychics and hot babes won't even have to carry a cellular phone with them. (And yes it is possible to forward multiple calls simultaneously.) I also predict that businesses, hotels, payphones, and, ironically, other cell-phones will almost universally be blocked from placing these calls, just as 900 numbers are today. I am really, really tired of having my home phone bill be the private piggy bank of every slammer, crammer, psychic, and pornographer. Rates and charges for all sorts of services are not readily accessible to the public -- unless you happen to live in Washington DC and have time to browse through the FCC reading room during business hours. Even if there is a warning announcement at the beginning of the call, this is insufficient to protect the person paying the bill. End of rant. ------------------------------ From: jwleblanc@my-dejanews.com (John LeBlanc) Subject: Re: Virginia Law Would Make Internet Spamming a Crime Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 13:25:11 GMT Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion In article , TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Monty Solomon : > I have always believed that as long as we are able to identify *who* > sent the email -- a legitmate and meaningful identification of the > user or at the very least the site where it originated -- that we as > users can deal with the rest of the problem. If the government wants > to have more laws -- and don't they always? -- then it should > be sufficient to amend existing laws pertaining to paper mail to > include email and let it go at that. I wholeheartedly agree that clear identification of electronic mail senders would be a good thing. I very much disagree that simply being able to identify the sender should be sufficient in order to deal with the rest of the problem. I generally have no problem identifying the sender; afterall, UCE is usually commercial in nature and therefore provides some mechanism (email, phone, carrier pigeon) in order to respond via telephone or electronic mail. This is not the problem. During the course of several years now I have yet to put a noticable dent in the volume of UCE I receive by dealing "with the rest of the problem" after I've identified the entity who has cost me more resources to receive something I did not ask to receive. But this gets away from the meat of the matter; who bears the cost of UCE? I am astonished that it seems so difficult for some people to grasp the notion that postal mail and electronic mail are transported (and paid for) based on two entirely different models. The junk mail I receive daily in my U.S. Postal mailbox has been paid for by the sender. (I'll rot in hell before I'll pay postage-due junk mail...) The entire cost -- with the exception of the labor I expend to extract my mail from the mailbox -- is born on the shoulders of the sender. The vast majority of costs relative to UCE, however, is born on the shoulders of pipe-owners and recipients. That is a phenomenally flawed method. > Add to that something saying that > users who deliberatly falsify their identity and system admins who > refuse to take reasonable efforts to stop this from happening after > being notifed of such a user will be punished. I should think this is already being done. Backbone providers, thankfully, have begun to back up AUPs to which downstream customers sometimes grudgingly agree. Some ISPs are actually applying the articles of their own AUPs -- when they bother to have them at all -- and cleaning up their own backyard when someone complains. (UU.net comes immediately to mind.) > I am not saying anything that is new or not frequently in practice > now. If anything I would simply codify the requirement for identifica- > tion of and absolute recourse to users who send massive amounts of > unsolicited email, then let the net community deal with that user. > To protect the privacy rights of all users, some threshold would have > to be crossed in terms of the volume of mail sent out before a demand > could be made to identify the user's actual name, etc. PAT] I disagree with the notion that "massive amounts" should have any place in this. If I receive one copy of UCE, that's all that matters to me. That an additional ten, one hundred, or one million additional copies were also sent out to other recipients has no bearing on whether the email was UCE or not. Identification used to be a simple matter of fingering an account. If memory serves, it was first primarily sandbox electronic communications services -- Compuserve, Genie, Prodigy, and then America Online -- who opened gateways to the Internet without providing a path to clearly identifying message originators. Not that that even matters, since I don't believe it's identifying the sender that is the problem. See my thoughts on that above. As it stands, there is in place now nothing that explicitly regulates sending UCE. Even if congress tacks (tax?) onto existing paper-based communications laws the addition of electronic communications, it still misses the mark. (And I don't believe that's a good idea anyway.) The models aren't the same. And there is no existing sufficient recourse. I hardly consider one ISP shutting down an account a sufficient recoursive action when the offender can within minutes open another account and again begin spamming. The Internet community has been wholey unable to either put down, or even stem the incoming tide (tidal wave?) of UCE. In our society -- United States of America -- imposing on the rights of others carries with it a penalty. When my right not to be bothered by UCE is violated, I expect the penalty for that to be compensatory as well as punitive. It's when spammers get hit by punitive judgements, I assure you a replacement model of transporting spam, one which shifts the costs and attendant responsibilities squarely onto the shoulders of those to whom it belongs, will take the place of the one we now have. It continues to amuse me to read of the "First Amendment rights" of spammers when the rights of recipients are clearly ignored. John LeBlanc jwleblanc (at) my-dejanews.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: One major problem with the First Amendment -- and I have said in these columns over the years that the First Amendment really is a nuisance -- is deciding where my rights end and your rights begin. In now over two hundred years, that never has been solved to everyone's satisfaction. Why don't we just get rid of it entirely; that will give us one less thing to worry and argue about. I could use a vacation anyway. If you are not sure how well this fascinating new idea of mine would work out, then let's have a trial period to see. Would you like to be one of the beta-testers? PAT] ------------------------------ Reply-To: From: James D. Wilson Subject: Re: Virginia Law Would Make Internet Spamming a Crime Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 06:24:43 -1000 Pat, The problem with making the same laws which apply to regular mail apply to Unsolicited Bulk Email is that the sender of regular mail bears the cost of the mailing whereas the recipient of spam (and the intermediary networks) have to pay for the costs of sending the spam. This cost shifting simply is not fair. This is why laws against spam are being passed and why there is a strong move to criminalize spam. Spam is theft of service, trespassing, and in the case of fraudulent headers or content, fraud. A better extension of law would be to expand the junk fax law to apply to unsolicited bulk email and to attach criminal penalties so that the government can act to shut down the "professional spammers" (is that an oxymoron?) In other words, make it illegal to send unsolicited advertisements where there is no pre-existing business relationship and allow the individuals to take the spammers to court and win judgments against the offenders. The only thing that will make spammers stop their network abuse is to make the cost and risks of this behavior outweigh the potential profit. So long as they can pay $20 for a throwaway dialup account and $79.95 for "millions of targeted addresses" they will continue to abuse networks and users. Unfortunately we can no longer depend on the ISP's to "play fair." There are many examples of networks who either refuse to do anything about spammers on their networks or delay it for month after month claiming "we are working on it." Sadly some of the worst offenders (IMHO) are the biggest players such as Sprint, AT&T, and UU.Net. Make it illegal and the networks will be forced to act responsibly instead of continuing to profit from the abuse of others. James D. Wilson "non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem" William of Ockham (1285-1347/49) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #22 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Feb 26 15:42:42 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id PAA21597; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 15:42:42 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 15:42:42 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199902262042.PAA21597@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #23 TELECOM Digest Fri, 26 Feb 99 15:42:00 EST Volume 19 : Issue 23 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Chip ID Number Continues to Plague Intel (Monty Solomon) Mobile Phone Outage Tied to Changeover (Stan Schwartz) Book Review: "Poser's Guide to the Internet and World Wide Web" (R. Slade) FCC Rules ISP Calls Are Long-Distance in Nature (James D. Wilson) Re: FCC Rules ISP Calls Are Long-Distance in Nature (Nathan Stratton) Re: FCC Rules ISP Calls Are Long-Distance in Nature (Dan Hollis) Long Island, NY to Get New Area Code (Keith Knipschild) Need Help With Erlang Calculations (DigitalOx) Re: Virginia Law Would Make Internet Spamming a Crime (Eric Bohlman) Re: Virginia Law Would Make Internet Spamming a Crime (John Leblanc) Last Laugh! Russians Bomb Sanford's Company (John Eichler) 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: 415-520-9905 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, 25 Feb 1999 18:11:26 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Chip ID Number Continues to Plague Intel http://www.infoworld.com/cgi-bin/displayStory.pl?990224.wcintelsec.htm By James Niccolai InfoWorld Electric PALM SPRINGS, CALIF. -- Concerns over a unique serial number that will be used into the circuitry of every Pentium III processor continue to plague Intel two days before the new chip is due to hit the streets. In the latest turn of events, a programmer at a German computer publication, Computer Technology or c't, claimed Tuesday to have devised a method of activating and reading the serial number without the computer user's knowledge or consent. "Contrary to Intel's description so far, the system architecture allows for individual identification by software tricks," according to a statement posted on the publication's Web site. Intel says it needs to know more about the proposed hack before it can comment on its validity. But officials at the Intel Developer Forum here Wednesday acknowledged that its processor's serial number is not immune to the efforts of a skilled hacker. "As is the case with any software program, people with malicious intent could hack into it," said George Alfs, program manager for the PC Trades division at Intel. "But it's very unclear what they did. We'd like to understand from their technical people how they claim this can be done." Negative publicity surrounding the serial number has generated a big headache for Intel on the eve of the Pentium III's launch. The company has said it will spend more than $300 million in advertising alone to promote the new chip, which at its initial launch speed of 500MHz will be its fastest processor to date. Intel maintains that the serial number will be a big plus for users by providing enhanced security for Internet activities. The serial number will provide an additional way to identify the parties in a transaction, and give network managers a way to keep track of computer assets in a corporate network, Intel said. But civil rights groups including the American Civil Liberties Union have bristled at the implications of having a unique identification number attached to every user, and say the idea represents a threat to privacy. They argue that the uniquely identifiable number will allow marketing firms, the government, and others to track a user's movements on the Internet and possibly gain other information about Web surfers. Intel has said users will be able to download a software control utility from its Web site allowing them enable and disable the serial number at will. The software also will be available from PC makers either pre-installed on computers or on CDs, according to Tom Waldrop, an Intel spokesman. Bowing to pressure, the company reversed earlier plans and said the control utility will be distributed so that it sets the serial number in the "disabled" position. According to Intel, once the serial number is deactivated it can only be switched back on again by rebooting the machine, making it more difficult for a hacker to activate the serial number without the user's knowledge. Not according to the German magazine. "This description has proved wrong," the statement on c't's Web site asserts. "The processor expert of c't magazine, Andreas Stiller, has figured out a procedure to switch on the command for reading out the serial number by software." According to published reports, Stiller's method uses an applet that can be sent to a user's computer over the Internet, and takes advantage of the Pentium III's power-saving "deep sleep" mode. This could allow a hacker to read user identification numbers without their knowledge. Because the deep sleep mode can result in a hard reset, or reboot, of the computer, this can offer an opportunity for the serial number to be turned on, according to Waldrop. However, the control utility checks the status of the serial number every 15 seconds and resets it to "disable" if that is the user's preference, he said. "There are software compromises depending on how the software solution is implemented, particularly in power management," acknowledged Pat Gelsinger, general manager of Intel's platform products division. Intel officials Wednesday said they had managed to contact a representative at c't, who apparently told them that the hack they described has been shown to work in theory but has not actually been demonstrated. c't could not be contacted Wednesday to confirm this. "I don't think they've actually [hacked the serial number]," Waldrop said. In part because of criticisms that the control utility could be vulnerable to a computer hacker, Intel devised a second, additional method by which the serial number can be disabled. It takes the form of an on/off switch that can be buried in the BIOS of a PC. The BIOS is the program that runs when a system is first booted up. However, while Intel is recommending that PC makers include the BIOS switch in systems they ship, it can't guarantee they all will. "Many of them already have included it," Alfs said. In addition, because the BIOS switch requires a greater level of technical knowhow for users to operate, the company is recommending that PC makers who do include the BIOS switch set it to the "on" position, so that users who want to take advantage of the processor serial number do not have to fiddle around with the BIOS on their new system. The upshot is that when Pentium III systems hit the shelves this week, some -- but not all -- will be equipped with a BIOS switch that allows users to disable the serial number -- if they know how. Intel Corp., in Santa Clara, Calif., can be reached at www.intel.com. James Niccolai is a San Francisco correspondent for the IDG News Service, an InfoWorld affiliate. Ephraim Schwartz, an editor at large for Infoworld, and Elinor Millsof the IDG News Service contributed to this story. Please direct your comments to InfoWorld Deputy News Editor, Carolyn April Copyright ) 1999 InfoWorld Media Group Inc. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 21:18:02 PST From: Stan Schwartz Reply-To: stannc.noispam@noispam.yahoo.com Subject: Mobile Phone Outage Tied to Changeover (The Charlotte Observer, 02/25/99) Service restored, but some customers' bills may rise By DAVID BORAKS Staff Writer About 15,000 mobile phone customers in a five-county area including Statesville and Concord had their service switched to a new provider last Friday, but many didn't discover the change until their phones stopped working over the weekend. The service problems were the first big sign for many customers that a new provider had replaced Bell Atlantic Mobile as their mobile phone carrier in Iredell, Cabarrus, Rowan, Davie and Stanly counties. The trouble and change in companies left customers angry, with some complaining that Cellular One told them it will not honor all of Bell Atlantic's discount rate plans, even when customers signed 12-month contracts. The new provider is Bravo Cellular, a group of private investors in the Concord-Salisbury area, which operates under the Cellular One brand name. ``Unfortunately, this isn't the way we wanted to enter this market,'' said Linda Jensen, a spokeswoman for PC Management, a Fort Myers, Fla., company that Bravo has hired to manage service in the territory. She said service had been fully restored by Wednesday. Last Friday, when Bell Atlantic engineers turned off their service, Cellular One's service was nowhere to be found. ``When I went to use the phone last Friday to call my wife, ... it didn't work,'' said Russell Paterson, a Concord resident and longtime Bell Atlantic customer. To make matters worse, when Paterson visited the Cellular One retail store in Salisbury, he was told his rates were going up. ``What I (had) from Bell Atlantic, they can't even come close to offering,'' Paterson said. ``They're charging me $10 more a month, 5 cents more a minute and they cut (the amount of) my (free) airtime.'' Jensen said Cellular One/Bravo would honor Bell Atlantic Mobile contracts, though not necessarily the prices they contain. She said the vast majority of customers will get more favorable rates in the switch, though Cellular One/Bravo will not honor some lower promotional rates Bell Atlantic had promised customers in exchange for contracts. Jensen blamed the weekend network troubles on unspecified technical problems that arose after control of the service was shifted from Bell Atlantic's Charlotte switching center to the Cellular One/Bravo switch in Salisbury. A switch is the system's brains, directing traffic on the wireless phone network. The change in telephone companies is the result of a process that began more than a decade ago with a dispute over who should be granted the cellular phone license for the five-county area. In October, with the dispute resolved, the Federal Communications Commission issued the license to Bravo. Bell Atlantic then sought to buy the license so it could add the territory permanently to its growing license holdings in the Carolina. ``We attempted, with an extremely attractive offer, to buy the market from Bravo Cellular,'' said Jerry Fountain, BellAtlantic Mobile's Southeastern vice president in Greenville, S.C. When Bravo refused the offer, Bell Atlantic was obligated under FCC rules to sell its subscriber base to Bravo at cost -- the amount it paid to acquire the customers. Bravo also bought 10 Bell Atlantic cellular towers in the region, along with conventional cellular telephone antennas and equipment on them. Bravo did not by the advanced digital mobile phone equipment Bell Atlantic also was using and is not offering the more advanced service. Meanwhile, both Bell Atlantic and Cellular One say they did notify customers the change was coming. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Something is missing here. When a company sells its business, for whatever reason, something has to be done with its outstanding obligations. It can sell both its assets and liabilities (the purchaser would 'buy' the liabilities if there was an extremely attractive reason for doing so) or the seller can pass the assets only while remaining obligated to satisfy its liabilties. In no case can the seller go poof and say the liabilities no longer exist. That is considered fraud. Either the buyer gets the liabilities or the seller retains them. So Bravo says they are buying the customer base but have no intention of honoring the promises made to customers by the seller (in other words, the liabilities). Seller remains responsible in that case. The value of Bravo's new possession (customer base) comes as a direct result of seller's promises to customers, based on seller's reputation in the community, etc. Either Bravo must honor those promises made by seller or seller must arrange an adjustment of some kind. I think customers need to find an attorney who is experienced with class actions and demand that someone give them what they were promised as an inducement for obtaining their business in the first place. Even if seller had something in contracts with customer saying that they reserved the right to renege on all their contracts and promises, etc, there still is usually some period of time given to customers to make other arrangements as desired, for example a single billing period. Yes, I definitly think an attorney needs to hold Bravo's feet to the fire on this and tell them they will honor the customer base intact, with commitments, etc or they will get sued. Naturally, Bell should be named as a defendant also, so the court can decide who is responsible for what. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 07:58:40 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "Poser's Guide to the Internet and World Wide Web" Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKPSRSGD.RVW 990126 "Poser's Guide to the Internet and World Wide Web", James Gaskin, 1998, 0-9665370-3-3, U$9.95/C$12.95 %A James Gaskin author@posersguide.com %C 3817 Yellowstone, Irving, TX 75062 %D 1998 %G 0-9665370-3-3 %I Ruby Moon Press %O U$9.95/C$12.95 rubybooks@aol.com %P 111 p. %T "Poser's Guide to the Internet and World Wide Web" The computer world spawns more "instant experts" than any other field of human endeavour with the possible exception of child-rearing, and most such posers are intensely irritating to those who do know what's going on. So why do I applaud Gaskin's reference work for them? For one thing, as the title would suggest, it's funny. Mostly the rolling eyes muttering "how true, how true" variety of funny, but very funny nonetheless. To go further, I have to explain the book. This volume is actually a dictionary. A dictionary is funny? Yes, when each definition (one to a page) is defined, in turn, by a guru, a "cheerleader," and a cynic. (These "experts" have been graphically personified by Randy Jones, and I was please to see, however briefly, the return of Karl's konsultees.) The guru, as the front cover states, gives you the facts that are nice, but rarely helpful. For the cheerleader, the net and all its works are wonderful. But it is the cynics who tell you what these bits of technobabble and manajargon mean. Gaskin casts and informed, and generally jaundiced, eye on the technical "hot buttons" of the day. In fact, while there is a lot of fun in the text, there is a lot of information as well, and you *can* learn a lot very quickly, if you want to be a poser. In fact, I can think of a lot of executives who I wish would spend about an hour with this volume. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1999 BKPSRSGD.RVW 990126 rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@sprint.ca robertslade@usa.net p1@canada.com Find virus, book info http://victoria.tc.ca/techrev/rms.htm Mirrored at http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~rslade/rms.htm Linked to bookstore at http://www97.pair.com/robslade/ Comp Sec Weekly: http://www.suite101.com/welcome.cfm/computer_security Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses, 0-387-94663-2 (800-SPRINGER) ------------------------------ Reply-To: From: James D. Wilson Subject: FCC Rules ISP Calls Are Long-Distance in Nature Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 19:11:07 -1000 http://www.infoworld.com/cgi-bin/displayStory.pl?990225.enfccisp.htm By Nancy Weil InfoWorld Electric Posted at 10:58 AM PT, Feb 25, 1999 In a long-anticipated vote, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on Thursday decided that dial-up Internet calls are interstate in nature and not local. The ruling overturns state decisions holding that dial-up calls to the Internet are local. The decision also could mean that local phone companies will be able to assess usage-sensitive access charges on ISPs, the FCC suggested in a statement Thursday regarding its vote. Without the so-called "Enhanced Service Provider Exemption," consumers might have to pay per-minute fees for dialing into the Internet on local lines, however not all Internet access calls necessarily will be charged at long distance rates. James D. Wilson "non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem" William of Ockham (1285-1347/49) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 00:27:02 EST From: Nathan Stratton Subject: Re: FCC Rules ISP Calls Are Long-Distance in Nature On Thu, 25 Feb 1999, James D. Wilson wrote: > The ruling overturns state decisions holding that dial-up calls to > the Internet are local. The decision also could mean that local phone > companies Actually that is not correct, the FCC did say that they think that ISP calls are interstate (they are crazy), but the above is not true. The FCC did not take away power from the states that have ruled on this issue, they also said that this finding will NOT affect any current agreements. I had 3 of my CLEC customers sign agreements this week, so they are happy about that part. :-) I was not sure if I should make this post, but I did so because the information was not correct. Any further post on this issue should be taken up on list more suited to this topic. You may want to check out my CLECLIST is found at http://www.robotics.net/clec/cleclist.html or other lists where this topic is being discussed. Anyway, I think this is a major event and something that ISPs need to look at, but it is not a operational issue. Check out the new CLEC mailing list at http://www.robotics.net/clec Nathan Stratton Telecom & ISP Consulting http://www.robotics.net nathan@robotics.net ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 21:50:07 PST From: Dan Hollis Subject: Re: FCC Rules ISP Calls Are Long-Distance in Nature On Thu, 25 Feb 1999, James D. Wilson wrote: > http://www.infoworld.com/cgi-bin/displayStory.pl?990225.enfccisp.htm Sigh. Another clue free reporter. Why dont they ever read the *text* of the ruling before writing a blathering article. Dan ------------------------------ From: Keith Knipschild Subject: Long Island, NY to get New Area Code Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 19:46:33 -0500 The staff of the New York Public Service Commission is recommending an ''overlay'' method, meaning that a person or business asking for a new phone number on Long Island would be assigned a number with the new area code. Current customers would keep their existing 516 code and seven-digit telephone numbers under the plan. Here is the News Story Links: http://www.newsday.com/news/n4thu.htm http://www.dps.state.ny.us/516 Keith Email: Mailto:Keith@Knip.com Web::: Http://www.Knip.com ------------------------------ Date: 26 Feb 1999 17:46:23 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com From: digitalox@aol.com (DigitalOx) Subject: Need Help With Erlang Calculations Hi, I'm trying to write a progam that calulates the number of trunks need for a desired grade of service and Erlangs using Erlang B. All the equations I've found don't seem to solve for the # of trunks, and I can' t get it (number of trunks) into the left hand side of the equation because my math isn't so great. Anybody know how? The Erlang B equation I have is n 2 n Eb = (A / n !) / ( 1 + A + A / 2! + A / n! ) where Eb is the grade of service, A is the mean of offered traffic, and n is the number trunks. ------------------------------ From: Eric Bohlman Subject: Re: Virginia Law Would Make Internet Spamming a Crime Organization: ICGNetcom Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 01:23:19 GMT James D. Wilson wrote: > The problem with making the same laws which apply to regular mail > apply to Unsolicited Bulk Email is that the sender of regular mail > bears the cost of the mailing whereas the recipient of spam (and the > intermediary networks) have to pay for the costs of sending the spam. > This cost shifting simply is not fair. This is why laws against spam > are being passed and why there is a strong move to criminalize spam. Furthermore, the amount of postal junk mail anybody receives is limited by the fact that each junk letter costs money to produce as well as send, which gives marketers a *strong* incentive to limit their mailings to likely prospects. Let's take a non-commercial example here: the mailings of a political campaign. If I'm running a campaign for a candidate for alderman in Chicago's 13th ward, I've got a strong incentive to make sure that any campaign literature gets mailed only to addresses in the 13th ward. Mail to addresses in the 10th ward, to addresses in Joliet, or to addresses in Seattle costs the campaign money without making the candidate more electable, so I go out of my way *not* to send literature to such addresses. But with e-mail, sending out a million promotional e-mails costs me no more than sending out ten. Therefore, if I were to send out unsolicited campaign e-mails, I would have *no economic incentive* to go through my mailing list and exclude addresses for people outside the 13th ward. Doing so would cost me time and money. It would be easier and cheaper for me to shotgun-blast my campaign message all over the world. The fact that 10,000 of the messages land in Seattle doesn't matter to me. You can see that unsolicited e-mail has a scalability problem that unsolicited postal mail doesn't. The proportionality of the cost of postal mailing to the number of recipients keeps postal junk mail from overwhelming the transport mechanism. But e-mail doesn't have any such intrinsic limits; the only limits to the volume of unsolicited e-mail are either the physical (bandwidth) limits of the transport network, or regulatory limits. Increased bandwidth won't help, because UCE will simply scale up to match the increased limits. ------------------------------ From: jwleblanc@my-dejanews.com (John LeBlanc) Subject: Re: Virginia Law Would Make Internet Spamming a Crime Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 06:31:27 GMT Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion In article , TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to jwleblanc@my-dejanews.com (John LeBlanc): > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: One major problem with the First > Amendment -- and I have said in these columns over the years that > the First Amendment really is a nuisance -- is deciding > where my rights end and your rights begin. In now over two hundred > years, that never has been solved to everyone's satisfaction. Why > don't we just get rid of it entirely; that will give us one less > thing to worry and argue about. I could use a vacation anyway. If > you are not sure how well this fascinating new idea of mine would > work out, then let's have a trial period to see. Would you like > to be one of the beta-testers? PAT] Would I like to be a beta-tester for your new-fangled idea? Funny. It feels as though I have been. :) Having in my post yesterday exercised several demons and not a few minor irritating spirits, I won't rehash. And, while I agree that the line delineating my rights and your rights seems to be a difficult one to define, how about a no-fly zone whereby mutual permission is required before invading the other's email box? John LeBlanc jwleblanc (at) my-dejanews.com ------------------------------ From: jeichl - John Eichler Subject: Last Laugh! Russians Bomb Sanford's Company Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 09:06:53 -0600 Pat, There is a cute cartoon strip on the web that you might enjoy. Recently (this week) they have had a story line of the Russians trying to nuke the headquarters of Sanford Wallace's new company. (see Feb 23rd) It's a great SPAM story. http://www.userfriendly.org/cartoons/archives/99feb/19990223.html You can go forward and backward from there. Enjoy, John Eichler [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thank you for the reference. Everyone, let's go check it out now! See you again next week! PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #23 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Mar 1 13:30:01 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id NAA17289; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 13:30:01 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 13:30:01 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199903011830.NAA17289@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #24 TELECOM Digest Mon, 1 Mar 99 13:30:00 EST Volume 19 : Issue 24 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Telecom Update (Canada), March 1, 1999 (Angus TeleManagement) UCLA Short Course on "Communications Networking" (Bill Goodin) Re: Need Help With Erlang Calculations (B.L. Bodnar) Re: Need Help With Erlang Calculations (Jerry Harder) Is Personal Information at Risk With Pentium III? (Monty Solomon) CDT to File Complaint Over Intel ID Chip (Monty Solomon) Re: Chip ID Number Continues to Plague Intel (Thomas A. Horsley) Re: Chip ID Number Continues to Plague Intel (Donald Seeley) 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: 415-520-9905 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, 1 Mar 1999 10:59:47 -0500 From: Angus TeleManagement Subject: Telecom Update (Canada), March 1, 1999 ************************************************************ * * * TELECOM UPDATE * * Angus TeleManagement's Weekly Telecom Newsbulletin * * http://www.angustel.ca * * Number 172: March 1, 1999 * * * * Publication of Telecom Update is made possible by * * generous financial support from: * * * * AT&T Canada ............... http://www.attcanada.com/ * * Bell Canada ............... http://www.bell.ca/ * * Lucent Technologies ....... http://www.lucent.ca/ * * MetroNet Communications ... http://www.metronet.ca/ * * Sprint Canada ............. http://www.sprintcanada.ca/ * * Telus Communications....... http://www.telus.com/ * * TigerTel Services ......... http://www.citydial.com/ * * * ************************************************************ IN THIS ISSUE: ** Newbridge Sues WIC Over Lost Contract ** Peeters Founds Data Collection Outsourcer ** NBTel Offers Bundled Long Distance Package ** MaxLink Sets Midsummer Launch for LMCS ** MetroNet Plans 320 Gbps Backbone ** CRTC Denies Ontario Independents on CAT ** Servicesoft, Pyderion Ally for Web Call Centers ** SNC-Lavalin Takes Stake in Bell's Expertech ** Ericsson, Cantel Build Wireless Test Center ** BC Tel Mobility Opens Online Store ** Unions Condemn Bell's Operator Spin-Off ** Cuba Cuts Phone Links to U.S. ** Horhota Takes Helm at Cannect ** New CEO at Plaintree Systems ** Financial Reports Clearnet MetroNet Newbridge ** Bonus Surveys Future of Telecom ============================================================ NEWBRIDGE SUES WIC OVER LOST CONTRACT: Newbridge Networks has asked the Ontario Court to force WIC Connexus to honor a contract for purchase of Newbridge LMCS equipment. WIC, which has now signed Cisco as supplier, says it will "vigorously defend itself." (See Telecom Update #170) PEETERS FOUNDS DATA COLLECTION OUTSOURCER: Jan Peeters, the co-founder of Fonorola Inc. and its CEO until it was bought last year by Call-Net, has launched a new venture, Olameter Inc. Olameter will offer remote meter-reading services to electricity and other utilities. NBTEL OFFERS BUNDLED LONG DISTANCE PACKAGE: NBTel has the CRTC's okay to offer a package of 600 off-peak long distance minutes within Canada together with local service and a selection of calling features. Price: $54.95 to $59.95 a month. (Telecom Order 99-149) http://www.crtc.gc.ca/internet/1999/8045/04/o99-0149.htm MAXLINX SETS MIDSUMMER LAUNCH FOR LMCS: MaxLink Communications, which holds LMCS (fixed wireless) licenses in 33 Canadian centers, has set midsummer as the launch date for commercial service in Montreal, Ottawa, and Calgary. MaxLink will use Newbridge TDMA network equipment, which can serve many customers on a single frequency. METRONET PLANS 320 Gbps BACKBONE: MetroNet has signed Nortel Networks to provide the carrier's national and cross-border fiber-optic network with D-WDM equipment that will transmit at up to 320 Gbps per fiber strand. CRTC DENIES ONTARIO INDEPENDENTS ON CAT: Back in August 1997, the Ontario Telephone Association filed for a Carrier Access Tariff of 12 cents/minute for 1996. CRTC Telecom Order 99-148 notes a pattern of rising excess expenses, denies the tariff, and asks the independent telcos to refile. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/internet/1999/8045/04/o99-0148.htm SERVICESOFT, PYDERION ALLY FOR WEB CALL CENTERS: Servicesoft Technologies, which makes Web-enabled call center software, and Montreal-based Pyderion Contact Technologies, specialists in call center management information, have formed a co-marketing alliance. ** Servicesoft was formed this month through a merger of Balisoft Technologies and Massachusetts-based ServiceSoft Corp, with Balisoft's Mark Skapinker as CEO. (See Telecom Update #140) SNC-LAVALIN TAKES STAKE IN BELL'S EXPERTECH: Montreal-based engineering firm SNC-Lavalin has formed an alliance with Expertech Network Installation, Bell Canada's subsidiary for wireline network construction. SNC-Lavalin will take a 25% stake in Expertech. ERICSSON, CANTEL BUILD WIRELESS TEST CENTER: Ericsson Communications and Rogers Cantel are building a wireless testbed in Ericsson's Montreal research center to test "Third Generation" wireless data services at up to 384 Kbps. BC TEL MOBILITY OPENS ONLINE STORE: BC Tel Mobility's Web site now includes an online store, where customers can buy a cellphone or pager with three-day delivery. UNIONS CONDEMN BELL'S OPERATOR SPIN-OFF: The National Alliance of Communications Unions has condemned Bell Canada's decision to hand over operator services to a "U.S.-based company." (See Telecom Update #166) CUBA CUTS PHONE LINKS TO U.S.: Since November, several U.S. phone companies have halted international call payments to the Cuban phone company because of a lawsuit. Cuba has now suspended direct dial phone service with these companies; AT&T says calls are being rerouted through third countries. HORHOTA TAKES HELM AT CANNECT: George Horhota, former CFO of ACC TelEnterprises, has been named President and CEO of Cannect Communications. NEW CEO AT PLAINTREE SYSTEMS: Jay Richardson, a chartered accountant, has been named CEO of Plaintree Systems, with the task of locating new equity for the Stittsville, Ont. switch maker. Previous CEO Colin Beaumont stays on as Chief Technology Officer. FINANCIAL REPORTS: ** Clearnet Communications' 1998 revenue was $228 Million, up from $98 Million the previous year; the net loss for 1998 was $544 Million. Average Revenue Per Unit: $58.42/month; subscriber turnover: 1.92%/month. ** MetroNet Communications reports fourth-quarter revenue of $35 Million, up 21% from the previous quarter. Losses for the quarter were $77 Million. MetroNet had 59,000 lines installed at year end, 51% more than three months previously. ** Newbridge Networks recorded sales of $451 Million for the quarter ended January 31, a 26% increase from last year. ATM orders rose 45% from the previous quarter. Net earnings were $120 Million. BONUS SURVEYS FUTURE OF TELECOM: "In the next decade, the telecom industry will be turned on its head, twisted out of shape, and completely transformed," say Ian and Lis Angus. Their report, "Angus's Laws for Understanding and Surviving (and Possibly Profiting From) the New Telecom," is included in "Tips, Tricks and Traps," a bonus sent to all new subscribers to Telemanagement. ** Tips, Tricks & Traps also includes "How the Internet Is Shaking Up Telecom," by Ian Angus, and 20 other reports and resources for Canadian telecom professionals. http://www.angustel.ca/teleman/tm-ttt.html ** To subscribe to Telemanagement (and receive Tips, Tricks and Traps) call 1-800-263-4415, ext 225 or visit http://www.angustel.ca/teleman/tm.html. ============================================================ HOW TO SUBMIT ITEMS FOR TELECOM UPDATE E-MAIL: editors@angustel.ca FAX: 905-686-2655 MAIL: TELECOM UPDATE Angus TeleManagement Group 8 Old Kingston Road Ajax, Ontario Canada L1T 2Z7 =========================================================== HOW TO SUBSCRIBE (OR UNSUBSCRIBE) TELECOM UPDATE is provided in electronic form only. There are two formats available: 1. The fully-formatted edition is posted on the World Wide Web on the first business day of the week at http://www.angustel.ca/update/up.html 2. The e-mail edition is distributed free of charge. To subscribe, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should contain only the two words: subscribe update To stop receiving the e-mail edition, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should say only: unsubscribe update [Your e-mail address] =========================================================== COPYRIGHT AND DISCLAIMER: All contents copyright 1999 Angus TeleManagement Group Inc. All rights reserved. For further information, including permission to reprint or reproduce, please e-mail rosita@angustel.ca or phone 905-686-5050 ext 225. The information and data included has been obtained from sources which we believe to be reliable, but Angus TeleManagement makes no warranties or representations whatsoever regarding accuracy, completeness, or adequacy. Opinions expressed are based on interpretation of available information, and are subject to change. If expert advice on the subject matter is required, the services of a competent professional should be obtained. ============================================================ ------------------------------ From: Bill Goodin Subject: UCLA Short Course on "Communications Networking" Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 14:57:07 -0800 On May 24-28, 1999, UCLA Extension will present the short course, "Communications Networking: Local, Metropolitan, and Wide-Area Networks", on the UCLA campus in Los Angeles. The instructors are Izhak Rubin, PhD, Professor, Electrical Engineering Department, UCLA, and Michael A. Erlinger, PhD, Professor, Department of Computer Science, Harvey Mudd College. This course presents the integration of communication, switching, networking, traffic, service, computer engineering, and management principles, and highlights continuing trends in telecommunications network technologies, architectures, planning, management, evaluation and design. Elements essential to the implementation and control of cost-effective, reliable, and responsive telecommunication networks are thoroughly discussed. Key networking implementations and experimentations are presented and evaluated. Test cases involving multimedia networking over FDDI, Ethernet, Token-Ring, TDMA, ALOHA, Wireless, internetworked packet-switched networks, and B-ISDN ATM networks are demonstrated using the IRI Planyst program. The course is designed for computer, telecommunications, and system engineers; managers; system and business analysts; project leaders, consultants, MIS persons, and scientists seeking: o Principles of modern computer communications and telecommunications networking and elements of the evolution in networking technologies, operations and management; o Up-to-date architectural, planning, management, modeling, performance evaluations and design considerations for communications networks; o Present, proposed, and future developments in high-speed local and wide area telecommunications and computer communications networks. UCLA Extension has presented this highly successful short course since 1982. The course fee is $1595, which includes all 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: bohdan@ihgp4.ih.lucent.com (B.L. Bodnar) Subject: Re: Need Help With Erlang Calculations Date: 1 Mar 1999 17:12:53 GMT Organization: Lucent Technologies In article , DigitalOx wrote: > I'm trying to write a progam that calulates the number of trunks need > for a desired grade of service and Erlangs using Erlang B. All the > equations I've found don't seem to solve for the # of trunks, and I > can't get it (number of trunks) into the left hand side of the > equation because my math isn't so great. Anybody know how? The Erlang > B equation I have is > n 2 n > Eb = (A / n !) / ( 1 + A + A / 2! + A / n! ) > where Eb is the grade of service, A is the mean of offered traffic, > and n is the number trunks. I posted an algorithmic approach to this problem about a year ago. The approach I developed (which has probably been "developed" by countless other engineers) is to go back to the fundamentals of the derivation of this equation. Here's an outline: Assume interarrival times and service times are exponentially distributed (it can be shown that the latter assumption is too strict). Let P(0) be the probability that no trunks are busy, P(1) that only one trunk is busy, P(2) that only two are busy, etc. Let "r" be the mean arrival rate and "u" be the mean service rate. The local balance equations (derived from the Markov chain describing this system) are: r*P(0) = u*P(1) r*P(1) = 2*u*P(2) . . . r*P(n-1) = n*u*P(n) P(n) is your blocking probability. Here's one possible attack: given P(n) (but not n), r, and u, pick a non-zero value for P(0), pick a value for n, and recursively compute P(1), P(2), etc. Add all the P(i)s together (this is the normalizing constant) and divide the P(n) by this constant. You've now computed your blocking probability. If it's too high, increase n and start again. I've successfully used this method for values of n going to around 30k. My former office mate used this approach successfully for much higher values. Some parting thoughts ... - Expect to see floating point problems. There are tricks for working around them (e.g., logarithmic transformations, resetting the P(0) "seed", etc.). - Do all calculations in at least double precision Best wishes, Bohdan Bodnar bbodnar@lucent.com ------------------------------ From: Jerry Harder Subject: Re: Need Help With Erlang Calculations Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 06:00:55 GMT Organization: @Home Network There is no closed form solution. Instead, try a certain number of trunks. If the GOS is too good, reduce by one and calaulate the new blockage. If the GOS is too bad, add a trunk and calulate the new blockage. This is called "trial and error" or an iterative method. If you have huge amounts of traffic, hundreds of Erlangs, you can easily guess a very good starting point. Good luck, Jerry Harder ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 02:34:35 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Is Personal Information at Risk With Pentium III? http://www.seattletimes.com/news/technology/html98/paul_19990228.html Is personal information at risk with Pentium III? Do you need to worry about the identification code in Intel's new Pentium III chip? Here's the situation: The new chip, released Friday and backed by a $300 million promotion campaign, is an incremental upgrade of Intel's successful Pentium line. The III speeds audio and video processing, including 3-D graphics and games. It is not a huge advance, but it does push leading-edge computing forward. The problem is that the III also contains a software feature called the processor serial number, or PSN. Each chip has a unique PSN. Which means that the computer you buy can be linked electronically to your name and identity through communications over a network or the Internet. Intel did this in an attempt to make it easier for corporations and businesses to track inventory and computer usage. Intel also hoped PSNs would smooth electronic commerce by helping to verify your identity during Web transactions. The PSN, in other words, adds one more layer to the process of helping to authenticate that you are who you say you are, and that the transaction is valid. Privacy advocates, however, see the PSN as one more potential hole in the dike protecting you from telemarketers and Big Brother. Your unique PSN could, if collated with other information about you, tell a lot not only about how you use your computer, but also about your general preferences, attitudes and lifestyle traits. Because the privacy issue is so emotional, misconceptions are already arising about PSNs. Two issues need to be addressed up front. The PSN is not a flaw, as was the mathematical bug in the original Pentium four years ago. Nor is the PSN a back door or tunnel to accessing remotely the actual contents of your hard disk or information otherwise stored on your computer. The PSN merely identifies your computer with a unique number. Why did Intel bother? The PSN is a boon to corporations and large enterprises that need to keep track of thousands of PCs. Bar codes, serial numbers and other identifiers have to be read by hand (or device) individually, by eyesight. The PSN enables an information director to locate in seconds an individual computer, via the network, that otherwise might take weeks to track down. For you and me, the PSN offers a quick and easy way for a Web site to match us with our PC, one more method to make sure the transaction is legitimate. As for the risks, a PSN over time could be used to create a user profile. But it would take some doing. A lot of vendors would have to get together and compare PSNs. Vendors could also do this with credit-card transactions. Both processes are pretty unwieldy. To address potential privacy concerns, Intel is providing several options. One is for the user to be notified, and to grant permission, each time the PSN is accessed by a Web site. Another is for the user to disable the PSN feature each time the computer boots up. This can be done through the Windows registry via a utility in the Start menu, and the user will be notified by an icon that the feature is disabled. Finally, Intel is providing information to computer manufacturers and BIOS makers on ways to mask the PSN in setup mode, before the PC is even shipped to a customer. That way, you and I can request a PSN-disabled PC at purchase time. None of these methods is totally foolproof. Hackers can figure out a way to access anything involving software. It might be wise for Intel to consider shipping a version of the Pentium III chip containing no PSN. Until that happens, users need to decide for themselves whether they can live with the feature. Intel is to be credited for handling the PSN controversy far better than the math flaw it had with the original Pentium. The company has been open about its reasons for implementing the feature. Intel has made clear that it will not try to track PSNs. Intel's Web site http://support.intel.com features a helpful FAQ and other information about the PSN. For the contrarian view, http://bigbrotherinside.com offers an overview of opposition to the feature. User Friendly appears Sundays in the Personal Technology section of The Seattle Times. Paul Andrews is a member of The Times' staff. Send e-mail to: pand-new@seatimes.com Copyright 1999 Seattle Times Company ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 02:25:43 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: CDT to File Complaint Over Intel ID Chip http://www.zdnet.com/pcweek/stories/news/0,4153,1014019,00.html CDT to file complaint over Intel ID chip By Robert Lemos, Maria Seminerio February 26, 1999 12:05 PM ET The Center for Democracy and Technology, a privacy and consumer rights group, said it will file a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission on Friday, citing Intel Corp. for unfair trade practices in bringing its processor ID to market. And it claimed that at least one major PC maker, IBM, has agreed to disable the ID technology in Intel's Pentium III microprocessors. "[Intel] has made several claims that we believe are false," said Ari Schwartz, spokesman for the CDT, on Thursday. The group is asking the FTC to take a stance and protect what it believes is an abuse of consumer rights. Details will not be available until Friday, said Schwartz. Also on Thursday, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, Junkbusters Corp., and Privacy International on Thursday sent a letter to major OEMs asking them not to ship PC equipped with the new Pentium III. The groups believe the chip, which contains a controversial identification feature, could open up computer makers to litigation by consumers whose privacy is violated, said David Sobel, general counsel for EPIC. Selling PCs while assuring users the ID feature is turned off could be risky for original equipment manufacturers in light of a German computer magazine's recent assertion that the feature is vulnerable to hackers, the letter states. "We believe that such a claim [that the ID feature is turned off] made under current circumstances could constitute a material misrepresentation of the sort prohibited by federal consumer protection laws and regulations," according to the letter, which was sent to the chief executive officers of Dell Computer Corp., Gateway Inc., Compaq Computer Corp., Hewlett-Packard Co. and IBM. "Intel has put the onus on the manufacturers, and that's not a good spot for them to be in," Sobel said. "If Dell sells me a PC and says this feature can't be turned on, and then it is turned on," resulting in a crime such as the theft of a credit card number or Social Security number, "then I'm going to turn around and sue Dell," he said. While Junkbusters.com is asking PC makers to halt shipments, the CDT has merely asked them to turn off the processor ID in the basic system instructions, known as BIOS. Jason Catlett, president of Junkbusters.com, applauded the move as a necessary step in the right direction. "The CDT went an extra step and that forces the FTC to respond with some sort of a ruling," he said. IBM says no ID On Thursday, IBM, in a letter to the CDT, said it would ship its systems with the processor ID turned off in BIOS. "IBM promotes and supports active industry leadership in tackling the privacy issues raised by the growth of the Internet and online commerce as a way to help foster this trust," said the IBM statement. "We lead by example." Following initial complaints about the tracking technology, Intel asked PC makers to turn off the processor using a software utility. But on Wednesday, a German magazine reported that a way had been found to reactivate the processor ID even when a user thinks it has been switched off. "We have spoken with the CDT, and they have some difference in opinion with us," said Intel spokesman George Alfs. "But we have done nothing wrong." The processor ID is a unique 96-bit identifier that has been placed on every Pentium III chip that Intel is now shipping to PC makers. Intel believes the ID is necessary for improved corporate asset tracking, network management, and -- eventually -- e-commerce. The chip maker announced the product "feature" in January at the RSA Data Security Conference. ------------------------------ From: Tom.Horsley@worldnet.att.net (Thomas A. Horsley) Subject: Re: Chip ID Number Continues to Plague Intel Date: 28 Feb 1999 22:44:14 GMT Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services You know, it seems to me ethernet boards have had unique IDs for years and years and years, but no privacy groups ever hollered about that. I think the mistake Intel made was the spin they put on the initial descriptions of the silly ID number -- as a way to track e-commerce activity (a thing most individual consumers don't care about other than the negative big-brother aspects). With ethernet boards, the ID really is a convenience for things like reverse-arp lookups, making it simpler to boot and administer your machine, etc. Intel shouda spun in a different direction :-). >>==>> The *Best* political site >>==+ email: Tom.Horsley@worldnet.att.net icbm: Delray Beach, FL | Free Software and Politics <<==+ ------------------------------ From: Donald Seeley Subject: Re: Chip ID Number Continues to Plague Intel Date: 28 Feb 1999 21:30:17 GMT Organization: EnterAct, L.L.C. Monty Solomon wrote: > http://www.infoworld.com/cgi-bin/displayStory.pl?990224.wcintelsec.htm > By James Niccolai > InfoWorld Electric --- snip - snip --- > Intel has said users will be able to download a software control utility > from its Web site allowing them enable and disable the serial number at > will. The software also will be available from PC makers either > pre-installed on computers or on CDs, according to Tom Waldrop, an Intel > spokesman. Bowing to pressure, the company reversed earlier plans and said > the control utility will be distributed so that it sets the serial number > in the "disabled" position. Are they planning to capture the s/n of the machines that do? Don Seeley Daring Designs Typography - Graphics - Layout http://www.daringdesigns.com/~dschi/ dschi@daringdesigns.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #24 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Mar 1 16:39:11 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id QAA28536; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 16:39:11 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 16:39:11 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199903012139.QAA28536@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #25 TELECOM Digest Mon, 1 Mar 99 16:39:00 EST Volume 19 : Issue 25 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson FCC Rules Internet Dial-Up Calls Are Interstate Calls (Monty Solomon) Recip Comp: Settled Dust (Jack Decker) Re: Cordless Phone Creates Huge Phone Bill (Alan Boritz) Re: Virginia Law Would Make Internet Spamming a Crime (Alan Boritz) Re: Junk E-Mail Filters Spawn a Suit Against Microsoft (Alan Boritz) Re: WE/AT&T Paint & Process (Andrew Emmerson) Re: Chip ID Number Continues to Plague Intel (Bill Ranck) Re: Chip ID Number Continues to Plague Intel (Anthony Naggs) Re: Mobile Phone Outage Tied to Changeover (Eric Bohlman) 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: 415-520-9905 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, 01 Mar 1999 02:06:39 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: FCC Rules Internet Dial-Up Calls Are Interstate Calls http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/02/biztech/articles/26access.html By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON -- A computer user's dial-up calls to the Internet are interstate communications subject to federal jurisidiction, federal regulators concluded on Thursday. Until now, Internet dial-ups have been treated as local calls. The Federal Communications Commission insists Thursday's action merely resolves a dispute among phone companies over how to compensate each other for Internet connections and to clarify the role of state and federal regulators. It said the decision won't affect how consumers tap into the Internet or how much they pay. But consumer groups and one FCC commissioner, Harold Furchtgott-Roth, who protested by not participating in the vote, believe the action could inadvertently open the door to higher future charges for Internet access by computer users. Gene Kimmelman, co-director of the Consumers Union's Washington office, said the decision eventually could lead to people paying per-minute rates for using the Internet, just as they now do with long-distance phone calls. But the FCC said its decision preserves an existing provision that exempts Internet service providers, like America Online, from paying per-minute "access" charges to local telephone companies. Long-distance companies now pay these fees, which they pass on to their customers. They account for about 30 cents of every $1 of a long-distance bill. "Consumers are used to dialing a local phone number to get access to the Internet, and they are used to paying that access as a local call," said the FCC's chairman, Bill Kennard. "Nothing that we are doing in this item will change that." George Vradenburg, a senior vice president at AOL, agreed that the decision will have "no effect on Internet charges." But the critics worry that local Bell telephone companies and GTE might use the decision as legal basis to getting a court to overturn the provision that exempts Internet service providers from paying access fees to local phone companies. FCC officials believed nothing in the decision would help the Bells make such a legal case. AOL's Vradenburg said he's not worried. Also as part of the decision, the FCC agreed to phase out, after current contracts expire, hefty fees the Bells and GTE pay smaller local phone companies to route customers' calls to the Internet. The FCC proposed letting states and companies decide how carriers compensate each other in the future. The Bells and GTE praised the idea. Separately, the FCC agreed to release an audit of the five Bell telephone companies showing that $5 billion in equipment can't be accounted for. However, the full results won't be released for at least 10 days. The Bells contend the audit, which was conducted in 1997, is flawed and overestimates missing equipment. FCC officials dispute this. Audit results, the Bells say, will not affect rates directly, but they may have an indirect effect: consumer groups and AT&T are already using the audit to press for lower local and long-distance rates. The chairman of the House Commerce Committee, Thomas Bliley, a Virginia Republican, said "consumers may be paying more on their phone bills" than they should. The FCC intends to seek public comments on the audit, its ramifications and what action, if any, the commission should take. FCC staff recommended, however, that the Bells be required to take write-offs and making accounting corrections. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 16:48:18 -0500 From: Jack Decker Subject: Recip Comp: Settled Dust I saw this on another list and figured it was a much more insightful view of the recent FCC action than what we've been getting from the various media sources: [Begin forwarded message:] Message-ID: <157B3A3601005100@colegate.crblaw.com> Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 15:20:00 -0500 From: Chris Savage Sender: Chris Savage Organization: Cole, Raywid & Braverman To: cleclist@robotics.net (CLEC LIST), isp-clec@isp-clec.com, CYBERTELECOM-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM (Telecom Regulation & the Internet), uswisp@lists.nm.org (USWest ISPList) Subject: Recip comp: settled dust Now that I've had a couple of days to think about it (and recover from a killer cold/flu), here are some observations about what the FCC actually did (and didn't do) regarding recip comp: 1. The FCC took away the key ILEC argument against recip comp. The ILECs have been claiming that (a) calls to ISPs are interstate and that therefore, as the night follows the day, (b) there cannot be recip comp associated with those calls. The FCC said that (a) is correct. But it also said that it was just fine for states to have determined (or to determine in the future) that recip comp applies to dial-up calls to ISPs. Therefore the ILECs' syllogism *MUST* be false. On the one hand this ruling gives the ILECs an opening to go back to states and say, "See, you must have been wrong if you said or thought it was intrastate." But in any such proceeding the CLECs can say, "But the FCC clearly thinks it is okay for there to be recip comp even though the calls are interstate." Which will push it back to policy, and when you follow the money, there needs to be some kind of recip comp, otherwise how else is the CLEC to get paid for its switching or equivalent functionality? 2. The FCC shut down CLECs who were playing to "states' rights" sentiments about ISP traffic. The CLECs who were trying to divide the world into an intrastate call to the ISP followed by an interstate information service to "the net" never had a prayer. The FCC was not going to cede jurisdiction over this to the states. The CLECs were, in effect, betting that the states would win in AT&T v. Iowa. Oops. 3. The FCC glossed over how ISPs and the Internet function to reach its result. In the circuit-switched world, one can speak of a "call" going from point A to point B; check out the points, you can determine jurisdiction. This obviously makes no sense in the packet world. Yet the FCC insisted on extending the "call" analogy beyond all recognition, referring to, in effect, a "call" from an end user to a distant web site. No such "call" exists, under any normal definition of "call." This will lead to mischief. The FCC needs to be educated thoroughly and in detail about *what ISPs do.* I am concerned that otherwise there will be looser and looser analogizing to circuit-switched phenomena, which will tend to put ISPs into the role of local and/or long distance telcos. 4. The FCC ignored AT&T v. Iowa. I actually find this to be quite bizarre. Post-AT&T v. Iowa, the FCC could have avoided *all* of this mess by saying: (a) We have the power to say how Section 251(b)(5) applies, no matter how calls to ISPs are classified; (b) we say that states that have decided the issue have done so in a proper exercise of their Section 252 duties; (c) we conclude that some form of compensation for these calls is appropriate -- you guys keep on working out the details; and (d) we will have an NPRM to work out what general guidelines (if any) we want to impose. I suppose, though, that CLECs can at least argue that under AT&T v. Iowa, the FCC's conclusion that (until and unless the FCC orders a contrary rule) states may impose recip comp for ISP calls *despite* their interstate character is itself binding on states. So whatever a state may now do, it may *not* conclude that it lacks the authority to impose recip comp, merely because the calls are interstate. See #1 above. ******* So it's back to litigation. The ILECs will challenge every state decision out there, no doubt continuing to flack their "one call/interstate/can't be recip comp" argument, despite the FCC having concluded that states may impose recip comp, even over parties' objections, on various theories. Some states may be misled. And the FCC rulemaking will meanwhile be pending, threatening to change everything. Is this a great country, or what? ;-) ------------------------------ From: aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) Subject: Re: Cordless Phone Creates Huge Phone Bill Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 10:25:39 -0500 In article , dlore@iname.com wrote: > Can anyone explain to me the following? > I just received an outrageously high phone bill. It is extremely > unlikely that I made all the calls. A friend of mine told me that she > had the same problem -- a very high bill with calls she definitly did > not make. She told me that it most probably had to do with my using a > portable phone inside my house (as oppposed to a phone with a cord > from the handset to the base). She said that somehow someone else's > calls were being charged on my bill as a result of their porta-phone > and my porta-phones airwaves or channels getting mixed up (I live in > an apartment building). You've just experienced the downside of using a cordless device in a crowded area, combined with a cordless phone with no security. > I know that it is possible to eavesdrop on a porta-phone but how > EXACTLY (Please Explain!) is it possible for someone else's calls to > go on my bill. Is it only on outgoing or also incoming calls? Is it > charged even if I only speak for a second or do I have to speak longer > than they speak? You're being charged the full rate, for all calls, because someone is accessing your phone line with a cordless extension, apparently as easily as you. You're liable for the charges, since it was your phone line. The fact that it was a cordless extension is unimportant. It may have been intentional (some people cruise neighborhoods looking for dialtone on a cordless unit so they can place calls on someone else's dime), or it may have been by accident. In any event, the culprit is probably less than 1,000 feet from your cordless base unit. > How can I prevent this? Unplug your cordless phone base unit and throw it in the garbage (no kidding). You need a unit with some (even rudimentary) security. The state-of-the-art cordless phones use spread-spectrum or encryption technology, but I'm not so sure how good they are telling a foreign cordless unit from your own. Go shopping for a good one (after you unplug your cordless base unit) and ask questions. You can expect the sales people to be clueless, so check the manufacturer's web sites for details on this issue. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: When the correspondent first wrote about this and I published his letter, he did not indicate the type or model or style of cordless phone in use. For this reason I was not prepared to blame his problem entirely or even partially on the cord- less phone. He may have a relatively good, secure phone. He may be the victim of malicious intent, or a victim of simple carelessness. PAT] ------------------------------ From: aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) Subject: Re: Virginia Law Would Make Internet Spamming a Crime Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 10:50:08 -0500 In article , Monty Solomon wrote: > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/daily/feb99/valaw23.htm > RICHMOND, Va. Legislation that would make it a crime to clog the > Internet with unsolicited junk e-mail cleared the General Assembly and > is on its way to Gov. Jim Gilmore. ... > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So if it becomes illegal to own or use > software which allows the sender of email to conceal his true identity > then what happens to unix admins who have sendmail on their site with > its ability to set -f by (in unix parlance) trusted users? What happens > to those sites which still maintain open mail relays? (Yes, there are > a few) ... I do not think there should be a law against spam as such; > the law should be directed against any email to which the recipient > has no recourse. No, Pat. There are obvious scenarios where concealing identity for adminstration purposes is appropriate and socially acceptable. The lesson here appears to be that if you spam, you will *pay through the nose*, if we can help it. > Existing laws which pertain to sending regular > 'paper' mail should be automatically amended to include email, i.e. > postal fraud; theft or intervention of mail not intended for the > person who 'opens' it, etc. No, Pat. Some of us still have internet accounts that still charge by connect time, so unsolicited would *never* be appropriate or welcome. > I have always believed that as long as we are able to identify *who* > sent the email -- a legitmate and meaningful identification of the > user or at the very least the site where it originated -- that we as > users can deal with the rest of the problem. No, Pat, it's not sufficient. Some people will respond politely to requests to cease their activities, others need a sledge hammer over the head (more than once) before they'll stop. You're never going to convince anyone, beyond clueless AOL junkies, that you have a "right" to access my electronic mailbox, since every piece of junk email you send costs ME money. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I saw nothing in the new Virginia law which allows exemptions for 'obvious scenarios when concealing identity for administrative purposes is acceptable ...' What did I miss? Since when haven't there been dorks perfectly willing to take any new federal law with a few loose ends to it and come up with the most bizzare applications one could think of? Regards your second point, although it may not be totally sufficient, I still see no harm in the government finally admitting that email is becoming just as prevalent as paper mail, and amending existing postal regulations to apply to email, so that in really serious cases of abuse, fraud, etc, we don't have to talk about whether or not a crime was committed 'using the mail'. Does there need to be still more specific law dealing with the peculiar nature of email which does not apply to paper mail? Probably so. Regards your third point, I do not see it as the spammers who are particularly at fault here; it is the way in which the internet and email was developed. The spammers exposed a vulnerability in the net's way of doing things. In the case of the post office (or the US Postal Service if you wish), in theory at least, the sender pays the bill and the recipient pays nothing. The recipient's post office does not have to worry about how *it* is going to stay in business because the funds collected from all the senders of mail go into a common pool from which the administration of all post offices -- those of recipients and senders alike -- is funded. Much like the old telco function called 'separations and settlements' which was administered in the olden days by AT&T on behalf of itself and about 1400 independent telcos, it was thought to be a good idea for everyone to share in the revenue coming in, regardless of which telco (or post office) actually collected the money from the 'sender'. For telcos, it was part of the goal of 'universal service', or the theory that having everyone in possession of phone service made the phone service more valuable for everyone else. Ditto the post office; everyone pays 33 cents regardless of what it actually costs to get the letter to the other end. But the internet has always functioned differently, using a 'bill and keep' system rather than telco and post office's 'bill and share' system. We simply hope that what your ISP 'bills and keeps' is enough to keep him in business and is roughly equal to what my ISP 'bills and keeps'. If that is not the case, and your ISP must resort either through greed and avarice or of pure economic necessity to billing you for every byte and bit of traffic coming and going to your account and every second you stay on line, then the rest of us say that is just too bad, and let it go at that. For a long time, that was a perfectly adequate and acceptable way of doing things. Maybe it still is. The government long ago decided that telco and post office were 'universal enough' functions that to the users of each, the internal accounting functions etc, should be transparent, with all users getting more or less the same service at the same price, regardless of where it started and where it ended. If email is to truly become 'universal' to the same degree, shouldn't the same kind of accounting practices apply to it? No, I don't think the spammers should be stopped through anything other than peer pressure or a change in email accounting practices which makes mass mailing in a non-judicious way an extremely expensive proposal for them. I favor making the spammers accountable for what they do, not killing their speech rights totally, as atrocious as they are. Speaking of post offices, maybe this would be better as one of my periodic last laughs, but what the heck; here it is anyway. This is a true story. A casual aquaintence of mine several years ago was in the business of what we shall call 'adult mail order'. This was long before the net, email, web pages, etc. His thing was to send out pictures of naked ladies, very steamy letters, and solict twenty dollar bills by return mail ("cash is best, checks take longer to clear, etc"). And those twenty dollar bills did arrive in the mail, lots of them daily. He worked out of Chicago and a post office which was not only *huge* but where no one at the post office cared one way or the other. He decided to move to a very small town, with a post office so tiny it was called a 'fourth class office' and operated out of the post mistress' home, a room on the side of her house actually. An old biddy who tended to look down her nose and askance at any- thing not meeting her own puritanical standards, it took her all of a couple days of handing him his incoming mail each day to figure out what he was doing -- all perfectly legal, meeting every single law for 'adult mail' -- and she developed an 'attitude'; she would see him at the counter, purse her lips, almost hold her nose and hand him his packet of mail. For all I know, she may have read some of it before giving it to him , but he knew that she knew what it was about. Obviously, he bought a lot of postage. So one day when he came in, he said to her, "I told to change my business reply envelope trust fund so it would be handled through you, and also my postage meter so I could get it filled here from now on, and here is a check for five thousand dollars payable to 'postmaster' to fill my meter and replenish my trust fund." He said her eyes got big, like saucers, a smile came over her face as she examined all the paperwork he gave her. She told him, if he planned on doing that volume of business on a regular basis, "I will get changed from a fourth-class office to a regular postal facilty instead, and I will get a bigger allotment and budget for the operating expenses here. I think you and I are going to get to be very good friends real soon." And from that day forward when he brought in a couple hundred pieces of mail every day of 'those naked pictures he sends out' as the post mistress phrased it, the lady always had a cheery greeting and smile for him. He told me he never did quiz her or push her on how she knew they were 'naked pictures' or how she knew all the mail that he recieved each day had twenty dollar bills carefully hidden between two sheets of paper. As he explained it to me, 'in Chicago using a post office with more than ten thousand box holders, a couple dozen large corporations using that post office which was open 24 hours per day in its sorting operations, etc, the young punks, dopeheads and bozos they had working there never had any trouble figuring out which box holders were getting 'cash in the mail' on a regular basis; I assume an old biddy who had run the post office for thirty years in a town of six hundred people had the same sort of 'insight' into her customer's service requirements.' As 'they' say, money talks; everything else walks. Too bad the folks who developed Usenet, email, and the net in general wanted everything to be so open and 'free' and all that. It may be the death of us yet. PAT] ------------------------------ From: aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) Subject: Re: Junk E-Mail Filters Spawn a Suit Against Microsoft Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 11:10:46 -0500 As much as I would like to think that Blue Mountain's email deserves to be bounced or deleted, it appears that Microsoft was wrong. It's surprising that so few learned from Prodigy's rude lesson on censorship. Prodigy learned, when they did a poor job of censoring public forums, was that once you assume the role of a censor, you're now responsible for content, both good and bad. Although it could be argued that Microsoft didn't have enough names in the junk mail filter, they do they appear to have had their hands dirty in this deal, since they damn well knew about Blue Mountain after trying to buy the company. Microsoft should be made to pay for their stupidity, be embarrased globally (again), and rerelease the product with NO names in the junk mail filter. That's certainly not going to stop us from continuing to bounce Blue Mountain junk mail, but stupidity should have it's own unique reward. ------------------------------ From: midshires@cix.co.uk (Andrew Emmerson) Subject: Re: WE/AT&T Paint & Process Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 18:46 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Organization: CIX - Compulink Information eXchange Reply-To: midshires@cix.co.uk > I'm new to restoring telephones and am curious about how the folks at > Western Electric/AT&T used to recondition the finish on the bakelite > phones. If they did it like British Telecom did, the answer is in two ways ... (1) Bulk refurbishing (in the Post Office Factory at Cwmcarn, South Wales) was done with a rapidly rotating brush on a bench. The operator shoved a piece of 'soap' (actually a kind of pumice stone, possibly what is called soapstone) into the brush, then held the piece of plastic against the revolving brush (which now contained a fine powder off the 'soap'). Only light pressure was required and a skilled operator could achieve a superb lustre on the plastic. I witnessed this myself and had to admire the skill of these girls. (2) One-off refurbishment was done using 'Paste, Polishing No. 5' and a hard cloth. This paste came in a tube looking like a toothpaste tube and was an oily, yellow paste containing a mild abrasive and some waxy substance that gave a superb lustre when buffed up afterwards. You rubbed the bakelite with the paste and cloth; the polish would go dark as it absorbed dirt. Take it off with the hard cloth, then buff up with a soft cloth or duster. This gives superb results, far better than using a liquid polish (such as Brasso) or automotive chrome cleaning paste (Solvol Autosol and the like). Fortunately Paste, Polishing No. 5 is still made by the original manufacturer and is sold by the publisher of a vintage wireless magazine as 'Baykobrite' (vintage wireless enthusiasts use it for cleaning bakelite radio cases). You can also buy it in bulk (minimum order one carton of 12 tubes) from the manufacturer. A tube sells retail for around UKP2.00 (=US$3.20). E-mail me for contact address details. Andrew Emmerson, Telecomms Heritage Group. ------------------------------ From: ranck@joesbar.cc.vt.edu (Bill Ranck) Subject: Re: Chip ID Number Continues to Plague Intel Date: 1 Mar 1999 18:32:51 GMT Organization: Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA Donald Seeley wrote: >> Intel has said users will be able to download a software control utility >> from its Web site allowing them enable and disable the serial number at > Are they planning to capture the s/n of the machines that do? Uh, maybe I'm just dense, but so what? If I ordered a PIII from some mailorder house and installed it in a machine, what useful information would Intel get from knowing that someone using CPU id number xxxxxx has downloaded the turn-on/turn-off utility? Intel almost certainly doesn't know who the end purchaser was. I suppose they might be able to request the info from the vendor they sold it to, but it may have gone through 2 or 3 layers of re-sellers before the end user gets it. Why all the paranoia? Bill Ranck +1-540-231-3951 ranck@vt.edu Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, Computing Center ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 19:10:36 +0000 From: Anthony Naggs Subject: Re: Chip ID Number Continues to Plague Intel Organization: Ubikuity After much consideration Monty Solomon decided to share these wise words: > In the latest turn of events, a programmer at a German computer > publication, Computer Technology or c't, claimed Tuesday to have > devised a method of activating and reading the serial number without > the computer user's knowledge or consent. > "Contrary to Intel's description so far, the system architecture > allows for individual identification by software tricks," according to > a statement posted on the publication's Web site. C'T seem to be speculating wildly. They seem to be claiming that the low power shutdown mode of CPUs used in laptops would put the serial number into the default enabled state. The main problem with this appears to be that the announced models of Pentium III don't even have such a mode! Regards, Anthony ------------------------------ From: Eric Bohlman Subject: Re: Mobile Phone Outage Tied to Changeover Organization: ICGNetcom Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 01:09:34 GMT Stan Schwartz wrote: > (The Charlotte Observer, 02/25/99) > Service restored, but some customers' bills may rise > Jensen said Cellular One/Bravo would honor Bell Atlantic Mobile > contracts, though not necessarily the prices they contain. She said This is the most flagrant example of doublespeak I've seen in a long time. If a price is one of the terms of a contract, then "honoring the contract" means "honoring the price." The phrase "honoring a contract" is simply a linguistic shortcut for "honoring the *terms* of a contract." It is not in any way meaningful to speak of honoring a contract but not its terms. It is an oxymoron. What Jensen is really saying is "we expect our customers to honor the terms of the contract we both signed, but we won't hold ourselves to the same standard." [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Which is why I suggested the customers as a class contact an attorney. Someone here is going to have to deal with this and make things right. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #25 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Mar 2 15:13:17 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id PAA21848; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 15:13:17 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 15:13:17 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199903022013.PAA21848@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #26 TELECOM Digest Tue, 2 Mar 99 15:13:00 EST Volume 19 : Issue 26 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Some Bumps Along The Road To Local Competition (Joey Lindstrom) FCC Ruling on Access Changes to ISPs (Jay R. Ashworth) Telecom Portal Opens (Ryan Lanctot) Mobile Phone Price Wars Heat up in Hong Kong (Tad Cook) Exploiting - and Protecting - Personal Information (Monty Solomon) Re: Chip IP Number Continues to Plague Intel (Derek Balling) Re: Chip ID Number Continues to Plague Intel (Billy Harvey) Re: Chip ID Number Continues to Plague Intel (Donald Seeley) 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: 415-520-9905 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: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 16:31:20 -0700 Reply-To: Joey Lindstrom Subject: Some Bumps Along The Road To Local Competition A few weeks ago, I wrote a short note here telling folks about the new Sprint Canada local competition starting up here in Calgary - this being the FIRST Canadian city to have local competition (and LNP). I placed my order, and everything was supposed to have been online last Tuesday. Well, there were a few bumps along the road that I'd like to share with you. :-) First, Sprint made an error. I guess they figured everyone who signed up would also opt for LNP and wish to keep their existing phone number. I, on the other hand, had requested a change of number (to one from their pool of numbers) and that, I think, blew their minds. :-) Hey, after all, they're brand new at this. So a Sprint Canada technician showed up at my door to "install" the new service. I explained the situation to him and we got it all straightened out - but he had a peek at the demarc in the house and said that it had to be upgraded. Specifically, Telus' existing wiring had to be connected to a working demarc, which would then connect to a standard phone jack into another line block which would serve all my house lines. And, best of all, TELUS had to install this because they were actually responsible for the line after it left my house -- Sprint needs to cover their asses legally. OK, fine. When will Telus come and do the work? Oh, either later today or early tomorrow, I was told. Oh, and by the way, your phone line will be completely disconnected until this happens. The Telus tech showed up Friday morning. The entire ten minutes he was here, he was bitching about the incompetence of the Sprint Canada people and saying, indirectly, that *I* was an idiot for ever having switched my service to someone else. He left, and I phoned Sprint to confirm the work had been done (on my now-working-again) line. Later that day they called me back to confirm that my line was now physically connected to Sprint's equipment, but due to the earlier confusion about switching-versus-new-installation, the new phone number wouldn't be activated until Monday. Fine by me, I hadn't notified too many people about the new number anyways. Today is Monday. I woke up about 3 in the afternoon (I work a night shift) to find some messages on my machine from Sprint, asking me to phone them. When I contacted them, they asked me if I had told Telus that I had changed my mind and wanted to stay with Telus. Say what? It turns out that they had two separate reports that I'd done just that. One from the installer, and one from someone in their network operations centre who claims to have spoken directly to me and confirmed that I wanted to remain with Telus. This raised some alarm bells at Sprint, because I had spoken with them *AFTER* the Telus technician had left my premises to find out when the new number would be online. I replied that this was, as they suspected, a complete crock. In the ensuing conversation, I found out the following: 1) I wasn't the only person that this had happened to (Telus trying to win me back by fraud), and 2) Telus has been as uncooperative as possible in every respect in their dealings with Sprint Canada vis-a-vis customers switching their local service to Sprint. (Sprint is renting the lines from Telus, but has their own switches.) I'm told that they (Sprint) are fast-tracking this and should have things all set up properly in the next 24 hours. I told Sprint that if they needed a written complaint from me regarding Telus' actions, to just let me know what address to send it to. She said someone in their legal department may get in touch with me about that. Sprint's been quite good about all this. You do expect some problems when you're dealing with a company that's BRAND NEW to their market, and they did indeed make one mistake - but it was then compounded by intentional incompetence and outright lies by Telus. As soon as Sprint realized their initial mistake (on Wednesday of last week), they told me I'd receive a $20 credit on my first phone bill, which was good enough for me. Telus has never offered me a credit on my Telus bill when they've screwed up ... Anyone else out there have any similar horror stories? I do wonder how this compares to experiences in the US ... From Joey Lindstrom Joey@GaryNumanFan.NU, joey@lindstrom.com Visit The NuServer! http://www.GaryNumanFan.NU Visit The Webb! http://webb.GaryNumanFan.NU DOS never says "EXCELLENT command or filename"... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 13:38:34 -0500 From: Jay R. Ashworth Subject: FCC Ruling on Access chages to ISPs Monty quotes the NY Times: > WASHINGTON -- A computer user's dial-up calls to the Internet are > interstate communications subject to federal jurisidiction, federal > regulators concluded on Thursday. > Until now, Internet dial-ups have been treated as local calls. Alas, the Times has gotten it wrong, courtesy of the AP. Well, ok, they didn't quite "get it wrong", but the copy is misleading, for the purpose everyone wants to use it for. For the past decade or more now, there has been a perceived running threat that the FCC would decide that people who operate big incoming-only modem pools (you know: BBSs and ISPs) should be treated like long distance companies, and required to pay per-minute fees to Local Exchange Carriers. The opposite stance, of course, has been: "we're customers, and we follow the letter of the regulations; why should we be classified any differently than any other big company with lots of phone lines?" The issue, of course, is that if ISPs start being charged by the minute for their incoming calls, flat rate Internet access is dead. Every time this has come up, there's been a hue and cry, out of all proportion to the actual facts of the situation -- but _in_ proportion to the fact that the people in question _thought_ that it was already a done deal -- and the FCC has continued to avoid making a ruling that would allow LECs to charge ISPs by the minute. I call your attention, in particular, to: http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/News_Releases/1999/nrcc9014.html where the FCC says, in pertinent part: "the decision preserves the rule that exempts the Internet and other information services from interstate access charges. This means that those consumers who continue to access the Internet by dialing a seven-digit number will not incur long distance charges when they do so." So, whether the FCC correctly perceives that, from a telephony standard, Internet access phone calls are inTERstate (with all due homage to Mark Cuccia :-) -- they do seem to think so, and they're flat wrong (my call starts at 727-343 and ends at 727-573; how is _that_ an interstate _telephone call_??) -- they aren't applying that opinion to anything that would cause ISPs to have to pay access charges at this time, and they're soliciting comments. The comment I'd recommend is: "the universe in question is _voice telephone calls_, cause that's what the regs talk about. The fact that there's a modem on the voice line is immaterial to the way the regs are written, and pursuant to the regs, the call is inTRAstate. End of story." Obviously, I'd suggest paraphrasing. :-) [ As I have done several times in the past, I'll note that anyone who likes is encouraged to distribute this message in any forum they like -- SUBJECT to the condition that they not change it in any way, and make sure it includes the Date posted header. --j ] Cheers, jra ------------------------------ From: rlanctot@direct.ca (Ryan Lanctot) Subject: Telecom Portal Opens Organization: Lanctot Consulting Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 18:46:42 GMT New Telecom Portal Announced The Telecom Career Center, located at http://www.telecomcareercenter.com/, is proud to announce the introduction of its telecommunications portal and career resource site. TCC is a community committed to helping individuals gain employment, knowledge, professional development and advancement in today's telecommunications industry. Pat Montani, President of TCC said, "The Telecom Career Center is unique. There's nothing on the web that encompasses the resources and networking ability that we provide. TCC is becoming THE centralized spot for telecommunications resources on the Internet." The Telecom Career Center is a multifaceted site, encompassing the fields Telecom Career Resources, Education & Training, Finance & Investment, Mentoring and Products & Services, to name a few. Each category in the portal has an associated discussion group so that those in the telecommunications industry can gather together in common areas. Daily, targeted telecommunications news feeds are under development. The Telecom Career Center is head-officed in British Columbia, Canada. To contact TCC please call Pat Montani at 604-932-0939 or e-mail tccsales@telecomcareercenter.com ------------------------------ Subject: Mobile Phone Price Wars Heat up in Hong Kong Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 22:19:59 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) HONG KONG (AP) -- Hong Kong's six mobile phone providers are in a mad scramble to buy customer loyalty -- offering up noodles, cash and free phone calls -- following a change that allows users to change companies more easily. The territory's ubiquitous mobile phone users gained the ability Monday to switch service providers while keeping the same number, pushing the phone companies into a battle for market share. Analysts predicted a lot of switching will take place in the next few weeks, though they had their doubts about whether the new competition in an already cutthroat industry will be intense enough to run any of the market's six players out of business. "The market is big enough for six players," said Derek Chan, telecommunications analyst at Bear Stearns Asia Ltd. Nearly 3 million Hong Kong residents -- 40 percent of the population of one of the world's most congested cities -- have mobile telephones. Across the territory, there is little respite from the ringing. In some movie theaters, it's almost impossible to sit through the film without being interrupted. The phones go off in shops and restaurants, although some elite establishments have imposed bans. It's all music to the ears of the telephone executives. One of the industry's top players, Hongkong Telecom, is giving away noodles and yogurt drinks to promote its service. Doling out cold cash is the tactic at rival SmarTone. Others are sticking to the more traditional route of slashing prices and giving extended discounts. ------------------------------ Reply-To: Monty Solomon From: Monty Solomon Subject: Exploiting - and Protecting - Personal Information Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 19:24:22 -0500 http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/03/biztech/articles/01digi.html DIGITAL COMMERCE By DENISE CARUSO For the last few weeks, the data privacy battle has been waged with such fury that privacy advocates have not known whether to cry, cheer or simply assume the fetal position. Personal privacy -- the disposition of all those pieces of information that computers hold about each of us -- has been debated in the electronic world for almost two decades. Although the issues are complex, the bottom lines have always been pretty clearly drawn. People and companies that sell personal data want to be able to collect and distribute it pretty much with abandon, and they fight like cornered weasels at even the suggestion of government regulation. Yet, most people online -- 87 percent in a 1997 Georgia Tech survey -- want "complete control" over their personal data. And if they feel violated by data collectors, they often scream bloody murder. In 1991, for example, Lotus Corp. was forced to cancel shipments of Marketplace, a CD-ROM data base, after receiving thousands of angry e-pistles from people who took grievous offense at the data base's content: the names, addresses, income levels, numbers of children and other data for every household in the United States. More recently, privacy advocates wrested a partial victory from Intel Corp., after the company announced that its new Pentium III chips contained embedded electronic serial numbers for authenticating documents, e-mail and copyrighted material. Watchdogs warned that the numbers could be used to identify a computer to prying software, or to allow companies or agencies to track a person's movements across the Internet. Intel refused to remove the number, but agreed to provide software that allows computer makers to hide it behind a digital fig leaf. And the California Legislature, often a bellwether for technology issues, is considering more than a dozen privacy laws, including one that would restrict the collection and disclosure of personal information by government, business or nonprofit organizations. It specifically includes information gathered via Internet sites. Still, plenty of others are rushing to cash in on the data gold rush. Privacy advocates were extremely cranky after discovering that Florida, South Carolina and Colorado were selling residents' driver's license information to a New Hampshire-based company, Image Data LLC. They were even more outraged to discover that the Secret Service had financed another private company's efforts to develop a national data base of driver's license photographs. And in the most telling testament yet to the commercial value of personal data in the Internet economy, a start-up called Free PC announced that it would provide a free Internet connection and a free Compaq computer to anyone willing to "apply" by answering a detailed questionnaire and then accepting constant bombardment by advertisers based on the personal profile created from the questionnaire. Rich Le Furgy, chairman of the Internet Advertising Bureau, an industry group, said that advertisers haven't even begun to tap the Internet's potential. They are now investigating how to aim promotions at individual consumers based on their online behavior: Vendors want to co-market products in much the same way that convenience stores did after discovering, for example, that people who buy beer often buy diapers at the same time. That is not exactly music to the ears of a privacy-sensitive consumer. Obviously, online advertising organizations find themselves straddling a very pointy fence between companies that pay for advertising and customers who are subjected to that advertising. The constituencies have very different viewpoints, and finding a solution palatable to both is not a task for the squeamish. For example, Le Furgy said, "it would be a beautiful thing" for consumers to control their personal data -- especially if it meant avoiding legislation and regulation. "Privacy is an enabler of commerce," he said. If consumers can get money for their personal information and still control it, "they'll be much more willing to provide it." In fact, a new breed of Internet company is already making a business of that concept. These companies, known as infomediaries -- a term coined by John Hagel, co-author of "Net Worth: Shaping Markets When Customers Make the Rules" (Harvard Business School Press, 1999) -- will step in and help consumers regain control of their personal data. For a price, of course. A recent Wired News feature predicts that a coming pack of these entrepreneurs will "cut the consumer in" on the deal when information about them is bought and sold. Infomediaries keep a percentage for themselves for providing the security mechanisms by which consumers can control exactly who buys their personal data and for what purpose. But some privacy advocates would eliminate even the infomediary and pass laws granting consumers not just civil rights to their privacy, but property rights to their private data, ending the free-market eminent domain that data marketers have exploited for decades. Citing a Virginia law that forbids the use of anyone's name or likeness without permission, Ram Avrahami unsuccessfully sued U.S. News & World Report in 1996 for selling his name to another magazine. At the time, Avrahami's opponents ridiculed him for suing over 8 cents, which is what the magazine had paid for his name. "The point is this: It's 8 cents for me, for you, for 100 million other Americans, which becomes big money," said Avrahami, who has since become a leading advocate of private data ownership. "Think of it this way: Free PC proves that our personal information is worth hundreds of dollars. Now, who should get those dollars, if not us?" Copyright 1999 The New York Times Company ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 19:18:57 PST From: Derek Balling Subject: Re: Chip IP Number Continues to Plague Intel On Mon, 1 Mar 1999 ranck@joesbar.cc.vt.edu (Bill Ranck) wrote: > Uh, maybe I'm just dense, but so what? If I ordered a PIII from some > mailorder house and installed it in a machine, what useful information > would Intel get from knowing that someone using CPU id number xxxxxx > has downloaded the turn-on/turn-off utility? > Intel almost certainly doesn't know who the end purchaser was. I > suppose they might be able to request the info from the vendor they > sold it to, but it may have gone through 2 or 3 layers of re-sellers > before the end user gets it. > Why all the paranoia? A valid question, so here's the answer. You buy something online. They require you to have a PSN enabled. Your PSN is now mapped to your name, address, phone #, SSN possibly, mastercard/visa number, etc. as well as that item you just purchased. You go visit a web site somewhere else. The great land of marketing has SHARED that knowledge about you, your buying habits, your demographic info, etc. That site sees your PSN, maps it to what IT knows about you (maybe you buy stuff from them?) and the knowledge base grows. Picture all the horror stories you heard about cookies. This is LIKE a cookie, except that THIS time, they're valid concerns. EVERY site can see your PSN. EVERY site can collate data about you and share it with whomever they want to. Pretty soon a pretty good profile has been built up about you, what you like, the web sites you visit, the works. It is indeed a VERY VERY scary thing. Luckily, many of the hardware vendors are disabling them in the BIOS (which, while not an optimum solution of Intel removing the feature entirely, is a good start). Even better is that, most likely, you'll notice that, especially on open-source OS's like Linux, you'll see hacks to either randomize or falsify your PSN available in short order. Always remember -- applications talk to the hardware via the kernel. If the kernel tells you the PSN is 696969696969-0042, then you're going to dutifuly report it as such. :) Its just another reason to with PPC or Alpha hardware these days ... ====================================================================== Derek J. Balling | "Bill Gates is a monocle and a white dredd@megacity.org | fluffy cat from being a villain in the http://www.megacity.org/ | next Bond film." - Dennis Miller ====================================================================== ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 00:12:19 EST Subject: Re: Chip ID Number Continues to Plague Intel From: Billy Harvey Thomas A. Horsley writes: > You know, it seems to me ethernet boards have had unique IDs for years > and years and years, but no privacy groups ever hollered about that. > I think the mistake Intel made was the spin they put on the initial > descriptions of the silly ID number -- as a way to track e-commerce > activity (a thing most individual consumers don't care about other > than the negative big-brother aspects). > With ethernet boards, the ID really is a convenience for things like > reverse-arp lookups, making it simpler to boot and administer your > machine, etc. > Intel shouda spun in a different direction :-). The difference is that ethernet chips have a unique id number due to necessity in order to work per specification. There is no similar requirement in a processor chip. If some type of multiprocessor communication protocol was developed that could put such a unique number to good use, and which performed significantly better than any protocol not having such a number, then there would be some technical justification for the id number. Without such technical justification, only the political is left, and the technique is nowhere near robust enough to prevent abuse in an open environment. Besides, ethernet id numbers can be changed under software control in many devices, and can also be faked. They were never designed, nor purported to be, as useful for fingerprinting of source. Regards, Billy ------------------------------ From: Donald Seeley Subject: Re: Chip ID Number Continues to Plague Intel Date: 1 Mar 1999 21:33:52 GMT Organization: EnterAct, L.L.C. Bill Ranck wrote: > Donald Seeley wrote: >>> Intel has said users will be able to download a software control utility >>> from its Web site allowing them enable and disable the serial number at >> Are they planning to capture the s/n of the machines that do? > Uh, maybe I'm just dense, but so what? If I ordered a PIII from some --- snip - snip --- > Why all the paranoia? What Intel *really* needs is to add an instruction that preserves the ironic tone in my words after I've finished typing them. Not paranoid, just not as funny as I was trying to be. Apologies. Don Seeley Daring Designs Typography - Graphics - Layout http://www.daringdesigns.com/~dschi/ dschi@daringdesigns.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #26 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Mar 4 22:06:48 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id WAA22465; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 22:06:48 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 22:06:48 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199903050306.WAA22465@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #27 TELECOM Digest Thu, 4 Mar 99 22:06:00 EST Volume 19 : Issue 27 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Bell Fumbles Latest Long Distance Throw (Monty Solomon) DSL Has a Secret (Monty Solomon) Re: Need Help With Erlang Calculations (David Lucantoni) Re: Chip ID Number Continues to Plague Intel (Colin Sutton) Re: Chip IP Number Continues to Plague Intel (Bill Ranck) Re: Chip IP Number Continues to Plague Intel (Steve Cogorno) Re: Junk E-Mail Filters Spawn a Suit Against Microsoft (Andy Yee) Re: Virginia Law Would Make Internet Spamming a Crime (John David Galt) Re: Virginia Law Would Make Internet Spamming a Crime (John W. Leblanc) 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: 415-520-9905 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, 3 Mar 1999 03:29:35 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Bell fumbles latest long distance throw http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,33181,00.html By John Borland Staff Writer, CNET News.com March 2, 1999, 2:45 p.m. PT A set of high-profile negotiations between Bell Atlantic, competing phone companies, and Pennsylvania regulators have collapsed without agreement after four months of talks. The closed-door discussions were intended to set rules for competition in the state's local telephone and high-speed Internet markets, setting the stage for Bell Atlantic's move into long distance. But the final expiration date on the talks passed last night without an agreement between the parties, throwing the issues back into the hands of regulators and judges. The failed talks will likely slow the pace of competition in the state's local phone market, and possibly delay Bell Atlantic's bid to offer long distance service. The renewed uncertainty could also threaten state approval of the merger between Bell Atlantic and GTE, since several prominent state politicians have tied their support of the deal to concessions by the Bell company. The negotiations started last October, when the state Public Utilities Commission agreed to combine a long list of outstanding issues into a single set of talks, dubbed the Global Settlement process. Included in the discussions were Bell Atlantic's requests for long distance approval, a long list of controversial connection agreements between it and competitors, and rules governing the company's control of network elements such as high-speed digital subscriber line (DSL) Internet service. The parties to the talks, which included Bell Atlantic, competing local and long distance phone companies, consumer groups, legislators, and regulators, agreed not to discuss the talks until they had concluded. But signs that the talks were foundering were present at least since January, when several prominent state senators withdrew from the negotiations, citing Bell Atlantic's intractability. "This was an attempt at a negotiated settlement," said Christopher Craig, counsel to state Senator Vincent Fumo. "Not much was given up or compromised on the part of Bell Atlantic." Too little, too late? Yesterday, the commission released a final set of compromise proposals to the parties involved in the talks. But at midnight, the talks officially closed, with the commission's last attempt at compromise appears left with little hope of adoption. Regulators are now no longer allowed to participate in the discussions, and MCI WorldCom said today they would not independently pursue compromise with the local phone company. "We tried for four months, we tried with the commissioners mediating," said Elena French, an MCI WorldCom spokeswoman. "We don't think it will be fruitful to continue without the commissioners there." For its part, Bell Atlantic says the talks were helpful, and it will continue trying to negotiate with competitors. "We believe that significant progress was made," the company said in a statement today. "Bell Atlantic continues to work with the parties and expects to reach agreement with many of them on the critical issues as quickly as possible." Copyright 1995-99 CNET, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy policy. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 03:46:56 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: DSL Has a Secret http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9903/02/dslsecret.idg/ by Tim Greene (IDG) -- Digital subscriber line (DSL) service that starts out at 1.5M bit/sec at your site isn't typically run at that bandwidth all the way through the DSL carrier's network. Rather, your line contends with other customers' DSL links for a shared pipe into the carrier network. It is possible to buy a full bandwidth link all the way through the DSL carrier net, but be prepared to pay a premium and to negotiate service-level agreements (SLA) to ensure performance. In the growing battle to sell inexpensive high-speed access pipes, DSL partisans claim their technology is better than cable modems because it offers dedicated bandwidth, while cable is a shared medium. That is true, at least until the DSL line hits the first device in the service provider network, known as a DSL Access Multiplexer. There, DSL access lines are typically aggregated onto an oversubscribed backhaul trunk into the carrier's switched/routed network. That trunk represents a potential bottleneck that could make the service crawl. "All networks are oversubscribed," explains Bill Southworth, chairman and CEO of Harvard.Net, an ISP in Boston that specializes in DSL access. "And it works as long as there is enough capacity so aggregated traffic doesn't get throttled." When bandwidth through the service provider network is truly guaranteed, customers have to pay. For example, UUNET's UULink DSL Internet access costs $500, $600 and $900 per month for 128K, 364K and 768K bit/sec of guaranteed bandwidth, respectively. Low-cost DSL services, such as the rock-bottom $39 per month SBC Communications charges for a service supporting 1.5M bit/ sec downloads, don't come with such guarantees. What's a good number? DSL provider NorthPoint Communications oversubscribes its trunks by a measure of 2 to 1, meaning the bandwidth coming into a network trunk is twice what the trunk can bear. That method works without degrading customer service because in practice, all customers aren't using their lines at the same time. "That ratio is very conservative. We are not even close to dropping a packet," says John Stormer, NorthPoint's vice president of marketing. GTE, which has done some of the most thorough real-world DSL testing, says that 10-to-1 oversubscription still provides full throughput to customers 95% of the time, even if they are all surfing the Internet simultaneously. That's because even during heavy Web surfing, the link is idle much of the time, according to Dale Veeneman, senior principal member of technical staff at GTE Labs. With a group of casual Internet users as customers, the backhaul could be oversubscribed by 100 to 1 because not all the customers will be on at once, Veeneman says. The ISP link But there are other potential oversubscription bottlenecks, Veeneman warns. Often an ISP offers DSL access but has another carrier set up the DSL links. Customer traffic is concentrated onto an oversubscribed link into the DSL provider's network, and then aggregated again onto an oversubscribed link to the ISP. Customers need to be aware of aggregation practices into and out of the DSL carrier network, Veeneman says. Harvard.Net's Southworth says he is always buying more bandwidth for Internet links to limit oversubscription and prevent service degradation. Because there are multiple possible choke points, customers need to be clear about what part of the network the guarantees cover when they negotiate SLAs, says Beth Gage, an analyst with TeleChoice, a telecommunications consulting firm in Boston. "Some SLAs don't start until the switching office, and some only cover the last-mile link," she says. "You need to go step by step through what is covered, from physical and logical links to outside events like acts of God." Gage also notes that because DSL networks are still being built, links that are engineered to be oversubscribed may not be oversubscribed yet. What may work fine today might degrade tomorrow if service providers don't adjust as they add more. Customers can check end-to-end DSL performance by pinging the mail server at the ISP being accessed. The ping will measure round-trip time and see if packets are dropped, says Mike Lutz, a former network manager who researches DSL for Avalon Networks, an ISP in Iowa City, Iowa. If the customer can find an FTP server directly linked to the same ISP, downloading a file can indicate just how much bandwidth the DSL service provider is delivering, Lutz says. Tim Greene is a senior editor for Network World. Network World Senior Editor Denise Pappalardo contributed to this story. ------------------------------ From: David Lucantoni Subject: Re: Need Help With Erlang Calculations Date: 2 Mar 1999 13:40:00 GMT Organization: DLT Consulting, L.L.C. In article , digitalox@aol.com (DigitalOx) wrote: > I'm trying to write a progam that calulates the number of trunks need > for a desired grade of service and Erlangs using Erlang B. All the > equations I've found don't seem to solve for the # of trunks, and I > can' t get it (number of trunks) into the left hand side of the > equation because my math isn't so great. Anybody know how? The Erlang > B equation I have is > n 2 n > Eb = (A / n !) / ( 1 + A + A / 2! + A / n! ) > where Eb is the grade of service, A is the mean of offered traffic, > and n is the number trunks. For the most efficient and elegant algorithms for many traffic calculations (e.g., Erlang B blocking, number of trunks required, equivalent random method and Hayward's approximation, partial derivatives of the Erlang loss function, etc.) see the following paper by the incomparable Dave Jagerman (formerly of Bell Laboratories): D. L. Jagerman, "Methods in Traffic Calculations", AT&T Bell Laboratories Technical Journal, Vol. 63, No. 7, pp. 1283-1310, September, 1984. And for those of you who like to take the easy way out, he even supplies all the associated Fortran source code. David Lucantoni, Ph.D. | 10 Oak Tree Lane, Ocean, New Jersey 07712 DLT Consulting, LLC | Voice: +1.732.493.0587 Fax: +1.732.493.4465 David.Lucantoni@att.net | Network Architecture, Design & Analysis Performance Analysis Broadband Wireless Satellite Networks ------------------------------ From: Colin Sutton Subject: Re: Chip ID Number Continues to Plague Intel Organization: Syrinx Speech Systems Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 13:35:55 GMT Bill Ranck wrote in article ... > Why all the paranoia? Why indeed. VAXen and Sun workstations have had serial numbers for years! It's not paranoia, it's loss of the ability to copy software without paying for it. Colin Sutton ------------------------------ From: ranck@joesbar.cc.vt.edu (Bill Ranck) Subject: Re: Chip IP Number Continues to Plague Intel Date: 3 Mar 1999 21:18:06 GMT Organization: Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA Derek Balling wrote: > On Mon, 1 Mar 1999 ranck@joesbar.cc.vt.edu (Bill Ranck) wrote: >> Uh, maybe I'm just dense, but so what? If I ordered a PIII from some >> Why all the paranoia? > A valid question, so here's the answer. > You buy something online. They require you to have a PSN enabled. Your PSN An unlikely scenario. There are too many non-Intel machines in the world to cut off that many potential customers. Any company that tries to "require" PSN will not succeed. How many old PII and older systems are still in use? How many non-Intel systems? > is now mapped to your name, address, phone #, SSN possibly, > mastercard/visa number, etc. as well as that item you just purchased. > You go visit a web site somewhere else. The great land of marketing has > SHARED that knowledge about you, your buying habits, your demographic > info, etc. That site sees your PSN, maps it to what IT knows about you > (maybe you buy stuff from them?) and the knowledge base grows. If they've got my name, address and other info, they can and do already share that info with others. Identifying me with some random PSN doesn't make that any worse (or better). The PSN thing isn't really realiable anyway. I might upgrade my processor. I use several different computers depending on where I am and what I'm doing. They can already get all the basic info on me about income level and such from the credit bureaus. The PSN doesn't make this any easier. It's already plenty easy. As for purchasing histories, most companies don't like to share that sort of data. I'm not saying that they wouldn't use it themselves internally, but most don't want competitors to know too much about their business and opening up all their customer data for sale would have the same effect as giving their competitors access to their internal sales data. > Luckily, many of the hardware vendors are disabling them in the BIOS > (which, while not an optimum solution of Intel removing the feature > entirely, is a good start). Even better is that, most likely, you'll > notice that, especially on open-source OS's like Linux, you'll see hacks > to either randomize or falsify your PSN available in short order. Personally, I like the idea of a CPU s/n. It's been used for software licensing for years in large systems. The privacy concerns are completely overblown, in my opinion. In fact, for the reasons stated above, I doubt it will ever have much effect on "e-commerce" except to facilitate session key generation. Bill Ranck +1-540-231-3951 ranck@vt.edu Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, Computing Center [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Let's use the analogy of caller-id on the telephone. A person who had the new chip and turned it off to avoid it being read under such circumstances would be like the person who does *67 before his calls to avoid identification. A person calling from a central office not equipped to transmit caller-id causes the recipient to get a message saying 'not available' or 'outside area'. I would think that merchants on the internet who were so insistent on getting the serial number embedded in the chip would have the courtesy to accept the lack of same in older machines. I can see some of them very possibly refusing to accept an order when they otherwise had a substantial amount of fraud and evidence showed that the chip serial number was present but deliberatly being with- held. I will tell you one example in which the serial number would prove most helpful: with things like AOL's Instant Messenger, their chat rooms, and other chat room programs all over the net. If the chat software would pick up that serial number and transmit it like caller-id to the person being asked to accept the chat request, it would allow the recipient to decide whether or not to accept the chat based on the user's previous experience with the person 'behind' that serial number in the past. I could decide for example to chat with a person whose serial number was shown, or 'unavailable', but not chat with someone who chose to withhold it from me. Knowledge of someone else's serial number would not do me any more or less good than knowing some person's phone number via my caller- id box; the caller would still have to choose to tell me that personal information if they wished to do so (unless there comes a day in the next few years when there is a 'criss-cross' directory of serial numbers on line, like a reverse lookup telephone directory today), but at least I could choose to block that serial number and its owner from contacting me or using my web site, etc. In the various discussions we've seen on the net about the invasion of privacy the serial number might cause, I do not think anyone has noted the GOOD things it can do as well in helping keep users aware of other users who practice fraud and deception in their postings. When caller-id was first becoming commonplace, there were these very same discussions about how businesses would develop these massive databases out of the phone numbers of people who called them, etc. It really did not happen. I do not think anyone can begrudge the pizza delivery services and taxicab dispatch services for using caller-id to help cut their rate of fraud and the criminal actions taken against their employees who work on the streets late at night. So if a child is using a chat as an example, or one of the more elaborate chats-with-visuals such as Net Meeting and an older person asks the child to do something which is inappropriate, would the ability of the child's parent to obtain the serial number be such a bad idea? The parent would have no idea whatsoever of the person's real name or address -- nor would it really matter what it was most of the time -- but at least the parent could ask the child to refrain from further contact with the individual. Caller-id has cut back tremendously on the malicious use of the phone as a way to hide. Before caller-id, large cities like Chicago had literally *hundreds* of malicious false alarms called in to the fire and police departments daily, just so the caller could watch the firemen and policemen rush off in good faith to save a life that did not exist or put out a fire which did not occur. Unlike caller-id which, when it was established in each community *immediatly* gave emergency authorities instant reference to the caller's name and address, this new chip we are hearing about won't tell us where a net-offender lives or his name, unless s/he has already chosen to make it available. No one here knows who went home today with a new computer they bought with the new chip in it. What we will be able to do is look at the caller to our website or chatroom or bulletin board system, etc and *regardless of the latest screen name or bogus email address the person uses* tell that person he is honored and welcome at our site, or that he is to stay away. Let's hope spammers all go out and buy new computers today! When they do, watch for mail filters to be developed which demand the serial number information in the process of sorting mail. Then instead of madly adding one site name after another to our filters, trying to find out what IP number space they use, etc, we simply take the one that that will never change regardless of how many ISPs give them the boot -- the little number on the chip. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Steve Cogorno Subject: Re: Chip IP Number Continues to Plague Intel Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 19:41:43 PST Derek Balling said: > You buy something online. They require you to have a PSN enabled. Your PSN > is now mapped to your name, address, phone #, SSN possibly, > mastercard/visa number, etc. as well as that item you just purchased. > You go visit a web site somewhere else. The great land of marketing has > SHARED that knowledge about you, your buying habits, your demographic > info, etc. That site sees your PSN, maps it to what IT knows about you > (maybe you buy stuff from them?) and the knowledge base grows. And why should I care? So a few online vendors get some more info about my buying habits. You think this isn't already cateloged with traditional mail-order companies? I can assure you it is, because of all the related but unsolicited catalogs that I receive after ordering from a company. Suppose there is no such thing as a PSN. The exact same process can be achieved through IP addresses. Here's what I think is the *real* reason people do not want PSNs to be available. This would allow software companies to license software to one and only one CPU. No more pirating software. That's what I think this is about - not some internet privacy hogwash. Steve cogorno@netcom.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I agree with you. A bad side effect may be some companies making the kinds of lists described, and a very good side effect will be the ability of users to *protect* their privacy by blocking the serial numbers of people who have offended them (see my earlier message in this issue.) But most assuredly companies developing software are going to see to it they get paid for every copy from now on. PAT] ------------------------------ From: AXYXeXeX@XjXaXsXcX.XcXoXmX (Andy Yee) Subject: Re: Junk E-Mail Filters Spawn a Suit Against Microsoft Organization: Jasc Software, Inc. Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 17:07:43 GMT ....and #1: Because they have deep pockets! In article , aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) wrote: > Microsoft should be made to pay for their stupidity, be embarrased > globally (again), and rerelease the product with NO names in the junk > mail filter. That's certainly not going to stop us from continuing to > bounce Blue Mountain junk mail, but stupidity should have it's own > unique reward. Andy Yee Corporate E-Mail: See Above Software Engineer Coporate Web Page: http://www.jasc.com Jasc Software, Inc. Personal E-Mail: nde@yuck.net Personal Web Page: http://www.visi.com/~nde Question authority...and the authorities will question YOU! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 14:53:52 -0800 From: John David Galt Organization: Diogenes the Cynic Hot-Tubbing Society Subject: Re: Virginia Law Would Make Internet Spamming a Crime Quoth Eric Bohlman: [cost problem explanation snipped] > Let's take a non-commercial example here: the mailings of a political > campaign. If I'm running a campaign for a candidate for alderman in > Chicago's 13th ward, I've got a strong incentive to make sure that > any campaign literature gets mailed only to addresses in the 13th > ward. Mail to addresses in the 10th ward, to addresses in Joliet, or > to addresses in Seattle costs the campaign money without making the > candidate more electable, so I go out of my way *not* to send > literature to such addresses. > But with e-mail, sending out a million promotional e-mails costs me > no more than sending out ten. Therefore, if I were to send out > unsolicited campaign e-mails, I would have *no economic incentive* > to go through my mailing list and exclude addresses for people > outside the 13th ward. Doing so would cost me time and money. It > would be easier and cheaper for me to shotgun-blast my campaign > message all over the world. The fact that 10,000 of the messages > land in Seattle doesn't matter to me. I would love to see this tried, because it would backfire spectacularly and the resulting news coverage might help the anti-spam cause. People selling (for example) the services of an immigration lawyer may not care that they annoy 100,000 people for every one whose business they bring in, but if a politician does it, a good chunk of those 100,000 will be able to vote for the other guy, and many of them will. What the problem boils down to is that "spam" is the result of a classic incentive trap: that is, a situation where someone can rake in all the benefits of his misbehavior, while spreading the costs over a large number of people. That type of situation makes government action necessary and justified. John David Galt ------------------------------ From: jwleblanc@my-dejanews.com (John LeBlanc) Subject: Re: Virginia Law Would Make Internet Spamming a Crime Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 16:18:07 GMT Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion In article , TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response: > Regards your third point, I do not see it as the spammers who are > particularly at fault here; it is the way in which the internet and > email was developed. The spammers exposed a vulnerability in the > net's way of doing things. In the case of the post office (or the > US Postal Service if you wish), in theory at least, the sender pays > the bill and the recipient pays nothing. The recipient's post office > does not have to worry about how *it* is going to stay in business > because the funds collected from all the senders of mail go into > a common pool from which the administration of all post offices -- > those of recipients and senders alike -- is funded. Much like the > old telco function called 'separations and settlements' which was > administered in the olden days by AT&T on behalf of itself and > about 1400 independent telcos, it was thought to be a good idea for > everyone to share in the revenue coming in, regardless of which > telco (or post office) actually collected the money from the > 'sender'. For telcos, it was part of the goal of 'universal service', > or the theory that having everyone in possession of phone service > made the phone service more valuable for everyone else. Ditto the > post office; everyone pays 33 cents regardless of what it actually > costs to get the letter to the other end. > But the internet has always functioned differently, using a 'bill and > keep' system rather than telco and post office's 'bill and share' > system. We simply hope that what your ISP 'bills and keeps' is enough > to keep him in business and is roughly equal to what my ISP 'bills and > keeps'. If that is not the case, and your ISP must resort either > through greed and avarice or of pure economic necessity to billing > you for every byte and bit of traffic coming and going to your account > and every second you stay on line, then the rest of us say that is > just too bad, and let it go at that. For a long time, that was a > perfectly adequate and acceptable way of doing things. Maybe it > still is. Pat, Using the argument that "this is the way the Internet was set up" won't hold water for me, since the Internet also was not set up to allow for the gross abuses heaped upon it by today's spammers. One spammer can open an account for which he pays $19.95 and send out a million pieces of email, and nearly every piece will consume at least some bandwidth if not only for the domains' mail servers to reject it and send it back. (Not to mention those pieces that are successfully delivered). Where's the rational reasoning behind allowing that to continue unimpeded and unregulated by some degree? On the other hand, if spammers are required to pay per piece sent, all of a sudden we have a commercial application of the system that makes sense. And cents. And cents and cents and cents. Which is not happening now, since it's the recipients who are being cent-enced and in-cents daily. > No, I don't think the spammers should be stopped through anything > other than peer pressure or a change in email accounting practices > which makes mass mailing in a non-judicious way an extremely expensive > proposal for them. I favor making the spammers accountable for what > they do, not killing their speech rights totally, as atrocious as > they are. Please point me to the place in the Constitution of the United States of America where it says that your right to free speech requires me to receive it, rather than choose to receive it. I'm not at all excited about regulations providing judicial pummeling for spamming, but the fact is that peer pressure has made not one dent in the problem. The long arm of the law weilds a two-edged sword, and I am well aware of the sometimes woeful consequences. Considering the demonstrated reluctance -- if not all-out arrogance -- against the obvious backlash against UCE, what else is there? At least we agree that spammers should pay. John LeBlanc jwleblanc (at) my-dejanews.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: > the internet was not set up for it .. The internet was not set up for a lot of things it is being used for today. No one twenty years ago had the vaguest idea where things would be today. I am sure Alex Bell did not have 900 numbers and telephone companies being used as collection agencies for hotchat conference bridges in mind either when he told Mr. Watson to come upstairs and clean up the battery acid which got spilled. The first twenty years of the internet were basically like the first hundred years or so of the telephone network. Now we change as needed or we get swallowed up and cast aside. > where in the US Constitution does it say ... It does not say it anywhere. But the problem is, the constitution says very little in the way of specifics about things. I am sure back in the late 1700's it did not occur to them that Alex Bell would spill some battery acid a century later and completely change the way in which people communicated or that radios would be invented or that two centuries later their First Amendment would be used as an argu- ment in the ongoing debate about email spam. So like Western Union and its infamous 1879 internal memo in which it was stated that the company 'could see no practical use or benefit in a talking telegraph system' and therefore would decline to purchase Bell's patents and develop a telephone network on its own, perhaps you can see no real reason for making changes in the internet. After all, 'it was not intended for ...' ... and 'nothing in the constitution requires me to ....' ... So maybe when the year 2050 rolls around there will be you and a dozen others left on the internet while everyone else has migrated to something called the Spamnet or the CommerceNet, and there will be these very cute, antique and quaint things known as the .edu domain sites. And John, we would not want to impose on you; we really wouldn't. But let's make some realistic changes in the way things are done here or watch it all come to a screaming halt one of these days. (Ooops, did I just predict the imminent death of the net once again? I do that every now and then you know. I've decided the net won't die on its own, it will be like one of my cats which lived to the grand old age (for a cat) of 23 years. When the cat began to sit helplessly in the corner each day waiting for me to pick it up, feed it, and clean up the messes it made because it had forgotten or was too feeble in its old age to go to its litter box, it became my obligation as its custodian or caretaker -- I *refuse* to say 'owner' -- to take it to the veternarian for my final responsibility to the animal. Then I just cried all the way back home, not really giving a damn who saw me. Maybe one of these days our new 'owners' -- whatever federal agencies oversee us with our domain names, etc -- will decide it is time to give this net its eternal rest also, in favor of a new and 'improved' networking system ... the Commerce and Spam Net. Then would Spamford Wallace get the Last Laugh or not? PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #27 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Mar 5 12:19:17 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id MAA25181; Fri, 5 Mar 1999 12:19:17 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 12:19:17 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199903051719.MAA25181@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #28 TELECOM Digest Fri, 5 Mar 99 12:19:00 EST Volume 19 : Issue 28 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson AT&T Canada to Merge With Metronet Communications(Eric Blondin) German Hotel Phone Rates (Sheraton is Not the Only Offender) (John Covert) CPUC Staff Recommends OVERLAYS for 415, 510 (Linc Madison) Telephone Companies Vow to Keep Lines Open on Y2K Day (Tad Cook) UCLA Short Course: "Design Patterns, Frameworks, and CORBA" (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: 415-520-9905 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: Eric Blondin Subject: AT&T Canada to Merge With Metronet Commuications Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 09:33:41 -0500 Thought this might interest a few of you, kind of a new step in the local competition in Canada. From: portfolio@newswire.ca To: "Portfolio Email User" $7 Billion Transaction Creates Canadian National Super-Carrier with Local, National and International Reach AT&T Corp. to Own 31% of Merged Company, MetroNet Shareholders to Own 69%; AT&TCorp. Agrees to Purchase Remaining Shares of MetroNet TORONTO, March 4 /CNW/ - AT&T Canada Corp., one of Canada's leading telecommunications carriers, and MetroNet Communications Corp., Canada's largest facilities-based competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC), today announced that they have executed a definitive agreement to merge the companies in a transaction valued at approximately $7 billion. The merger of MetroNet and AT&T Canada will create Canada's premier telecommunications company, to be called AT&T Canada Corp. The merged company will be the first national, network-based company to meet all of the telecom needs of Canadian business customers with one-stop shopping for local and long distance voice, data, Internet and electronic commerce solutions, as well as wireless services through Cantel AT&T. Following the merger, AT&T Canada will have combined annualized revenues of approximately $1.4 billion, more than 4,000 employees, and over $3.5 billion in assets. The merger combines AT&T Canada's extensive customer base, nation-wide facilities-based long distance network, powerful brand and global reach with MetroNet's state-of-the-art telecommunications facilities, data networks and over $900 million of cash to execute its strategy. The terms of the agreement outline a multi-stage transaction, which will result in MetroNet shareholders indirectly owning 69 percent of the merged company and AT&T Corp. indirectly owning 31 percent. The merged company, which will include ACC TelEnterprises, will market its services under the AT&T Canada brand. ``The complementary strengths and assets of these companies make the ``fit'' of this merger perfect for customers,'' said Dan Somers, Chairman of AT&T Canada Corp. and Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of AT&T. ``MetroNet customers gain access to AT&T Canada's established long-distance voice and data network and the vast AT&T global network; AT&T Canada customers gain access to the country's most modern local service networks.'' ``This transaction is fantastic for our customers, our shareholders, and Canadian telecommunications overall,'' said Craig Young, President and Chief Executive Officer of MetroNet Communications. ``Our customers will immediately have access to not only an advanced, end-to-end national network for ``any distance'' and ``any bandwidth'' service, but to a global network and services, supported by the world's preeminent name in telecommunications.'' ``This merger will foster competition in Canada by combining the strengths of two innovators in competitive Canadian telecommunications and offering customers a wider array of choices based on the most comprehensive national telecom network in Canada,'' said Jim Meenan, President and CEO of AT&T Canada Corp. ``It is also a major step forward in realizing our vision of bringing Canadian customers unparalleled access to the power of a seamless North American wired and wireless network.'' In addition, AT&T Corp. has agreed to purchase, or arrange for another entity to purchase, all of the shares currently held by MetroNet shareholders for the greater of at least C$75 per share or the then appraised fair market value. The exact timing will likely be partially dependent upon the future status of federal foreign ownership regulations. Important terms of the MetroNet share purchase by AT&T Corp. are outlined below in the Summary of Significant Terms. Consideration for the MetroNet shares will be paid in the form of cash, AT&T shares, or a combination thereof, with the number of AT&T shares determined based upon the market price on or about the time the MetroNet shares are purchased. The boards of directors of the companies have approved the transaction, which MetroNet shareholders will be asked to approve at a shareholder meeting expected to be held in May, 1999. If approved by MetroNet shareholders, the merger of the companies is expected to be completed by the end of the second quarter of 1999. The combined sales forces of MetroNet Communications and AT&T Canada will provide a full suite of advanced business telecommunications solutions, offered completely over a state-of-the art network, from basic local dial tone to global data networking. The combined company will have not only Canada's preeminent nationwide ``any-distance'' network capabilities, but also unrivalled professional expertise through its sales and technical organizations in more than 150 locations across Canada. The network of the combined company will boast national, high-speed fibre-optic capabilities with unequalled bandwidth for local and long distance voice, data and Internet services. Backed by the unparalleled reliability of SONET rings and with more border crossings than any other telecommunications provider in Canada, the merged company will be able to deliver the finest global solutions of any telecom company in Canada. ``In addition to the compelling operating and capital expenditure synergies that the transaction creates, it recognizes tremendous value for MetroNet's shareholders and credit enhancement for MetroNet's bondholders,'' said Bob Bicksler, MetroNet's Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. ``Besides guaranteeing MetroNet's shareholders a floor on the value of their shares, the structure of the transaction also creates the opportunity for our shareholders to continue participating in the value creation opportunities presented by the newly deregulated Canadian telecommunications market.'' A new Board of Directors for MetroNet with 12 members will be assembled, on which AT&T Corp. will have 4 seats upon consummation of the transaction. Jim Meenan will serve as Vice Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the new company, Craig Young will serve as Vice Chairman and President, and Bob Bicksler will serve as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. Other senior management appointments will be announced as merger integration planning commences and the new board is assembled. Merger of AT&T Canada and MetroNet Communications Summary of Significant Terms Please note: This summary is qualified in its entirety by the definitive agreements executed by the parties that will be described more fully in materials to be sent to shareholders in conjunction with the approval of this transaction. Enterprise Value of Transaction: Approximately $7 billion. Contributions to Merged Company: AT&T's 33 percent voting interest in AT&T Canada Corp. and 100 percent interest in ACC TelEnterprises Ltd., along with the 67 percent interest in the former AT&T Canada Long Distance Services currently held in trust. All of the assets and operations of MetroNet Communications. AT&T Corp. Ownership upon Consummation of Transaction: 31 percent of the non-voting shares of the merged company and 23 percent of the Class A voting shares of MetroNet purchased from Providence Equity Partners, a major investor in MetroNet. MetroNet Share Purchase Terms: If AT&T Corp. does not purchase the outstanding MetroNet shares before June 30, 2000, the minimum C$75 per share price will increase by 16 percent per annum compounded quarterly from that date through no later than June 30, 2003. Before June 30, 2003, AT&T Corp. may also designate an alternate purchaser for all MetroNet shares at the higher of that minimum price and the then appraised fair market value. If by June 30, 2003, AT&T Corp. has not purchased the outstanding MetroNet shares, those shares would be sold through an auction process and AT&T Corp. would make whole the shareholders of MetroNet for the difference between the proceeds received from the auction and the greater of the accreted minimum price and the appraised fair market value of the shares. No Shop Provisions: Both companies have agreed not to solicit or take certain other actions with respect to any competing proposal. MetroNet has agreed to pay AT&T Corp. a break-up fee of $75 million if, under specified conditions, the transaction is not completed. Support Agreements: Certain major MetroNet shareholders have entered into agreements with AT&T Corp. under which they have agreed to support the transaction. Fairness: MetroNet's board was provided with fairness opinions by both Salomon Smith Barney and RBC Dominion Securities. Accounting: It is anticipated that the merger will be accounted for as a purchase with a portion of the purchase price to be allocated to intangible assets including goodwill. The actual allocation of purchase price and selection of amortization periods is subject to further evaluation. Stock Price Collar: None. Board Approval: Has been approved by the companies' boards. Shareholder Approval: Approval is required by MetroNet shareholders and will be sought at a shareholder meeting expected to be held in May, 1999. Board of Directors: New board for MetroNet Communications with 12 members on which AT&T Corp. will have 4 seats upon the consummation of the transaction. Conditions: The transaction is subject to approval by MetroNet shareholders, regulatory and court approvals, required consents, and other customary closing conditions. Merger Consummation: Expected by the end of the second quarter of 1999. Merger of AT&T Canada and MetroNet Communications Summary of Combined Company Combined Company Name: AT&T Canada Corp. Estimated 1999 Revenues: Approximately $1.4 billion (85% from business customers). Property, Plant and Equipment: Nearly $2.0 billion. Total Assets: More than $3.5 billion. Total Employees: More than 4,000. Sales Employees: More than 700. Local Service Access Lines: Approximately 200,000. Long Distance Minutes: Approximately 5 billion. Internet subscribers: Approximately 165,000. Buildings Accessed: Over 2,400. Fiber Optic Intracity Route Kilometres: More than 3,800. Fiber Optic Long Distance Route Kilometres: Nearly 16,000 (includes intercity and cross border fibre routes currently being constructed by MetroNet). Frame Relay Switches: More than 70. ATM Switches: More than 400. About AT&T Canada Corp.: AT&T Canada Corp., a pioneer in competitive long distance, is a national, facilities-based telecommunications carrier serving business and residential customers with a variety of long-distance voice and data services. AT&T Canada delivers service from 147 offices across the country, including 40 sales offices. ACC TelEnterprises, a member of the AT&T Canada family, is one of Canada's largest resellers of telecommunications services, including long distance, Internet, paging, toll free, local line and data services, and is a particularly strong competitor in the university, affinity and small business markets. More information about AT&T Canada can be found on the company's web site at: www.attcanada.com. About MetroNet Communications: Built for Business(TM), MetroNet Communications is Canada's first national provider of local telecommunications services and the country's largest competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC). Deploying the most advanced fibre-optic networking and switching platforms, MetroNet offers business and government customers across the country a full suite of local and long distance voice, data and Internet services - with one point of contact, excellent customer service and competitive pricing. MetroNet is a public company with its common stock traded on the Toronto and Montreal stock exchanges under the symbol MNC.B and on the NASDAQ National Market System under the symbol METNF. Visit MetroNet's web site, www.metronet.ca, for more information about the company. Forward Looking Statements: This press release contains statements about expected future events and financial results that are forward-looking in nature and subject to risks and uncertainties, including satisfaction of the conditions to the transaction and the successful integration of MetroNet Communications, AT&T Canada, and ACC TelEnterprises. For those statements, we claim the protection of the safe harbor for forward-looking statements provisions contained in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Discussion of additional factors that may affect future results is contained in MetroNet Communications' recent filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Canadian Securities Commissions. Press Conference Scheduled: MetroNet Communications and AT&T Canada will hold a joint press conference at 11:00 a.m. (Eastern Time) this morning at The News Theatre, 98 The Esplanade, Toronto. Senior management from both companies will discuss the announcement and, following brief statements, will respond to questions. Live coverage of the press conference, followed by B-roll, is available via satellite on Anik E2C/3B, downlink 3280 Mhz (vertical), Channel 6, Audio sub-carriers 6.8 & 6.2. A live audio bridge to the press conference will also be available by calling 1-888-209-3766 (within North America) or 1-212-271-4742 (outside North America). Rebroadcasts of the audio conference will be available at 1p.m. EST by calling 1-800-558-5253, using the passcode 1897892. For technical information: News Theatre 416-361-0070 ext. 237. For further information: on AT&T Canada: Ian Dale, Vice President, Corporate Communications, (416) 204-2773, iandale@att.com, Web Site: http://www.attcanada.com, on MetroNet Communications: Investors and Analysts: Bruce M. Mann, Vice President, Investor Relations, (416) 640-6777, brucemann@metronet.ca, Media: Drew Van Parys, Director, Marketing Communications, (416) 640-9030, drewvanparys@metronet.ca, Web Site: http://www.metronet.ca Release sent courtesy of Canada NewsWire Portfolio Email. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 10:49:15 -0500 From: John R. Covert Subject: German Hotel Phone Rates (Sheraton is Not the Only Offender) Mr. Barry Sternlicht President Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide P.O. Box 141609 Austin, Texas 78714-1609 Dear Mr. Sternlicht: I am writing to you about absurd local telephone charges at the Sheraton Frankfurt (Airport) Hotel. I stayed in this hotel for four nights in December and enjoyed the convenient location but not the fact that making local calls within Frankfurt was more expensive than calling Frankfurt from the United States. Consider the call highlighted in orange on the attached bill. This was a local call, within Frankfurt, to 73998611. It was charged at a rate of DM 13.60 or $8.34 for just 23 1/2 minutes. If I had made that call to Frankfurt from my home telephone in Massachusetts by dialing 1010297, I would have only paid $5.96 including both state and federal tax. In Germany, this local call is what is known as a CityCall, made at the daytime rate of one DM 0.12 unit per 90 seconds. The rate that the hotel had to pay the local phone company for this local call was DM 1.92, or $1.18. The hotel is adding surcharges of 600% to all telephone calls, charging seven times the actual price of a call. For years, travelers in Germany have been used to surcharges of 100% to 300% on calls made from hotels. When the local PTT charged DM 0.23 per unit, it was common for hotels to charge DM 0.50 to DM 0.70 for each unit used from guest rooms. The rates charged by Telekom in Germany have been restructured, and the price per unit is now DM 0.12, but the length of time allowed for each unit is less. The Sheraton in Frankfurt charges DM 0.85 for each DM 0.12 unit. This is ridiculous! Over 600% profit, and with no labor costs! You may verify local (city) German telephone rates at http://www.telekom.de/untern/tarife/inland/city/index.htm Also please consider the call within Germany highlighted in yellow. Again, we have Sheraton's 600% surcharge, making this 8 minute call to a town a few miles outside Frankfurt cost $18.24 instead of the $2.57 which Telekom charged the hotel. An eight minute call to anywhere within Germany using the roaming rates charged by my mobile phone provider costs less, only $12.44 including tax! As you can see, I spent DM 376 ($230) per night for lodging in this hotel. There can be no justification for such egregious gouging in the telephone rates charged. I would suggest that you might have the hotel lower its per unit charge from DM 0.85 to DM 0.35. That would still provide a profit of 192%, which would be much more reasonable than the 608% profit in Sheraton's current rates. On the attached bill there are DM 166.60 ($102.17) in telephone charges, which represent an actual cost to the hotel of DM 23.52 ($14.42). At a 200% profit, Sheraton would have charged me $43.26. The additional charge over and above this "reasonable" 200% profit was $58.91, which I consider outrageous. I expect to stay in the Frankfurt Sheraton two more times this year, and I hope that I will find more reasonable telephone rates on my future visits. Sincerely, John R. Covert ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 01:09:24 -0800 From: Linc Madison Subject: CPUC Staff Recommends OVERLAYS for 415, 510 A story in the Thursday, March 4, issue of the {San Francisco Chronicle} reports that the California Public Utilities Commission staff has issued a formal recommendation that overlays be instituted in the 415 (San Francisco and Marin) and 510 (Oakland, Berkeley, Hayward) area codes. The proposed dates are: NPA "permissive" 1+10D mandatory 1+10D overlay activated 415 01/22/2000 10/14/2000 01/20/2001 510 06/15/1999 04/15/2000 07/15/2000 (I have "permissive" in quotes above, since both NPAs, and the entire state of California, already have permissive 1+10D on all calls, by law.) The numerics, of course, have not yet been officially determined. The CPUC is expected to rule on the recommendations on April 1st. The Chronicle indicates that the Commission is expected to approve the staff recommendation. Interestingly, this was top headline on the Chronicle, but not even mentioned in Thursday evening's Examiner. (It is possible that it was reported in Wednesday's Examiner; I didn't see it.) The Chron and the Examiner are online at Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * Telecom@LincMad.com URL: < http://www.lincmad.com > * North American Area Codes & Splits ------------------------------ Subject: Telephone Companies Vow to Keep Lines Open on Y2K Day Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 22:19:46 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) By Steve Jordon, Omaha World-Herald, Neb. Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News Mar. 3 -- When Jan. 1, 2000, arrives, don't try to call Aunt Minnie in Minnetonka. That day, phone companies expect, will be like the mother of all Mother's Days -- nearly everyone will try to telephone someone to talk about what they're doing as the calendar turns to the next thousand. Some will even pick up the telephone just to see whether it works. "There will potentially be a slow dial tone, but that doesn't mean anything's wrong," said Karla Ewert, a spokeswoman for US West. "It's like everybody trying to get to Lincoln on a football Saturday. It doesn't mean the Interstate's not working. It's just crowded." While a flood of start-of-the-century calls is inevitable, US West and other telephone companies say they are working hard to solve the really big potential question: Will the nation's telephone system work when the date changes from 1999 to 2000? Today, US West and six other big telephone companies will issue a report saying that they believe 2000 will arrive without major disruptions to the nation's telephone system. After six months of testing telephone systems in laboratories, the companies say, they're confident that the calls will go through, no matter what the date. The telephone issue is part of the wider year 2000 problem. Many of the nation's computers and computer software programs run the risk of failing or making mistakes as 2000 rolls around because early computer chips and programs show only the last two digits of the date, such as 99 for 1999, to save memory space. The problem, known as the Y2K bug, could cause some computers to misinterpret years in the next century, since they don't read the first two digits of the date. The seven telephone companies formed the Telco Year 2000 Forum to share information on the problem. Today they will hold a press conference in Washington to let the public know what they are doing to resolve it. The other members of the forum are Ameritech, Bell Atlantic, BellSouth, Cincinnati Bell, GTE and SBC Communications Inc. They represent 90 percent of the telephone lines in the country. From July to December the forum tested 1,914 date- and time-sensitive operations in laboratories, turning up six "Year 2000-related anomalies." The forum said it resolved the six problems, and none of them would have affected the calls being processed. Based on those results, said Gerry Roth, vice chairman of the forum, the companies have achieved the goal of what they call their interoperability testing initiative. The testing took place in 20 laboratories to simulate actual telephone network activity. Gene Chiappetta, chairman of the forum, said the testing confirms that the telephone companies and their suppliers will handle voice and data transmission after Jan. 1 without significant disruptions. William White, executive director of US West's Year 2000 Initiative and a member of the forum, said, "We're in good shape. This testing means that US West customers will have a working dial tone, as usual, when the new millennium arrives." The tests were managed by DMR Consulting Group Inc., an information technology service firm. The tests included emergency services; basic, enhanced and intelligent services; management systems; and data transport systems. The tests looked at dates as they changed from Dec. 31, 1999, to Jan. 1, 2000; from Feb. 28, 2000, to Feb. 29, 2000; and Feb. 29, 2000, to March 1, 2000. ------------------------------ From: Bill Goodin Subject: UCLA Short Course: "Design Patterns, Frameworks, and CORBA" Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 11:10:35 -0800 On June 2-4, 1999, UCLA Extension will present the short course, "Using Design Patterns, Frameworks, and CORBA to Develop Object-Oriented Communication Systems", on the UCLA campus in Los Angeles. The instructor is Douglas C. Schmidt, PhD, Associate Professor, Computer Science Department, Washington University. This course describes OOD/OOP techniques and software that have been successfully used to reduce the complexity of developing large-scale concurrent communication software. These systems include online transaction processing, telecommunication switch management applications, network management for large-scale global personal communication systems, electronic medical imaging systems, and high-performance parallel communication protocol stacks, among others. The course illustrates how to significantly simplify and enhance the development of software that effectively utilizes concurrency and network services via the use of object-oriented design techniques such as design patterns, layered modularity, and information hiding; C++ language features such as abstract classes; inheritance, dynamic binding, and parameterized types; tools such as object-oriented communication frameworks and object request brokers (ORBs); advanced operating system mechanisms such as event de-multiplexing, multi-threading, multi-processing, and explicit dynamic linking; and emerging standards for distributed object computing such as OMG CORBA and Network OLE/COM. The course is intended for software developers who design and implement telecommunication switch management systems, video-on-demand services, network management applications, personal communication systems, client/server management information systems, WWW servers, upper-layer communication protocols, and other similar services. UCLA Extension has presented this highly successful short course since 1997. The fee for the course is $1295, which includes extensive course notes. These course notes 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. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #28 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Mar 5 14:13:44 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id OAA02235; Fri, 5 Mar 1999 14:13:44 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 14:13:44 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199903051913.OAA02235@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #29 TELECOM Digest Fri, 5 Mar 99 14:13:00 EST Volume 19 : Issue 29 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson US West Files Suit Against Firms For Switching Customers' Service (T Cook) Pentium III-only Websites Coming (Monty Solomon) Cracking Tools Get Smarter (Monty Solomon) Book Review: "The Race for Bandwidth", Cary Lu (Rob Slade) Wireless Glossary & New Publication (Aran Crowe) History Wanted on 999 System (L69999@aol.com) What is the Hard Drive Space of Vox and Wave Files? (Terry Watkins) Re: Chip IP Number Continues to Plague Intel (Garrett Wollman) Re: Chip ID Number Continues to Plague Intel (John Nagle) Re: FCC Ruling on Access Charges to ISPs (Eric Florack) Net-Way Phone Number (Marvin E. Kurtti) 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: 415-520-9905 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: US West Files Suit against Firms for Switching Customers' Service Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 16:21:21 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) By Mike McPhee, The Denver Post Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News Mar. 3--US West Inc. has sued five companies it claims have masqueraded as US West in an attempt to get customers to change their long-distance providers. In some cases, the lawsuits charge, the companies switch the customers' carriers without their permission. The lawsuits, filed in U.S. District Court in Denver, claim that the customers thought they were signing up for a simplified billing program and ended up having their phone service illegally switched, a process known in the industry as "slamming." Salesmen for the companies offer to combine the customers' local and long-distance phone bills, according to the lawsuit. They tell customers that new government rules require separate bills for local and long-distance calls unless the customers sign up for combined bills. But there are no such rules. "Twentieth-century snake-oil salesmen is what they are," said US West spokesman Jerry Brown on Tuesday. "We've really seen a proliferation of that kind of company. And the way to stop them is to go after them." US West has asked for a court injunction to stop immediately the practice. It also wants the five companies to be forced to pay damages and to reimburse the customers for long-distance charges. The companies are Inmark Inc., doing business as Preferred Billing Inc. of St. Paul, Minn.; Least Cost Routing Inc., doing business as Long Distance Charges Inc. of Santa Ana, Calif.; Business Discount Plan Inc. of Long Beach, Calif.; Vista Group International Inc., doing business as Vista Communications of Westlake, Ohio; and Long Distance Consolidated Billing Co. of Franklin, Mich. Long Distance Charges' telephone has been disconnected. The other four companies could not be reached for comment. US West estimates nearly 750,000 customers have been switched illegally in the past two years. US West has filed similar lawsuits against long-distance service resellers in Washington and Wyoming. A federal judge in Spokane, Wash., recently issued an injunction to prevent One Step Billing Inc. of Boca Raton, Fla., from using US West trademarks in solicitation. Several customers have joined US West in the lawsuits, including some residential communities in Arizona and Colorado, Machining Data Technologies Inc. of Montana, and Feldberg Designs Corp. of Bellingham, Wash. "I'd like to see them out of business and no more companies like that in business," said Dana Brown, who manages the 350-unit Thunderbird Retirement Resort in Glendale, Ariz. He alleged a Business Discount Plan representative switched the resort's long-distance company without permission after speaking with a teenage receptionist on a busy afternoon. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 11:57:58 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Pentium III-only Websites Coming http://www.mactimes.com/bin/news/index.pl?read=1188 By Charles W. Moore 4 March 1999, at 8:55 a.m. Here's an ominous note from the land of Oz. David Flynn of IT Fairfax reports that Intel is working with several Australian firms to establish Web sites that are not only optimised for PCs based on the Pentium III processor but, get this: *restricted to Pentium III machines.* http://www.it.fairfax.com.au/990302/hardware/hardware3.html In the future, these Web sites will probe the computer trying to access the site and use the chip's Processor Serial Number (PSN) to determine if it is a Pentium III. However, at the outset exclusivity will be maintained by the Websites "interrogating the processor" to obtain a CPU ID which identifies the chip as a Pentium II or a Pentium III (or a Mac). Ostensibly the objective is to privide Pentium III users with special pages where content such as streaming media, 3D interfaces and animation have been peak-tuned to suit Intel's latest processor, and showcasing the Pentium III and its 70 new instructions. However, some perceive more sinister undertones, such as locking out the competition, which not only includes Macs, but also upstart PC chips like those made by AMD, which has been hurting Intel sales badly of late. "The basic premise is that if you have a Pentium III-based PC your Internet experience will be greatly enhanced," Angelo Lo Certo, Intel's advertising and Internet marketing manager for Asia Pacific told Flynn. Right, and the corollary is that if you don't have a Pentium III your Internet experience will be diminished by design. At this point I want to put on my commentator's hat. Folks, this is a bad, bad, BAD idea. It's the thin edge of the wedge, but we could end up seeing the Internet carved up into proprietary ghettos designed to serve selfish corporate commercial interests -- the road to the sort of Big-Brotherdom that the anti-trust lawyers have accused Microsoft of. Indeed M$ has dabbled in the idea of promoting Websites that can only be accessed properly with Internet Explorer. You would think that Intel, which reportedly is the next partner on the DOJ's anti-trust dance card, would be a bit more circumspect with this sort of thinly-disguised chicanery. Perhaps that's the reason they're trying it out in Australia first. Flynn says that Australia is one of several countries where Pentium III only sites will debut around March. The PR spin Intel is putting on this scheme is that it is not designed to persuade buyers to choose a machine with the Pentium III inside, but rather as an after-sales perk to reward those who do. Grasp the distinction? Intel have a comments form on their Website. Why not let them know what you think of this initiative, politely of course? http://www.intel.com/feedback.htm Let your voices be heard! Email us with your opinion at feedback@mactimes.com. ------------------- [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Oh gosh, those Intel people and their Australian associates must really think they are something special. Web sites from which most of us will be excluded, eh? Well this is not 1994 when there were a grand total of a couple hundred websites around the world and everyone clamoring to check them all out, etc. Now there are umpty-billion of them, and I get several pieces of spam mail daily urging me to check out the newest web sites, enroll for membership, etc. How many are out there giving free email accounts, twenty or fifty megs of storage to do your own thing, and all the free web page construction tools one could ever want? Naturally since all of you readers are like myself and have 24 hours per day seven days per week to sit in front of your computer checking out every new page that comes along and gathering up email from all your web- based email accounts and downloading humongous amounts of free soft- ware for every concievable purpose you'll have a lot of left over time to get on your hands and knees and beg those Australians to let you please look at their web pages and participate in the thrill of getting your downloads a couple seconds faster than everyone else. My goodness ... aren't we way past the days of 'you cannot come to my web page, as I look down my nose, your system is not good enough ...' It is getting to be uncommon even to see messages on web pages saying 'this page looks best when viewed with ' ... although it happens. Even though in general I disapprove of the rampant commercial- ization of the net over the past few years, I can understand and will accept a site which is used soley to promote the commercial interests of its owners, but you invite everyone in to look, you do not tell them to keep out. Well, if/when they get their site(s) up and running, why don't we all put up links to them coming from everywhere; that would drive them crazy, constantly having to chase people away wouldn't it? .. and label all of our links, "Hot Stuff! Must Check it out Now!" PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 23:44:47 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Cracking Tools Get Smarter http://www.wired.com/news/news/technology/story/18219.html Cracking Tools Get Smarter by Chris Oakes 3:00 a.m. 3.Mar.99.PST The cracker's screwdriver has become more of a Swiss Army knife, his F-16 more of a stealth bomber. With awe and alarm, security analysts have observed the capabilities of Nmap, a network-scanning program that crackers are now using to plot increasingly cunning attacks. "Just before Christmas, we detected a new [network] scanning pattern we'd never seen before," said John Green, a security expert on the "Shadow" intrusion-detection team at the US Navy's Naval Surface Warfare Center. "Other sites have seen the same activity. The problem was, no one knew what was causing it." Green made the remarks Tuesday in an online briefing hosted by the SANS Institute, a nonprofit network-security research and education organization. The group held the briefing to alert network administrators of the alarming increase in the strategies of network attacks. The culprit software prowling outside the doors of networks participating in the study is Nmap, an existing software utility used by administrators to analyze networks. In the hands of intruders, security analysts discovered, Nmap is a potent tool for sniffing out holes and network services that are ripe for attack. The analysts didn't look for actual damage that was carried out. Instead, they silently watched as various networks were scanned by untraceable Nmap users. "The intelligence that can be garnered using Nmap is extensive," Green said. "Everything that the wily hacker needs to know about your system is there." Rather than feel in the dark to penetrate network "ports" at random, Nmap allows intruders to perform much more precise assaults. The implications are a bit unnerving for the network community. The tool makes planning network intrusions more effective, while simultaneously bringing this sophistication to a wider audience of crackers. "It takes a lot of the brute force out of hacking," said Green. "It allows [intruders] to map hosts and target systems that might be vulnerable." And that should result in a higher success rate for attempted intrusions. "I think we're going to see more coordinated attacks. You can slowly map an entire network, while not setting off your detection system," said software developer H. D. Moore, who debriefed network analysts at the conference. But Moore is part of the solution. He authored Nlog, software that automatically logs activity at a network's ports and parlays it to a database. Weekly checks of the database enable the user to tell if someone is performing an Nmap analysis. Nlog serves as a companion tool to Nmap. Just like intruders, administrators can use Nmap to detect their own network weaknesses, then plug the holes. Prevention is the only defense, Green and Moore said. There is no other known way to combat an Nmap-planned network attack. "Right now it's basically a suffer-along scenario," Green said. But, at least, Nmap lets administrators "know what the hackers know about you." Copyright 1994-99 Wired Digital Inc. All rights reserved. ------------------------------ From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 10:12:58 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "The Race for Bandwidth", Cary Lu Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKRFBUDT.RVW 990131 "The Race for Bandwidth", Cary Lu, 1998, 1-57231-513-X, U$19.99/C$26.99/UK#18.49 %A Cary Lu %C 1 Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA 98052-6399 %D 1998 %G 1-57231-513-X %I Microsoft Press %O U$19.99/C$26.99/UK#18.49 800-MSPRESS (6777377) fax: 206-936-7329 %P 199 p. %T "The Race for Bandwidth: Understanding Data Transmission" There is no statement of purpose or audience for this book, which makes a critique of it somewhat difficult. Chapter one provides a somewhat-simpler-than-layman's level explanation of bandwidth as a measure of information transmission. There is a scanty overview of the range of bandwidth requirements for different technologies, with a few mistakes (one comparison is off by a factor of fifty). However, there is also some social analysis of what the increase in bandwidth availability means, that may be missing from some purely technical discussions of the topic. The history of communications given in chapter two is simple, though probably interesting to the neophyte. There are still a number of minor errors, such as the dates of the first inception of the Internet, and the first fax transmission, that make other details sometimes suspect. Various ways of looking at bandwidth, and the tradeoffs to be made (with an interesting variation on "never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of mag tapes") comprise chapter three. There is also a good discussion of analogue and digital information. This is extended in chapter four with some comparisons of analogue bandwidths for various media, although it is unfortunate that the comparisons are not fully carried over into the digital realm. This is the more untoward since chapters five and six move into specifics of the audio and video standards for North America and Europe, and quickly become more technical than the prior background really supports. (It is also unclear what the point of these two chapter is.) The same holds true for chapter seven, which looks at the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN), cellular, and modem technologies, as opposed to the broadcast concentrations in five and six. Chapter eight reviews a number of very important aspects of packet data networks such as the Internet, although, again, some of the significance of the discussion will be lost on some readers because of sections missing from the background information. An afterword closes out the book by noting that we will continue to want more bandwidth, more will become available, and that not every piece of information that we want is or will be available for transmission or access. Clearly, this book is not suitable for professionals. Too much is missing for those who really have to make informed decisions. For the amateur, wanting to start to get a handle on communications technology, the book holds much greater promise. It does not get bogged down in technical details, and it does stop to look at social and political issues along the way. While not always completely reliable in its presentation of the technology, it is certainly readable and entertaining. For those wanting to get a "feel," rather than a working knowledge, this is worth consideration. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1999 BKRFBUDT.RVW 990131 rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@sprint.ca robertslade@usa.net p1@canada.com Find virus, book info http://victoria.tc.ca/techrev/rms.htm Mirrored at http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~rslade/rms.htm Linked to bookstore at http://www97.pair.com/robslade/ Comp Sec Weekly: http://www.suite101.com/welcome.cfm/computer_security Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses, 0-387-94663-2 (800-SPRINGER) ------------------------------ Subject: Wireless Glossary and New Publication From: mrman2636@yahoo.com (Aran Crowe) Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 13:44:24 -0700 An online wireless telecommunications glossary is now available at: http://www.cnp-wireless.com/glossary.html For those with a sense of humour, there is a list of tongue-in-cheek expansions of common acronyms at: http://www.cnp-wireless.com/acronyms.html Information on a new technical bulletin on Wireless Security, with a heavy emphasis on standards is available at: http://www.cnp-wireless.com/djws.html David Crowe Editor Cellular Networking Perspectives and Dr. Jon's Wireless Security ------------------------------ From: L69999@aol.com Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 17:18:15 EST Subject: History Wanted on 999 System Hi everyone, A friend of mine is doing a project on the emergency services, and she is looking for the history of the 999 system. Can you kind folk help in anyway, please. Many Thanks, Lee [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: For those not familiar with it, '999' is the equivilent in the UK (and other European countries?) to '911' in the United States. I do not know if anyone has done a comprehensive history write up on either. Answers from anyone? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Terry Watkins Subject: What is the Hard Drive Space of Vox and Wave Files? Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 22:37:57 -0600 Organization: Posted via RemarQ, http://www.remarQ.com - Discussions here! What is the hard drive space requirements of wav and vox files? Say per minute? Thanks. Please email to: terry@av1611.org ------------------------------ From: wollman@lcs.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman) Subject: Re: Chip IP Number Continues to Plague Intel Date: 5 Mar 1999 03:36:58 GMT Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science In article , Derek Balling wrote: > You buy something online. They require you to have a PSN enabled. This scenario is totally ludicrous from the start. I buy something online. In order to complete the transaction, I am expected to run a program which will identify my CPU, and paste it into a Web form? Given how much Internet commerce depends on drooling lusers, how many people would be likely to comply? Those who are concerned about their on-line privacy already employ countermeasures. Anyone who is watching my Web browsing will learn absolutely nothing about me, other than the fact that I use a Squid object cache (and I'd like to find a way to turn that off). For all those idiots who play games on their Web sites looking at the User-Agent request header, they'll be mighty confused to discover that it claims to be ``ANONYM/1.0 (ITS; KL-10)''. Since my cache is used by many members of this Lab, not even its IP address will tell a server anything. (Of course, cookies and other nonsense are deleted automagically. If Microsoft adds a new request header to Internet Exploder, `X-Intel-Processor-Serial-Number', my cache will automatically delete it.) > Always remember -- applications talk to the hardware via the kernel. If > the kernel tells you the PSN is 696969696969-0042, then you're going to > dutifuly report it as such. :) Unlikely, since CPUID (which is the instruction I assume Intel used for this purpose) is not a privileged instruction. On the whole, this is probably a good idea. I might prefer something a bit more random than a serial number (a 128-bit random string would be nice), but I expect it to have no practical impact on anyone, including software pirates. (The pirates just copy the CD-ROM installation media, which is not CPU-specific!) Garrett A. Wollman | O Siem / We are all family / O Siem / We're all the same wollman@lcs.mit.edu | O Siem / The fires of freedom Opinions not those of| Dance in the burning flame MIT, LCS, CRS, or NSA| - Susan Aglukark and Chad Irschick ------------------------------ From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) Subject: Re: Chip ID Number Continues to Plague Intel Organization: ICGNetcom Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 19:13:31 GMT Billy Harvey writes: > Thomas A. Horsley writes: >> You know, it seems to me ethernet boards have had unique IDs for years >> and years and years, but no privacy groups ever hollered about that. >> I think the mistake Intel made was the spin they put on the initial >> descriptions of the silly ID number -- as a way to track e-commerce >> activity (a thing most individual consumers don't care about other >> than the negative big-brother aspects). True. Apple is about to get hit on this. It turns out that Apple has apparently been recording iMac serial numbers on an unused sector of the hard drive. Look over in "comp.sys.mac.programming" for details. It's worse than the Intel problem; Apple puts the same serial number barcoded on the carton and on the hard drive, so the serial number that identifies the machine when sold is the same one it has stored internally. Now that's consumer control. John Nagle ------------------------------ From: Eric Florack Organization: Free File Farm BBS Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 18:24:31 -0500 Subject: Re: FCC Ruling on Access Charges to ISPs Greetings to all; first response in around a year; Jay R. Ashworth says in issue #26: > Monty quotes the NY Times: >> WASHINGTON -- A computer user's dial-up calls to the Internet are >> interstate communications subject to federal jurisidiction, federal >> regulators concluded on Thursday. >> Until now, Internet dial-ups have been treated as local calls. > Alas, the Times has gotten it wrong, courtesy of the AP. Well, ok, they > didn't quite "get it wrong", but the copy is misleading, for the purpose > everyone wants to use it for. > For the past decade or more now, there has been a perceived running > threat that the FCC would decide that people who operate big > incoming-only modem pools (you know: BBSs and ISPs) should be treated > like long distance companies, and required to pay per-minute fees to > Local Exchange Carriers. The opposite stance, of course, has been: > "we're customers, and we follow the letter of the regulations; why > should we be classified any differently than any other big company with > lots of phone lines?" > The issue, of course, is that if ISPs start being charged by the minute > for their incoming calls, flat rate Internet access is dead. That is, perhaps, the first issue that one thinks of. But the larger issue here seems to me the extension of unelected federal bureucratic power, or at least the maintainence of it. Consider the amount of communications activity that without this 'ruling' would fall outside the power of our all-knowing, all powerful federal government. I submit that given the consequences for ruling the other direction; In effect that the ISP is not an IXC, the Federal government would lose all that power, the idea that flat-rate internet is gone, and the telcos make money hand over fist is a nice little secondary issue. (A happy one for the fed, since theywill also be pulling in a fair amount of increased taxes in the deal.) > The comment I'd recommend is: "the universe in question is _voice > telephone calls_, cause that's what the regs talk about. The fact that > there's a modem on the voice line is immaterial to the way the regs are > written, and pursuant to the regs, the call is inTRAstate. End of > story." The argument they'll return with is; how much in the way of voice traffic is already on the net? Of course what they fail to see is what drove the voice traffic on the net in the firstplace; the tax structure, and the government controls on things which forced us to pay more in the first place. Doesn't it strike anyone as odd that each time the technology comes along to free us from government regulation, the government always seems to find a way to step in and wrest control of it from us again? ____________________________ ___________________________________ /Eric Florack, SysOp of the /\ / eflorack@servtech.com Or: /\ / FREE FILE FARM BBS / /\ / bignasty@billsfan.net / /\ /716-352-6544 or 352-1629 / \/ / http://www.servtech.com/~eflorack/ \/ /GT Net 041/003 and 041/007 /\ / DEMOCRATS LIE. Any Questions? /\ /___________________________/ / /_________________________________/ / \___________________________\/ \_________________________________\/ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ------------------------------ From: mkurtti@hiwaay.net (Marvin E. Kurtti) Subject: Net-Way Phone Number Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 08:17:26 -0600 Organization: mk Computers This morning on CNN I saw an ad from a stock broker that showed their phone number as 800.555.1234. Marv [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am not certain what you mean by your term 'net-way' ... but I can tell you I do not think I would care to have such a phone number, at least not with charges being paid for with my money. There are too many people getting '1212' confused with '1234' when they dial toll-free directory assistance, and there are many people who would use an example such as his number when they write out a presumably 'ficticious' number for illustration purposes. I wonder if anyone anywhere has ever been assigned '310-555-2368', the number which for many years appeared in the front pages of phone directories as an example of long distance direct dialing? PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #29 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Mar 5 17:04:23 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id RAA11578; Fri, 5 Mar 1999 17:04:23 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 17:04:23 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199903052204.RAA11578@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #30 TELECOM Digest Fri, 5 Mar 99 17:04:00 EST Volume 19 : Issue 30 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson A Growing Compatibility Issue: Computers and Privacy (Monty Solomon) Spotlight Put on Unix Design Flaw (Monty Solomon) Re: Chip ID Number Continues to Plague Intel (John R. Levine) Re: Chip ID Number Continues to Plague Intel (Ryan Tucker) Re: E911 Illinois Requirements (David W. Pfister) Re: E911 Illinois Requirements (Tony Zafiropoulos) Re: German Hotel Phone Rates (Sheraton Not Only Offender) (Allan Kerman) Re: Last Laugh! Russians Bomb Sanford's Company (Clifton T. Sharp Jr.) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * 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: 415-520-9905 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: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 12:30:37 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: A Growing Compatibility Issue: Computers and Privacy http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/03/biztech/articles/03privacy.html March 3, 1999 A Growing Compatibility Issue in the Digital Age: Computers and Their Users' Privacy By JOHN MARKOFF SAN FRANCISCO -- The Intel Corporation recently blinked in a confrontation with privacy advocates protesting the company's plans to ship its newest generation of microprocessors with an embedded serial number that could be used to identify a computer -- and by extension, its user. But those on each side of the dispute acknowledge that it was only an initial skirmish in a wider struggle. From computers to cellular phones to digital video players, everyday devices and software programs increasingly embed telltale identifying numbers that let them interact. Whether such digital fingerprints constitute an imminent privacy threat or are simply part of the foundation of advanced computer systems and networks is the subject of a growing debate between the computer industry and privacy groups. At its heart is a fundamental disagreement over the role of electronic anonymity in a democratic society. Privacy groups argue fiercely that the merger of computers and the Internet has brought the specter of a new surveillance society in which it will be difficult to find any device that cannot be traced to the user when it is used. But a growing alliance of computer industry executives, engineers, law enforcement officials and scholars contend that absolute anonymity is not only increasingly difficult to obtain technically, but is also a potential threat to democratic order because of the possibility of electronic crime and terrorism. "You already have zero privacy -- get over it," Scott McNealy, chairman and chief executive of Sun Microsystems, said at a recent news conference held to introduce the company's newest software, known as Jini, intended to interconnect virtually all types of electronic devices from computers to cameras. Privacy advocates contend that software like Jini, which assigns an identification number to each device each time it connects to a network, could be misused as networks envelop almost everyone in society in a dense web of devices that see, hear, and monitor behavior and location. "Once information becomes available for one purpose there is always pressure from other organizations to use it for their purposes," said Lauren Weinstein, editor of Privacy Forum, an online journal. This week, a programmer in Massachusetts found that identifying numbers can easily be found in word processing and spreadsheet files created with Microsoft's popular Word and Excel programs and in the Windows 95 and 98 operating systems. Moreover, unlike the Intel serial number, which the computer user can conceal, the numbers used by the Microsoft programs -- found in millions of personal computers -- cannot be controlled by the user. The programmer, Richard M. Smith, president of Phar Lap Software, a developer of computer programming tools in Cambridge, Mass., noticed that the Windows operating system contains a unique registration number stored on each personal computer in a small data base known as the Windows registry. His curiosity aroused, Smith investigated further and found that the number that uniquely identifies his computer to the network used in most office computing systems, known as the Ethernet, was routinely copied to each Microsoft Word or Excel document he created. The number is used to create a longer number, known as a globally unique identifier. It is there, he said, to enable computer users to create sophisticated documents comprising word processing, spreadsheet, presentation and data base information. Each of those components in a document needs a separate identity, and computer designers have found the Ethernet number a convenient and widely available identifier, he said. But such universal identifiers are of particular concern to privacy advocates because they could be used to compile information on individuals from many data bases. "The infrastructure relies a lot on serial numbers," Smith said. "We've let the genie out of the bottle." Jeff Ressler, a Microsoft product manager, said that if a computer did not have an Ethernet adaptor then another identifying number was generated that was likely to be unique. "We need a big number which is a unique identifier," he said. "If we didn't have, it would be impossible to make our software programs work together across networks." Indeed, an increasing range of technologies have provisions for identifying their users for either technical reasons (such as connecting to a network) or commercial ones (such as determining which ads to show to Web surfers). But engineers and network designers argue that identity information is a vital aspect of modern security design because it is necessary to authenticate an individual in a network, thereby preventing fraud or intrusion. Last month at the introduction of Intel's powerful Pentium III chip, Intel executives showed more than a dozen data security uses for the serial number contained electronically in each of the chips, ranging from limiting access to protecting documents or software against piracy. Intel, the largest chip maker, had recently backed down somewhat after it was challenged by privacy advocates over the identity feature, agreeing that at least some processors for the consumer market would be made in a way that requires the user to activate the feature. Far from scaling back its vision, however, Intel said it was planning an even wider range of features in its chips to help companies protect copyrighted materials. It also pointed to software applications that would use the embedded number to identify participants in electronic chat rooms on the Internet and thereby, for example, protect children from Internet stalkers. The trade-off: Advanced systems require a profusion of ID numbers. But in achieving those goals, it would also create a universal identifier, which could be used by software applications to track computer users wherever they surfed on the World Wide Web. And that, despite the chip maker's assertions that it is working to enhance security and privacy, has led some privacy advocates to taunt Intel and accuse it of a "Big Brother Inside" strategy. They contend that by uniquely identifying each computer it will make it possible for marketers or Government and law enforcement officials to track the activities of anyone connected to a computer network more closely. They also say that such a permanent identifier could be used in a similar fashion to the data, known as "cookies," that are placed on a computer's hard drive by Web sites to track the comings and goings of Internet users. Putting Privacy on the Defensive. Intel's decision to forge ahead with identity features in its chip technology may signal a turning point in the battle over privacy in the electronic age. Until now, privacy concerns have generally put industry executives on the defensive. Now questions are being raised about whether there should be limits to privacy in an Internet era. "Judge Brandeis's definition of privacy was 'the right to be left alone,' not the right to operate in absolute secrecy," said Paul Saffo, a researcher at the Institute for the Future in Menlo Park, Calif. Some Silicon Valley engineers and executives say that the Intel critics are being naive and have failed to understand that all devices connected to computer networks require identification features simply to function correctly. Moreover, they note that identifying numbers have for more than two decades been a requirement for any computer connected to an Ethernet network. (Although still found most widely in office settings, Ethernet connections are increasingly being used for high-speed Internet service in the home via digital telephone lines and cable modems.) All of Apple Computer's popular iMac machines come with an Ethernet connection that has a unique permanent number installed in the factory. The number is used to identify the computer to the local network. While the Ethernet number is not broadcast over the Internet at large, it could easily be discovered by a software application like a Web browser and transmitted to a remote Web site tracking the identities of its users, a number of computer engineers said. Moreover, they say that other kinds of networks require identity numbers to protect against fraud. Each cellular telephone currently has two numbers: the telephone number, which can easily be changed, and an electronic serial number, which is permanently put in place at the factory to protect against theft or fraud. The serial number is accessible to the cellular telephone network, and as cellular telephones add Internet browsing and E-mail capabilities, it will potentially have the same identity capability as the Intel processor serial number. Other examples include DIVX DVD disks, which come with a serial number that permits tracking the use of each movie by a centralized network-recording system managed by the companies that sell the disks. Fearing the Misuse of All Those Numbers ... Industry executives say that as the line between communications and computing becomes increasingly blurred, every electronic device will require some kind of identification to attach to the network. Making those numbers available to networks that need to pass information or to find a mobile user while at the same time denying the information to those who wish to gather information into vast data bases may be an impossible task. Privacy advocates argue that even if isolated numbers look harmless, they are actually harbingers of a trend toward ever more invasive surveillance networks. "Whatever we can do to actually minimize the collection of personal data is good," said Marc Rotenberg, director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, one of three groups trying to organize a boycott of Intel's chips. The groups are concerned that the Government will require ever more invasive hardware modifications to keep track of individuals. Already they point to the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, which requires that telephone companies modify their network switches to make it easier for Government wiretappers. Also, the Federal Communications Commission is developing regulations that will require every cellular telephone to be able to report its precise location for "911" emergency calls. Privacy groups are worried that this feature will be used as a tracking technology by law enforcement officials. "The ultimate danger is that the Government will mandate that each chip have special logic added" to track identities in cyberspace, said Vernor Vinge, a computer scientist at San Diego State University. "We're on a slide in that direction." Vinge is the author of "True Names" (Tor Books, 1984), a widely cited science fiction novel in the early 1980's, that forecast a world in which anonymity in computer networks is illegal. Intel executives insist that their chip is being misconstrued by privacy groups. "We're going to start building security architecture into our chips, and this is the first step," said Pat Gelsinger, Intel vice president and general manager of desktop products. "The discouraging part of this is our objective is to accomplish privacy." That quandary -- that it is almost impossible to compartmentalize information for one purpose so that it cannot be misused -- lies at the heart of the argument. Moreover, providing security while at the same time offering anonymity has long been a technical and a political challenge. "We need to find ways to distinguish between security and identity," said James X. Dempsey, a privacy expert at the Center for Democracy and Technology, a Washington lobbying organization. So far the prospects are not encouraging. One technical solution developed by a cryptographer, David Chaum, made it possible for individuals to make electronic cash payments anonymously in a network. In the system Chaum designed, a user employs a different number with each organization, thereby insuring that there is no universal tracking capability. But while Chaum's solution has been widely considered ingenious, it has failed in the marketplace. Last year, his company, Digicash Inc., based in Palo Alto, Calif., filed for bankruptcy protection. "Privacy never seems to sell," said Bruce Schneier, a cryptographer and a computer industry consultant. "Those who are interested in privacy don't want to pay for it." Copyright 1999 The New York Times Company ----------------------- [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Wouldn't it be rather interesting if someone developed a cross reference database -- open for public use -- of all those Intel serial numbers as they came into wide use. Any time a web site grabbed the number and associated it with some transaction or another, that latest transaction would be appended to the master database of all serial numbers/transactions. So then if you or I found someone's serial number we could go to this site where all the data was stored. Imagine: serial number 123456ABCDE98765FF ... and discover the person's name and address (from some site where he had purchased something by mail order); his sexual orientation based on web sites he frequented regularly; that he was employed in a sensitive position somewhere; the variety of data put in the file would be endless. It would be totally automated; as a website retrieved the data from a caller's computer it would just send it off at the same time to the database with the date, the name of the site visited, the nature or purpose of the site, etc. The master database would just locate that file and append the latest bit of information to the bottom of what was there already. Maintained by Big Brother, Inc (I wonder if anyone has ever copyrighted that phrase or incorporated under that name?) the database would be widely advertised and open free of charge to the public. Maintained with a grant from the Big Brother Foundation, its purpose would be to help everyone become a Big Brother to others on the net, and to help end once and for all the foolish notion that there is such a thing as individual privacy on the net. Each visitor to www.bigbrother.com would be handed a template to fill out on the serial number they were seeking information about, or to give a description of the kind of serial numbers they were seeking. Basically just a search engine, visitors would be encouraged to use bigbrother.com as their 'start page' and/or to add a little button on their site which would link to them. And not to worry that a visit to bigbrother.com would start a new, previously non-existent file on the visitor ... Big Brother never contributes to its own database; no one will ever know you were here to inquire about others unless of course *you* yourself happen to visit one of our cooperating web sites (only we know who those are) where a Big Brother trapdoor is waiting for you to fall through it. If you wish to be unlisted or removed from the database we can do that also; just $1.25 per month, the same price as telco charges for an unlisted number, and we give you the same administrative reasons for the monthly charge as telco would give you. Imagine, that's just fifteen dollars per year or a few cents per day to keep your daily visit to that naughty chat room or website from becoming public knowledge and if you request this non-pub feature of bigbrother.com now, we will give you the first two months of being unlisted for free, a $2.50 value. You no longer have to remember to carefully erase that \windows\temporary internet files directory each day and rid it of cookies; now your employer can simply log in to www.bigbrother.com and get the same information. And for those sites which do not cooperate with Big Brother in providing information about you, that's okay; when you visit a site which does cooperate, we will snatch your whole directory full of cookies anyway, and review them at our leisure before putting them in the database. Has anyone seriously considered starting a database like this, grabbing all the cookie files, etc they can find everywhere and putting them out for the public to view with ease? It certainly would change the looks of things around here wouldn't it. The net would become, as William Burroughs would have phrased it, a Naked Lunch, with everyone seeing what was on everyone else's plate. Do the old time readers here remember several years ago when I started 'Digital Detective' as an example of how it would work? I flushed Digital Detective down the toilet soon after I started it; I really did not have the stomach for it. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 02:54:41 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Spotlight Put on Unix Design Flaw http://www.zdnet.com/pcweek/stories/news/0,4153,1014039,00.html By Randy Barrett A newly discovered Unix design flaw threatens thousands of computers that operate on the Internet. The vulnerability opens Unix-based servers to a new kind of denial-of-service attack that overloads the servers' ability to answer incoming queries, according to security expert and Internet service provider Simson Garfinkel. Garfinkel's ISP, Vineyard.Net, experienced such an attack in early 1998, but Garfinkel soon realized the situation was an accident caused by a subscriber's faulty software. "The buggy software would finger our computer every minute, but it never hung up," Garfinkel said. By not terminating the connection, the program quickly loaded up his Unix server's process tables and brought the ISP to a standstill for 2 hours. "We didn't go looking for this. It hit us. It's not theoretical," Garfinkel said. The attack entails sending repeated open-connection requests to a Unix server. Subprograms -- like Internet Daemon, Secure Shell Daemon and Internet Message Access Protocol Daemon -- are written to automatically answer the connection and carry out requests. But if the connection is initiated with no request, most Daemons keep the line open, using resources from the server's process table, which can handle between 600 and 1,500 simultaneous tasks. Repeated connections eventually overload the process table and crash the server. Garfinkel publicly outlined the vulnerability -- which affects nearly all Unix-based platforms, including Irix, Linux and Solaris -- on a security newsgroup Feb. 19. This was after his repeated attempts to notify programmers at Berkeley Software Design Inc., Hewlett-Packard, Silicon Graphics Inc. and Sun Microsystems of the problem last year. None of the vendors gave it any notice, Garfinkel said. "It wasn't new enough to immediately gain attention. It's a design flaw, not a bug," said Gene Spafford, professor of computer science at Purdue University. Sabotage can come from outside Process table attacks are old news to Unix programmers, but Garfinkel discovered that the assault can come from the outside. Previously, developers only thought such sabotage could come from someone with internal access. AT&T Fellow Steven Bellovin said the vulnerability is real. "If I were running a popular server, I would at least try to add some resource limitation." Garfinkel said the servers most open to attack are those used for electronic mail, file serving and Web hosting. Protecting against it is relatively easy: Daemon programs can be rewritten to limit incoming connections or drop them after 30 seconds. "They need to have a governor installed," Garfinkel said. BSDI Director of Product Marketing Douglas Urner said the process table threat is hardly catastrophic. "In theory, there is a vulnerability here, which is like saying the gas in your car might explode." BSDI software safe Urner said the flaw probably wouldn't affect most BSDI software, because of existing safeguards. Silicon Graphics Inc. Principal Engineer Bill Earl said the threat exists but isn't a big deal, because the Daemons can be easily configured to limit incoming connections. Red Hat Software spokeswoman Melissa London wasn't familiar with the process table problem, but she said holes in Linux usually are solved quickly on public open source bulletin boards. "If there is any breach, we'll work to fix it," she said. A perceived lack of responsible vendor action to patch the problem is partly what spurred Garfinkel to make the attack known. "They don't do anything unless its publicly exposed," he said. "I can shut down any one of their servers on the Net." Hard to stay hidden But if he did, Garfinkel wouldn't be able to easily cloak his identity. Because the onslaught can take up to 10 hours to complete, Unix experts and vendors agree that maintaining stealth is nearly impossible. "It's an attack you're unlikely to see people get away with," Urner said. That fact doesn't assuage the fears of many Unix experts who take the vulnerability seriously as yet another sign that the Internet isn't robust enough to handle 21st century threats. "The real deeper problem is that the whole infrastructure is pretty rotten," said Peter Neumann, principal scientist at the Computer Science Lab at SRI International. --------------------- [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Oh gosh, is that the problem, that the whole infrastructure was built at a time when no one in their wildest imagination could have looked ahead 20-25 years and forseen the darker elements and uglier sides of the community they were building? Did they 'just assume' everyone ever likely to be part of the community would come from the same social mileau as themselves? I think they must have felt that way, particularly if you go back and review archived messages from the earliest days of Usenet; the way things were said and done, etc. If you think the Intel chip and serial number concept is causing a stink now, ask Peter Neumann or Gene Spafford or Vint Cerf what the reaction to it would have been in 1980-85. The lid would have blown off this place totally. Does anyone remember what one of the big controversies on the net was back in 1987? Should we or should we not allow commercial ISPs to interconnect with the internet at all? The first ISP to connect was a company in California called Portal Communications. Formerly a small, local BBS (bulletin board system), Portal made the big jump that year, and large segments of the net at the time were outraged at this invasion into previously sacred territory by non-university/scholarly people. How horrible it would be that your everyday, working Joe and Jane could just sign up, pay a couple dollars per month and be able to post messages in newsgroups. My god, the death of the net is imminent. Now we look back and say how quaint! Yes Peter, the whole infrastructure is rotten and in drastic need of replacement, just like the underground utility pipes and phone cables in many or most very large cities in the USA. Some of those pipes and wires are a century or more old, with little or no reliable maps as to where they are located underground. We find out about them when they break. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 5 Mar 1999 13:59:55 -0500 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Chip ID Number Continues to Plague Intel Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > You know, it seems to me ethernet boards have had unique IDs for years > and years and years, but no privacy groups ever hollered about that. Quite correct. The difference is that on workstations, which have long used Ethernet IDs as serial numbers, you can control what software is running on your computer. Under Windows, you have a mystery mix of DLLs, OCXs, ActiveX, and who knows what else, installed and downloaded at random times, and it's not unreasonable to assume that some of that software will send your serial number back to headquarters if it's physically possible to do so. 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: rtucker+from+199902@katan.ttgcitn.com (Ryan Tucker) Subject: Re: Chip ID Number Continues to Plague Intel Date: 5 Mar 1999 21:14:08 GMT Organization: TTGCITN Communications, Des Moines IA and Rochester NY Reply-To: rtucker+replyto+199902@katan.ttgcitn.com In , Thomas A. Horsley spewed: > You know, it seems to me ethernet boards have had unique IDs for years > and years and years, but no privacy groups ever hollered about that. The difference is that serial numbers are *required* for Ethernet to operate. Say my machine wants to say "howdy" to another box. It looks up the IP address (10.10.3.21), and then looks into a translation table to see what the ethernet hardware address of it is. Then, it sticks everything into a little ethernet packet and sends it into the ethernet with that destination address. On the other hand, CPU's have no legitimate need for serial numbers. The machine knows where the CPU is at all times (else the machine wouldn't be all that useful, would it?). I really can't think of a use for CPU serial numbers, convenient or technical or otherwise, that doesn't want to make me rename my news server "minitruth". The one use I can think of -- asset control for business machines -- could be served by a special line of CPU's, or just by etching a serial number onto the top of the CPU. BTW ... if this hasn't been mentioned already (not likely, since it's off topic ... well, about as far off as this discussion): http://www.defendyourprivacy.com/. Interesting that the implementation of this is the first of April -- just in time for tax refund season. I can see The Feds investigating sudden large deposits into people's accounts like crazy, and then eventually slipping and busting into the IRS's offices for drug trafficking ;-) -rt Ryan Tucker http://www.ttgcitn.com/~rtucker/ GSM/VM/Fax: +15157712865 Box 57083, Pleasant Hill IA 50317-0002 Need a mailing list hosted? Prices start at $0.00/mo www.ttgcitn.com Please keep public threads public -- e-mail responses will be ignored. ------------------------------ From: David W. Pfister Subject: Re: E911 Illinois Requirements Date: Fri, 05 Mar 1999 02:33:24 GMT Organization: Optimum Online From the ICC site (http://icc.state.il.us/icc/Telecom/911/0219_leg.htm) Senate Bill 930 amends the Emergency Telephone Systems Act [50 ILCS Act 750] Section 15.6. The amendment which extends the compliance date for private business switches from June 30, 1999 to June 30, 2000 has not yet been signed by the Governor. Senate Bill 930 has passed the Legislature and is currently before the Governor, pending signature. Wrong Number wrote in message ... > Help !!! > Just found out about an Ill law, passed in 1994 which gives Business's > untill June 1999 to have exact station location information show up on > 911 calls. ------------------------------ From: Tony Zafiropoulos Subject: Re: E911 Illinois Requirements Date: Fri, 05 Mar 1999 10:47:56 -0600 Allan M. Olbur sent me this info on E911 ... Hope it helps. Regards, Tony Zafiropoulos Ph: (314) 878-9855 14377 Woodlake Dr, Ste 311 Fax: (314) 878-9893 Chesterfield, MO 63017 Pager:(314) 424-2545 http://www.ctitek.com mailto:tonyz@ctitek.com Feel the Power of Computer Telephony ---- forwarded message ---- Y2K pales in comparison to the task of maintaining current electronic records required to pinpoint the origin of an E-911 telephone call ... see attached. Regards, Allan M. Olbur InfraTech Inc. 847-229-0115 www.infratechinc.com Emergency Telephone System Act Amendment State of Illinois House Bill 2515 Sponsor: Representative Winkle State of Illinois Public Act 89-497 Enacted by the General Assembly Of the People of the State of Illinois June 27th, 1996 By the Honorable Senator Stan Weaver (50 ILCS 750/15.6) Sec. 15.6. Private business switch service 9-1-1- service. (a) After June 30, 1996, an entity that installs or operates a new private business switch service or replaces an existing private business switch service and provides telecommunications facilities or services to businesses shall provide to those business end users the same level of 9-1-1 service as the public agency and the telecommunications carrier are providing to other business end users of the local 9-1-1 system. This service shall include, but not be limited to, the capability to identify the telephone number, extension number, and the physical location that is the source of the call to the number designated as the emergency telephone number. After June 30, 1999, all entities providing or operating a private business switch service shall be in compliance with this Section. (b) the private business switch operator is responsible for forwarding end user automatic location identification record information to the 9-1-1 system provider according to the format, frequency, and procedures established by that system provider. (c) This Act does not apply to any PBX telephone extension that uses radio transmissions to convey electrical signals directly between the telephone extension and the serving PBX. (d) An entity that violates this Section is guilty of a business offense and shall be fined not less that $1,000 and not more than $5,000. (e) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to preclude the Attorney General on behalf of the Commission or on his or her own initiative, or any other interested person, from seeking judicial relief, by mandamus, injunction, or otherwise, to compel compliance with this Section. (Source: P.A. 88-604, eff. 9-1-94; 89-222, eff. 1-1-96.) ------------------------------ From: ahk@trainman.chinet.com (Allan H. Kerman) Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 12:45:39 -0600 Subject: Re: German Hotel Phone Rates (Sheraton is Not the Only Offender) Organization: chinet In article , John R. Covert wrote: [complaint to president of Sheraton hotels concerning price gouging on local telephone calls] > I expect to stay in the Frankfurt Sheraton two more times this year, > and I hope that I will find more reasonable telephone rates on my > future visits. Your expectations are ridiculous. You have told them that despite the ill treatment you received at their hands you will still stay there. Do you want to affect the market? Start behaving like an educated consumer. Take your business elsewhere. ------------------------------ From: Clifton T. Sharp Jr. Reply-To: clifto@megsinet.net Organization: as little as possible Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Russians Bomb Sanford's Company Date: Fri, 05 Mar 1999 14:15:44 -0600 jeichl - John Eichler wrote: > There is a cute cartoon strip on the web that you might enjoy. > Recently (this week) they have had a story line of the Russians trying > to nuke the headquarters of Sanford Wallace's new company. (see Feb > 23rd) It's a great SPAM story. > http://www.userfriendly.org/cartoons/archives/99feb/19990223.html Start from instead. Whose picture is that on the wall? :-) Cliff Sharp | All relevant people are pertinent. | WA9PDM | All rude people are impertinent. | | Therefore, no rude people are relevant. | | --Solomon W. Golomb | ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #30 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Mar 5 19:41:38 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id TAA19861; Fri, 5 Mar 1999 19:41:38 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 19:41:38 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199903060041.TAA19861@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #31 TELECOM Digest Fri, 5 Mar 99 19:41:00 EST Volume 19 : Issue 31 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Scientists Cut Their Mobile Phone Use (Monty Solomon) House Bill Protects Cell Phone Privacy (Monty Solomon) Re: Chip ID Number Continues to Plague Intel (Donald Seeley) Re: Pentium III-only Websites Coming (John R. Levine) Re: A Growing Compatibility Issue: Computers and Privacy (Barry Margolin) Information Wanted on Telefonica (Jeff Camp) Re: Caller Pays and Code Calling (Mike Fox) Re: Caller Pays and Code Calling (Joe Harrison) Re: Ring in the Values: Old Phones Are Major Collectibles (Shalom Septimus) Re: Old" Telephones and "Old Time" Radio (Daryl R. Gibson) Administrivia: Digest Subscriptions (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: 415-520-9905 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: Scientists cut their mobile phone use Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 16:28:18 -0500 http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/health/newsid_288000/288245.stm Researchers have tested the impact of microwaves on brain function Leading scientists have have cut down or modified their personal use of mobile phones as fears mount that they can damage health. New research to be published next month links mobile phone use to memory loss. The BBC's Fergus Walsh reports on the "first British research of its kind" The use of mobile phones has already been linked to headaches, fatigue, damage to the immune system and cancer. However, there is no firm evidence yet that mobile phones cause any harm. Professor Colin Blakemore, Waynflete professor of physiology at Oxford University and a member of the official body that regulates the use of mobile phones in the UK, is one of those who have cut back their use of mobile phones. Professor Blakemore said there was growing evidence that mobile phones could affect the functioning of the brain. He said there are other reasons not to use mobile phones, such as cost and annoyance to other people. Professor Blakemore said nerve cells were influenced by electromagnetic radiation of the type produced by mobile phones. He said the phones were also placed close to areas in the brain that regulated short-term memory, as well as areas that controlled heart function and blood pressure. He told News Online: "It would not surprise me if there was a small temporary effect on the electrical response of nerve cells when the phone is in use which could impact on the brain's ability to process information." Professor Blakemore said he had experienced problems concentrating while using mobile phones. "I have experienced by attention being distracted rather more than it should have been just by the conversation I was having," he said. However, Professor Blakemore said the effect of mobile phones was likely only to be temporary, and relatively small. He said reports that suggested mobile phones could cause permanent damage should be treated with great caution. Professor Jim Penman, from Aberdeen University, is another top academic who has changed the way he uses mobile phones. He said he was using an earpiece attached to his mobile phone so that the handset was kept as far away from his brain as possible. "I believe there is a significant risk to using mobile phones, and it seems prudent to minimise that risk if it can be done easily," he said. Professor Penman said it was not yet clear whether the effects of radiation from mobile phones would be short term or long-term. A team from Bristol Royal Infirmary has carried out research into a link between mobile phones and memory loss. The research, to be published next month in the International Journal of Radiation Biology, is thought to show that mobile phone use has a most impact on short-term memory and may also reduce blood pressure. Volunteers were exposed to microwaves similar to those emitted by a mobile phone for 30 minutes, and asked to undertake test of brain function. The researchers, led by Dr Alan Preece, have refused to comment on their findings, and claim national press reports about their work are riddled with inaccuracies. The mobile phone industry tried to allay fears that using its products could pose a risk to people's health. Tom Wills-Sandford, a director of the Federation of the Electronics Industry, an umbrella group for the industry, urged the public not to panic, and said there was no concrete basis for any fears about health risks. He said: "I would say it is important to look at the totality of the scientific research which shows there is no substantive evidence that there is a link between mobile phones and adverse effects on people's health. "It would be impossible to comment on the new research because it has not yet been published, but I would be delighted to do so after April 8." He added: "We are very concerned if our customers are concerned, and we take this issue very seriously, but we don't think there is anything to panic about." The National Radiological Protection Board said the international consensus was that there was "no demonstrable evidence of a health risk" from mobile phones. It added that there was a need for "good research" into the health impact of using the phones and said that, if research showed a danger, it would review its position. ------------------------------ Reply-To: Monty Solomon From: Monty Solomon Subject: House Bill Protects Cell Phone Privacy Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 10:39:09 -0500 The Netly News FROM FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1999 Think of it as part of the Gingrich legacy. In December 1996, a Florida couple tapped and taped a cell phone conversation between former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and a colleague, then passed the recording on to the New York Times. Yesterday, a 403-3 vote in the House of Representatives made it illegal to eavesdrop on and/or disclose cell phone conversations, or any other form of wireless communication, for that matter. The penalty? A $2,000 fine, or six months in jail, or both. Technically, cell phone calls are very easy to intercept -- you can do it using consumer technology currently available on the open market, although the new bill makes that technology illegal, too. Now all the House has to do is get the Senate to agree. A similar bill was passed last year, but the Senate never voted on it. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Excuse me, but why are we dumping one new law on top of old ones that suffice quite well? It seems to me the Communications Act of 1934 as amended already states that one may not repeat or acknowledge overhearing any radio transmission which is not intended for the listener (as for example a commercial broadcast would be). Certainly one may not legally benefit from what one hears that way in a radio transmission, and I would think the sale of a transcript or recording of a cellular phone call would count as a benefit. Why do we need a new law just to cover cell phones when -- if there is some doubt as to the applicability of the existing law -- it could simply be amended with appropriate definitions, etc. And 'benefit' can be defined in many ways beyond merely cash passing from one person to another. If I overhear on a police scanner that the cops are on the way to arrest you and I call you on the phone immediatly and tell you that you had better split in a hurry then both of us have benefitted via a radio transmission not intended for us; you by your continued freedom after fleeing before the police arrive, and me via perhaps the vicarious thrill I had in informing you of what I heard. No more laws needed! Eliminate a large majority of the ones we have now and properly enforce the remaining ones. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Donald Seeley Subject: Re: Chip ID Number Continues to Plague Intel Date: 5 Mar 1999 20:16:54 GMT Organization: EnterAct, L.L.C. John Nagle wrote: > Apple is about to get hit on this. It turns out that Apple has > apparently been recording iMac serial numbers on an unused sector > of the hard drive. Look over in "comp.sys.mac.programming" for details. > It's worse than the Intel problem; Apple puts the same serial number > barcoded on the carton and on the hard drive, so the serial number > that identifies the machine when sold is the same one it has stored > internally. Now that's consumer control. This sounds like a VIN: stamped on the engine, body and frame. I'm not saying I drive beaters, but thinking back, every computer I've owned has been worth more than the car I was driving. From a consumer protection viewpoint, it could be argued that a processor ID would be quite a deterrent to theft of hardware. Sure, you could swap out the chip, but that would certainly reduce the profit margin on your ill gotten gains. Finally, considering the success of "preferred customer" cards, the linking of purchase patterns with unique personal information does not seem to be as frightening to most people as it is to some. [not that *I* would use one...] I'm not saying I'm for it, and I'm not saying I'm against it. I just think that Rubicon has already been crossed many times over. Don Seeley Daring Designs Typography - Graphics - Layout http://www.daringdesigns.com/~dschi/ dschi@daringdesigns.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What I do when I go to the grocery store and the cashier at the checkout asks me if I have a 'preferred customer card' I always say I forgot to bring it with me and ask if I can use hers/his. Invariably they say yes, and I get the discounts associated without the hassle of adding more stuff to whatever dossiers are being collected on me. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 5 Mar 1999 15:34:14 -0500 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Pentium III-only Websites Coming Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > Folks, this is a bad, bad, BAD idea. It's the thin edge of the wedge, > but we could end up seeing the Internet carved up into proprietary > ghettos designed to serve selfish corporate commercial interests -- the > road to the sort of Big-Brotherdom that the anti-trust lawyers have > accused Microsoft of. Indeed M$ has dabbled in the idea of promoting > Websites that can only be accessed properly with Internet Explorer. Dabbled? Try visiting windowsupdate.msn.com or any of a zillion other Microsoft sites from Netscape or Opera. It's even worse when you're not running on Windows -- a lot of sites just won't talk to me if I don't install Shockwave or some local crudware for the site. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl, Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well John, what are you doing on those sites anyway?`I mean, of what possible value could they have for your work or personal interests? It is none of my business what you are there for, but who could even care if they want to talk to you or not? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: A Growing Compatibility Issue: Computers and Privacy Organization: GTE Internetworking, Cambridge, MA Date: Fri, 05 Mar 1999 22:09:45 GMT In article , Monty Solomon wrote: > http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/03/biztech/articles/03privacy.html > Far from scaling back its vision, however